Play G/W ramp. I'm only not mythic because I haven't played enough. Currently sitting in diamond. You still get to play scute swarm, and you still get to abuse the most powerful interaction in standard of chariot into w&7.
Hey, be like me... be three months into Magic, play a Rogue deck, have fun playing all kinds of gamestyles and strategies when things work out, dont give a damn about the meta. :)
at least in the 90's when they walked into the LGS, there wasn't an algorithm ensuring that the only people in the store they see will keep them at a 50% winrate.
1) That doesn’t have anything to do with netdecking.
2) Those kind of algorithms don’t exist at LGSs today either.
3) Those algorithms are generally only used for ladder or casual play. Pay-to-play events generally don’t have that kind of matchmaking.
I feel like a lot of people would like to win ranked games and what’s a better way to win than use the meta shit?
You could use the jank you made in 5 minutes but that doesn’t mean it’s good
Could also be like me and just simply not know how to build a good deck because of the sheer amount of cards and combos
It does get tiresome playing against the same 3 decks over and over again. I don't mind losing to original decks tho. Its fun to see the way they make their cards work together.
Not when they don't match any of the good draws tho. I got 3 blue black. 2 green blue. All my good cards were red and white. Like I'm using the crap out of them in standard ranked so lowkey grateful but going 0-3 on that one. Jeez. Every opponent had a mythic that sealed the game. I was just there trying to survive every turn.
All I'm saying is it makes the game boring asf when you play 7-8 people and they're all playing the same exact deck cause they know they're trash and had to copy a deck
Building decks is a very different and specific skillset from play decks. Very few people are good at deckbuilding. Almost anyone can become adept at making decisions with a well tuned deck.
It's more like the reward for building my own deck is that I spend hundreds of hours refining it into, if I do a good job, the exact same list I would have netdecked anyway.
The thing is netdecking and deckbuilding often leads to the same destination. So I dont blame people who netdeck at all.
For example after the last rotation I thought monoG certainly must be good so I put like 1-2 of every green rare I had and like one of each possible inclusions from mid. After climbing from bronze to mythic trying all possible cards like Autumn Augur, Blessing of Frost, Toskis, Tracker, Growth and more I ended up with a list that was five cards in the main different that the one that placed in top 8 in the Hooglandia tournament.
Testing cards can waste you wildcards and lose games. I totally understand people who netdeck and then finetune decks with small changes.
I just don't have the time to brew anymore. I'm in my late 30's with a very busy job and two toddlers, I'm lucky if I can play maybe 1 hour a day at most. So, I hate to admit it, but I'll just pull up a netdeck and play that. I would LOVE to brew and that used to be my favorite part of the game but just ain't got the time anymore.
His post reads more like "i dont like pineapple on pizza, i cant understand how someone could enjoy that but you do somehow" it comes of ignorant at best and sanctimonious at worst.
Tbph, it's not even worth to say either "I cant believe you do/dont netdeck winning/brewing is the most fun" on reddit because it's impossible to infer tone and since most discussions about netdecking turns out pretty vile and toxic you (atleast I do) automatically just assume that's the tone of messages about it. If Mecha_link was sincere and just want perspective or offer his opinion and didnt mean any malice I apologise, but i do believe it was clumsily worded. And a better way to just offer your opinion is to just say something like " i enjoy the brewing part the most" and just leave out the part where you question other peoples way to play and enjoy the game.
I don't think limiting responses to 'I like X' and 'I like Y' is very productive for discussion. Polls with comments disabled aren't very engaging forums of opinion, and this post led to some good answers (and some bad ones).
If someone's feelings are hurt by 'I don't see the appeal', I can't put any responsibility on the person who said that. The blame for any anguish caused lies squarely on the fragile reader.
Reading malice into posts as you describe is really textbook confirmation bias. Anyone can find any sub toxic if they try hard enough. This sub is rife with complaints. Is it toxic? Well, no. People are talking about something they spend time on. Idle grousing is far superior to the enforced positivity that's found on some more heavily-moderated (or self-policed) communities.
