Gauntlet rigged as hell?

[Amogus]

I haven't been playing all that long as of late (think I'm at almost 25 hours), but I have noticed either a coincidence or a deliberate design choice that makes/can make Gauntlet extremely unfun to play. It always seems like the AI draws anywhere from 3-4 copies of the same card back to back to back, and they always seem to be the cards that are the most convenient ones to counter my current hand/deck. For example, I was on the ropes in my match I just played, and my opponent just so happened to draw 3 of the exact same card in a row that had the "killer" effect, which just so happened to be the best move that they could've gotten to beat me at that point. This seems to happen more often than not, especially in the higher difficulty Gauntlet matches.

This is especially infuriating when, in my last few Gauntlet matches, I have gotten nothing but awful opening hands every single time. These usually revolve around getting a hand of sigils of type X and units of type Y, literally drawing only 5+ power cost cards (of which I only have about 7-8 of) and 1-2 sigils (never to draw another sigil again for the rest of the game), or drawing only attachments/spells that are of no help without units.

I understand that bad draws/hands or lucky draws are inevitable in games like this, but it just seems like it happens way too often in favor of the AI to call it a coincidence. The chances of an AI drawing the perfect unit/spell/attachment/etc. three times in a row in a deck of 75 cards is not very probable, even more so multiple games in a row.

[fluxtorrent]

I have literally never seen this happen.

[Amogus]

Originally posted by fluxtorrent:

I have literally never seen this happen.

I wish I didn't, but I can't count the amount of games in my 28 hours of play time where the AI just so happens to have 3 or even 4 copies of the exact card that would completely annihilate my strategy and gives me a loss.

I understand that higher difficulties result in harder matches, but when it seems like it's the AI having the equivalent of destiny draw from Duel Links (draw whatever card you want from your deck) whenever I get the upper hand, it gets very frustrating.

[ulzgoroth]

It's a thing that happens. I'e had draws like that on my side at times too. Pretty sure the time I topdecked three Send an Agent in a row as ideal answers drove my opponent to quit.

But the ever-popular 'the game cheats to stop me personally from winning' hypothesis is never a very convincing one from the outside. What motivation would there be for such a feature?

If you really want to observe whether it's happening? Start taking notes. On all your games played, not just the ones that give you strong feelings. Then you'll be able see how common the perfect storms actually are...

(Power/influence problems are very real. I'm pretty confident they're not more real than randomness should dictate, but that's still very real indeed and often worth bringing countermeasure cards for. Likewise decks with a significant load of buffs and weapons and such give themselves a real vulnerability to not having their dependencies work out.)

[sithlordofsnark]

Gauntlet is not rigged. This has been proven, time and time again.

[dracul]

Originally posted by ratedx73:

Gauntlet is not rigged. This has been proven, time and time again.

How would you prove a negative?

"I dont think you're an idiot."

Is that true? Do I really think that? lets just start with that. Prove (or disprove) what I think (or dont think) in regards to you.

[ulzgoroth]

Fun thing: negatives aren't actually harder to prove than positives, particularly. Try it yourself...

(What you can't prove empirically are absolutes of any kind.)

[dracul]

Originally posted by ulzgoroth:

Fun thing: negatives aren't actually harder to prove than positives, particularly. Try it yourself...

(What you can't prove empirically are absolutes of any kind.)

prove there are no Pudroglimerinic Confexic TriTraTreLo#8ni&xelifshes

shouldnt be that hard for you, like you said. go ahead, lets see your evidence

[ulzgoroth]

Originally posted by dracul:

Originally posted by ulzgoroth:

Fun thing: negatives aren't actually harder to prove than positives, particularly. Try it yourself...

(What you can't prove empirically are absolutes of any kind.)

prove there are no Pudroglimerinic Confexic TriTraTreLo#8ni&xelifshes

shouldnt be that hard for you, like you said. go ahead, lets see your evidence

So, that's obviously idiotic, since the alleged assertion doesn't mean anything - you might as well say 'prove not orange'. Or 'prove orange', the presence of 'not' makes no difference to the problem at hand.

In empirical terms, you can't prove absolutes, including absolute non-existence, because there's always a non-zero (though often negligibly low) chance of observation or sampling error. Usually when talking about empirical conclusions we neglect the "unless everybody's observations were sabotaged by Descartes' demon" level possibilities, except when being unnecessarily philosophical about it.

In mathematical terms, non-existence proofs are very real indeed. For a trivial one, prove that there are no even prime numbers greater than 2. Interestingly 'pure' existence proofs are also real: in some cases it's been proven that something of a particular description must exist, despite not being able to provide an example or a method of obtaining one.

On the matter at hand, we have something philosophically a bit like the empirical problem, not because it's impossible to verify whether the game is 'rigged' (though the easiest ways to check are restricted since of course the game isn't open source) but because it's always possible for people to decide that they're being lied to.

[Dire Wolf Digital]

Originally posted by What is a "Neutral Item"?:

I understand that bad draws/hands or lucky draws are inevitable in games like this, but it just seems like it happens way too often in favor of the AI to call it a coincidence. The chances of an AI drawing the perfect unit/spell/attachment/etc. three times in a row in a deck of 75 cards is not very probable, even more so multiple games in a row.

Hey folks!

We've posted about this before, but no, the AI doesn't cheat or manipulate its draws in any way – it plays by the same rules that you do, though AI decks do get stronger as you level up so that they can still provide a challenge.

Sometimes you topdeck just what you need...and sometimes the AI does, too – but there's nothing hidden that manipulates draws.

[dracul]

Originally posted by Dire Wolf Digital:

Originally posted by What is a "Neutral Item"?:

I understand that bad draws/hands or lucky draws are inevitable in games like this, but it just seems like it happens way too often in favor of the AI to call it a coincidence. The chances of an AI drawing the perfect unit/spell/attachment/etc. three times in a row in a deck of 75 cards is not very probable, even more so multiple games in a row.

Hey folks!

We've posted about this before, but no, the AI doesn't cheat or manipulate its draws in any way – it plays by the same rules that you do, though AI decks do get stronger as you level up so that they can still provide a challenge.

Sometimes you topdeck just what you need...and sometimes the AI does, too – but there's nothing hidden that manipulates draws.

So there are absolutely no scripts where each deck has 2 or 3 'narratives' available, its total endlessly randomly reoccuring coincidence that the same turn1-2-3 opening curves, that I can cite by heart.

white-red or white-green will either drop the +1 power guy or search for sigil turn 1
valkyries will search for a mana, gain 2 shields turn 2, then drop 3/3 flier silence guy t3
black/green will slay whatever's in the way turn 3

so all these are going to be coincidences when they'll run back again and again

[Amogus]

Originally posted by Dire Wolf Digital:

Originally posted by What is a "Neutral Item"?:

I understand that bad draws/hands or lucky draws are inevitable in games like this, but it just seems like it happens way too often in favor of the AI to call it a coincidence. The chances of an AI drawing the perfect unit/spell/attachment/etc. three times in a row in a deck of 75 cards is not very probable, even more so multiple games in a row.

Hey folks!

We've posted about this before, but no, the AI doesn't cheat or manipulate its draws in any way – it plays by the same rules that you do, though AI decks do get stronger as you level up so that they can still provide a challenge.

Sometimes you topdeck just what you need...and sometimes the AI does, too – but there's nothing hidden that manipulates draws.

I guess if the developer says not, then it must not. However, dracul does have a point that it seems that, for example, time sigil decks ALWAYS have one of 2-3 different cards in their opening hands that provide +1 maximum power or power card on summon.

However, the added effects on the final stage of gauntlet tiers is quite annoying, as I assume it is meant to always compliment the AI's deck extremely effectively. Getting a game effect where a spell summons a unit with the same cost and then having them spam a bunch of cheap power units/spells and fill up their entire field with units in a matter of what feels like 2 turns is kinda ridiculous.

It almost makes gauntlet (specifically the last stage) feel like a gamble, as one deck that is a hard counter to one AI/game effect combo may be weak as hell to another, but you have no way of knowing what that added effect will be until you start and realize it's a direct counter to your deck. I can't tell you how many gauntlet games would've been a win under normal circumstances, but the added game effect gave the AI a ridiculously strong advantage that complimented their deck way too much.

I understand that AI can only be made so good, but I really wish that game effects weren't guaranteed to correlate to the opponent's deck, as that extra compliment makes the deck outrageously strong. Having a match where each player draws two cards and then having the AI play a deck where they slide fire bombs into your deck is quite infuriating.

[ulzgoroth]

Originally posted by What is a "Neutral Item"?:

I guess if the developer says not, then it must not. However, dracul does have a point that it seems that, for example, time sigil decks ALWAYS have one of 2-3 different cards in their opening hands that provide +1 maximum power or power card on summon.

Consider that they could easily have 20 cards of the deck that meet that description - Seek Power, at least two different 'draw a sigil' units, and I can think of at least 4 different +1 power units off the top of my head. Plus a Favor spell if they're playing time plus another faction. And that's not counting Plunder options, which have similar effects but don't exactly fit your description.

If they pack them in like that, they still shouldn't literally always have one...but they should have one very often!

(I do not know what's actually in those decks. I'm just speculating about what could be!)

Originally posted by What is a "Neutral Item"?:

However, the added effects on the final stage of gauntlet tiers is quite annoying, as I assume it is meant to always compliment the AI's deck extremely effectively. Getting a game effect where a spell summons a unit with the same cost and then having them spam a bunch of cheap power units/spells and fill up their entire field with units in a matter of what feels like 2 turns is kinda ridiculous.