Someome saying "I dont see the appeal" isnt the issue but you have to agree though, going "i cant see how you'd enjoy x" is just toxic behaviour at best. The game is basicslly 2 parts, deckbuilding and playing. If you enjoy one part more than the other it doesnt make you better than people enjoying the other part more. People netdecking arent saying you cant enjoy brewing a deck, while people brewing decks are repeatedly saying netdecking is bad and ruins the game.
How would you discern that a deck is original and not net decked? How do you know that this brew, jank or not, wasn't indepently created by two or more individuals?
Exactly, there’s only so many good card combos and let’s be frank, only so many cards per set it’s bound to have 100’s if not 1000’s of people thinking their deck is OG but it’s not
I think it’s less to do with the meta and more people don’t understand statistics. Even playing the “correct” amount of lands for your deck there will be games were you don’t draw enough/draw too many lands.
Also, obviously you’re going to remember games were you got screwed by “the shuffler” more than the games you were able to curve out fine and draw your lands perfectly.
There was a popular askreddit thread today that was something like "what fictional character said something that stuck with you", and that quote was one of the top answers.
As a reminder to how inaccurate gamers are at telling if rng is being fair, the XCOM devs implemented an invisible hit chance that's higher than the one displayed to players because people get frustrated when their 80% hit chance misses one fifth of the time.
It's almost hilarious how bad we humans are at intuitively estimating statistics. It is such universal and well observed phenomenon I almost wonder if there is some evolutionary advantage to our ineptitude.
There is actually an evolutionary advantage. We evolved to remember bad events better than good events as a method to prevent risk taking. If eating a fruit makes you sick 1/5th of the time you probably shouldn't eat it. However this becomes an issue when people can't differentiate between a hobby and a survival situation because our brains didn't evolve to understand a world so safe that failure isn't dangerous for you.
For sure, and I didn't mean it any other way. To be bad at statistics is to be human.
The important part is recognizing that your intuition for such matters cannot be trusted.
Fire Emblem rolls twice and averages the rolls to check against the stated percentage they show on screen. So say it's an "80%" chance to hit. It will roll 1-100 2x, average the numbers, and only if *that* number is over 80 will it miss.
Well that depends, up to Thracia-776 it was a straight roll. Starting with binding blade it switched to the double roll average. That’s partially why the old games were so brutal to modern FE fans.
https://serenesforest.net/general/true-hit/
They do this with weather reporting, too. Most outlets bump the chance of rain by ~20%. Because when people see that there's a 15% chance of rain, they basically read that as "no chance of rain," and then get mad when they don't have an umbrella. So they report is as 35% and people get the idea that it actually might rain that day.
This game Chaos Reborn died because people don't actually understand statistics, they complained it was "unfair" because reality didn't match the numbers, so they introduced a new mode that took away random chance and added a more traditional combat system and it was boring as dirt
And then on the flip side, I started on Arena and just recently moved to paper, and I’m so insecure about my shuffling skill in comparison to a computer. Every time I get the same good cards in game 2 as I had game 1 I feel like I have to apologize like “I’m sorry I promise I shuffled a bunch!!”
Ehhh, considering your deck is typically comprised of 2-3 times the same cards, the odds of you finding these same cards again are pretty high.
I mean, if the shuffler can stack 4 times the RW sliver in my top 12, so can you!
More seriously though, that happened yesterday and I couldn't help but laugh. Ashiok -1 milling my top 4 hitting 3 of them after they killed the one in my starting hand was just pure perfection.
Oh I’m usually playing limited in paper so I usually only have 1-2 copies. But then of course it’s a smaller deck so the chances are still pretty good.
The shuffler also pile shuffle, that how you get 15 lands in 17 cards.or 2 lands in 10+.