It almost makes gauntlet (specifically the last stage) feel like a gamble, as one deck that is a hard counter to one AI/game effect combo may be weak as hell to another, but you have no way of knowing what that added effect will be until you start and realize it's a direct counter to your deck. I can't tell you how many gauntlet games would've been a win under normal circumstances, but the added game effect gave the AI a ridiculously strong advantage that complimented their deck way too much.

I understand that AI can only be made so good, but I really wish that game effects weren't guaranteed to correlate to the opponent's deck, as that extra compliment makes the deck outrageously strong. Having a match where each player draws two cards and then having the AI play a deck where they slide fire bombs into your deck is quite infuriating.

The correlation there is clearly intentional. I think it's generally cool, but then I've never been trying to focus on grinding Gauntlet. My impression is that that playstyle is particularly frustrating.

[Amogus]

Originally posted by ulzgoroth:

Originally posted by What is a "Neutral Item"?:

I guess if the developer says not, then it must not. However, dracul does have a point that it seems that, for example, time sigil decks ALWAYS have one of 2-3 different cards in their opening hands that provide +1 maximum power or power card on summon.

Consider that they could easily have 20 cards of the deck that meet that description - Seek Power, at least two different 'draw a sigil' units, and I can think of at least 4 different +1 power units off the top of my head. Plus a Favor spell if they're playing time plus another faction. And that's not counting Plunder options, which have similar effects but don't exactly fit your description.

If they pack them in like that, they still shouldn't literally always have one...but they should have one very often!

(I do not know what's actually in those decks. I'm just speculating about what could be!)

Originally posted by What is a "Neutral Item"?:

However, the added effects on the final stage of gauntlet tiers is quite annoying, as I assume it is meant to always compliment the AI's deck extremely effectively. Getting a game effect where a spell summons a unit with the same cost and then having them spam a bunch of cheap power units/spells and fill up their entire field with units in a matter of what feels like 2 turns is kinda ridiculous.

It almost makes gauntlet (specifically the last stage) feel like a gamble, as one deck that is a hard counter to one AI/game effect combo may be weak as hell to another, but you have no way of knowing what that added effect will be until you start and realize it's a direct counter to your deck. I can't tell you how many gauntlet games would've been a win under normal circumstances, but the added game effect gave the AI a ridiculously strong advantage that complimented their deck way too much.

I understand that AI can only be made so good, but I really wish that game effects weren't guaranteed to correlate to the opponent's deck, as that extra compliment makes the deck outrageously strong. Having a match where each player draws two cards and then having the AI play a deck where they slide fire bombs into your deck is quite infuriating.

The correlation there is clearly intentional. I think it's generally cool, but then I've never been trying to focus on grinding Gauntlet. My impression is that that playstyle is particularly frustrating.

The thing is, it's always the exact same 2-3 cards and not variants that provide the same effect. It's always the same 0/2 unit every time.

As for the gauntlet, it is kinda cool with the correlation, but the fact that the effect is the only thing that makes their deck viable is annoying. Running a deck full of spells that give health and weak units that give maximum power realistically wouldn't be a good deck, but the added effect where every spell played provides a unit of the same cost is what gives it its power. Without that effect, the deck would be a low-tier piece of junk.

The same goes for the one that placed fire bombs in my deck with the game effect of drawing an extra card each turn. Without that effect, I would've won with ease. However, since the game gave that an outrageously powerful game effect for their deck strategy, they easily won because I blew myself up.

[Lance]

The AI drawing one of those 3 cards is actually something that should be happening 85/88% of the time ( depending on who goes first ). Have you recorded the results of hundreds/thousands of games against that specific deck to generate a sample size large enough to be able to show that it is drawing those cards more often than it should? I'm guessing you haven't, and so you're falling victim to confirmation bias. We see complaints like this all the time, and each and every time it has turned out that the problem is the person making those complains simply didn't understand how random draws work.

And yes, the final match of a gauntlet is often going to be against a deck specifically made to work with the constant effect. Nobody tried to hide that from you, so there's no reason to complain about it. And before you get all upset about it, remember that you're stilling earning rewards if you don't win the last match and you didn't have to pay anything to do it.

[Berserkr]

7 Matches in Gauntlet are easy there's maybe 3-4 enemy decks that could put up somewhat of a fight but these are all preconstructed decks, you should be able to stomp the first 7 games pretty easy, if you can't on a consistent basis then it's definitely your deck, now the Gauntlet boss can be a different story, I'm not gonna say it's made to screw you over but the stipulation is always geared towards a strength for the boss, this could be 50/50 for you, it could be 20 for you and 80 for it, but the first 7 preconstructed decks you face you should roll over.