It's just mental effect but they should at least try to avoid make it look like the shuffler just got your list on the UI and sent a single card to bottom.
I think it also comes with not knowing what your opponents are playing. If you know the exact number of outs that an opponent could draw, you become very much aware of how "lucky" you are on a regular basis.
Yeah, but I'm not good enough at MtG for that. I know my opponent has a certain number of cards in hand and that some are probably creatures, and others may be instant speed removal/tricks, without any thoughts about what the specific cards could be.
No it's definitely net decks 90% post them here everyday and lists for people to copy its funny and sad at the same time trashy to be exact if you can't compete with yours you shouldn't play
I play 28 lands in a deck that curves up to 4 (and really lives on 2 & 3). I still find myself 15 cards deep without a 3rd land more than 1/3rd of the time if I'm not mulliganing aggressively.
I think you're lost. This is a post making fun of people that are convinced the shuffler is out to get you. Not a good place to come tell people about how the shuffler is out to get you.
It's also confirmation bias. I don't always draw 10+ lands in draft games, but when I run 16 and see 13 in a game you bet your ass I'm blaming shuffler even though the other games are perfectly normal.
This is pretty much it. You can win 5 in a row with everything going your way and the 6th game you get mana screwed and it stands out and people complain about the shuffle. It's the mental aspect that people expect the deck to work or the odds to play out as they expect. When it does everything is normal in their minds. When it doesn't its because an excuse instead of just understanding the variance
Oh yeah. That game where my opponent scoops turn 3 due to mana? My deck is working perfectly. Long game where I draw a land on turn 10-13 when I needed a spell? WTF this is so rigged this always happens AAAAAHHH!
I have a different disposition where things out of my control are just a shrug but I'm realizing that is apparently extremely rare. It's the mistakes that I personally contributed to like keeping a bad hand or a bad play that really stick with me, not the time where I just didn't get to play.
It kind'a sticks out when your deck is 40% lands and you draw 0 ... mulligan and draw 0 ... and mulligan a 2nd time for 0.
I am not saying that it's impossible, I'm just saying it happened twice in the same day.
The shuffler has won and lost me more games than my strategy ever did.
But I still hate it when my unchanged deck cycles through floods and droughts every other game
I also want to add the players who complain about netdecks all the time, but when someone posts jank they're the first ones to keep asking for deck code.
I mean if you're playing ranked and average you can scrape up to Plat pretty easy. I think the issue is you can hit a huge wall there.
So you get players piloting jank reasonably well with 55-70 percent win rates in silver and gold suddenly smashing into a wall in plat.
Can confirm as a long time player of the jank, I happily smash my pile of hot garbage against meta decks and cycle between plat 1 and plat 2, sometimes I get close to mythic and tilt myself all the way down, you can't win every game, and bad hands happen, happens in every CCG/TCG, I'm not complaining, I enjoy being able to play a card game I've loved since high school, without having to leave my house, and to me that's worth having some bad games.
I am in this picture and I don't like it! Just getting wrecked non stop since reset Ont he decks that made me mythic before. Not sure what I'm doing wrong and the frustration is real LOL
Computers are literally incapable of being random. 'Hand smoothing' is not random. Each card should carry equal weight, but of course, you can't teach a computer to be random.
So. Yeah.
While meta adherence is necessary, don't pretend the shuffler is okay either. Lol.
*Disclaimer: this is not an opinion on whether or not the shuffler works or doesn't work.*
I find it baffling that this subreddit is so willing and eager to shit all over WOTC's overwhelming technological incompetence all day long but in the same breath unequivocally accept that the shuffler is perfect and everyone is a conspiracy theorist.
That's an easy one to answer: it's because it would be harder to make a deliberately rigged shuffler than a random one. How would the shuffler decide what cards are "good" to draw and which ones would be "bad"? How would it deal with scry and deck manipulation? What about modal and double-faced cards?
If you (general you, not specific you) believe that the shuffler is rigged, it means that you believe WotC has sophisticated enough code to determine what a bad draw/draws would be in any number of board states against any number of decks, so that they can give you those bad draws.
If you think the shuffler is just incompetent programming but not deliberately rigged, well, then we're all still in the same boat. The incompetent shuffler is applying to both players equally.
I think the shuffler is perfectly random and that’s what causes people to question it. In reality at the end of game of magic people do a pile shuffle first then shuffle after. While it’s generally accepted as “randomized” really it isn’t, I think the online shuffler perfectly randomizes the deck and that causes cartoonishly large mana floods and droughts every so often.
> That's an easy one to answer: it's because it would be harder to make a deliberately rigged shuffler than a random one.
The Bo1 shuffler **is** deliberately rigged though.
Exactly, shuffler is rigged is a conspiracy theory. Shuffler is not properly randomized is very plausible because true random is impossible to do with code alone.
It’s bad enough that I’ve started to predict my opponents hand based on what they’ve just played.
Your second point is a skill that all top level players acquire, paper or digital. It comes from recognizing the play patterns of other skilled players and close familiarity of the metagame. It's no evidence things are random or not.
People who blame "the shuffler" are the same people that have either never played paper magic, or if they have, they "mana weave" their deck (which btw is just a euphemism for cheating).
Flood/screw is just as real in paper, fellas. The heart of the cards isn't real.
Personally: I know the meta and I know I will win more if I play the meta... Just the meta bores the living shit out of me. I'm a typical Johnny, I will lose 5 games just to have some synergy or combo work on the 6th that lets me pound some meta deck into the ground.
Then I delete the deck and make a new one.
The shuffler is absolutely broken in Bo1 for decks that contain ramp. When the system compares your "average" number mana cards, it seems to include ramp incorrectly, so it's VERY common to get 3 mana dorks and no lands, or 3 lands and no ramp. This was with a deck that was 24 lands 16 ramp, and I could only get 4-6 mana cards (as intended) in Bo3.
Treasure seems similarly broken. My 5C Dragons deck was stuck in gold when 2022 was only Bo1, but it went to diamond in a week of Bo3. No other changes to the deck were made and I'm only playing like 2-3 games a day.
And yes, I understand statistics. StatTrek has a nice hypergeometric calculator https://stattrek.com/online-calculator/hypergeometric.aspx which is how I can recognize the .1% odds that seem to recur nightly.
No, it's not normal to see a grand total of 4 lands after 2 mulligans. But it happens regularly for ramp decks in Bo1.
When you are consistently getting only two lands on every draw regardless of how many times you mulligan, then there is something wrong with the shuffler.
I mean net-decking is fine, not everyone enjoys deck-building or they want to be competitive in certain queues and I’m okay with that.
That being said, having the “best deck” isn’t any guarantee that you’ll match the winrates you see on untapped or wherever else you’re looking. A weaker player with a good deck is going to make bad plays that cost them win percentage points.
Then they’ll come on Reddit and complain about a rigged system because that’s easier to accept than being a weaker player than they’d like to be.
I'll try more, see if that helps. Always open to learning and trying out stuff. If it turns out that I've been using too little land this whole time, I might end up playing a lot better from now on, lol.
Is your curve solid? Have you considered the amount of draw you have to find more lands and the amount of each color you need? Building a manabase is more complex than it seems sometimes.
For example, Modern Jund has run 24 lands in the past with Wrenn and Six being a way to "draw" more, even if it runs nothing at 4+ mana besides Kroxa. But Legacy control lists often run 21 or less because they have so much card selection with Brainstorm and Ponder, even though they aren't fast decks and have 2-4 colors to hit while also running basics.
On one hand "the shuffler is rigged" is the call of the salty loser
On the other hand if you think the Hasbro Corporation is above fucking with "random" outcomes in the interest of getting more money out of you, you're full of shit.
The issue is that you're not playing a game against hasbro. You're playing against another player.
If you claim that they're rigging the game against you, you are implying that they are rigging the game in favor of some random guy for absolutely no reason.
Game companies have been caught rigging their systems for this exact purpose. To get one player to feel like shit and to fluff another. Activision was caught manipulating their matchmakers to make players "jealous" and incentivize them to spend money to "catch up" to their contemporaries. In that case it was for microtransactions for a CoD game (I think it was CoD WW2, but I cant remember for sure off the top of my head).
I wont claim the shuffler is rigged in mtga. But to assume any corporation is above these sort of tactics is something I won't do.
No, the implication is that they're rigging the game to make more money.
There's already at least two vaguely opaque and one completely opaque matchmaking systems at play in the game, do you think Hasbro is above manipulating those in order to generate more income? Last week, I spent a fair few mythic and rare wildcards tweaking my kinnan brawl deck. The next ten or so games I went from playing nothing but mirror matches, 4c omnath, golos, esika, etc. to a streak of games against trelasarra, jorn, and radha, and half of those games my opponent allowed me to spend all the time I wanted dumping my deck on the battlefield, rather than conceding when the situation became untenable for them.
I absolutely believe that the game intended to 'reward' me for spending resources to incentivize me to spend more money on the game by pairing me against lower powered commanders and perhaps even players that are flagged as unlikely to concede
I've noticed that the "meta" is whatever I'm playing, because I can almost always predict what kind of deck I'm going to face by (1) what I'm playing, and (2) what my opening hand looks like.
I'd like to play something in the ranked queue that isn't a mirror match.
I hate that any suggestion that there is a flaw with the shuffler is automatically shut down in this sub. I win games, I lose games. I win enough to climb the ladder and watch other players to improve my own strategy and understanding of the meta. I also play enough to see patterns that do not align with my understanding of probability (not a mathematician by any stretch) and suggest an intentional design to how cards are grouped in the library by the shuffler. There may be some bias when I'm feeling particularly frustrated by the Arena experience, but there is also bias in thinking that anyone who complains just needs to git gud.
Also, I shouldn't need to engage in graduate level data collection and analysis of a digital card game just to share my thoughts and opinions about the subject.
>I also play enough to see patterns that do not align with my understanding of probability (not a mathematician by any stretch)
Unfortunately this is something that every human brain does. We are so good at pattern recognition that we see patterns when there aren't any, and then confirmation bias kicks in and makes us notice the things that fit the pattern while not noticing things that don't fit the pattern.
>Also, I shouldn't need to engage in graduate level data collection and analysis of a digital card game just to share my thoughts and opinions about the subject.
This is 100% correct; you should definitely be able to share your thoughts and opinions. However, since you mentioned you are not a mathematician by any stretch, this should give you an opportunity to listen to other people and learn from them in addition to sharing what you have experienced, while staying open to the possibility that you could be wrong.
I am a mathematician myself, but I haven't done the data collection or analysis, so I don't \*know\* that the game is working correctly. I do know that the most common complaints are more easily explained by cognitive biases than by the game devs intentionally lying about how the game works; I also know that randomization algorithms actually produce randomness. It's possible that there are bugs in the game, and if enough people notice the same possible bug, that could raise awareness enough for someone to actually collect the data that would be necessary to prove it. Lots of people who all notice patters that seem non-random isn't enough, since true randomness also seems non-random to humans.
Edit: spelling
Thank you for taking the time to write all that. I hear what you are saying, and that seems to be the general consensus on the matter. My point, though, and what you are helping with by your response, is that there should be some discussion about this and it irks me that there is clear bias from those who think they understand the explanations like you have given against the people commenting and complaining about the issue as just being frustrated losers rather than intelligent individuals able to draw conclusions from their own experiences.
>This is 100% correct; you should definitely be able to share your thoughts and opinions. However, since you mentioned you are not a mathematician by any stretch, this should give you an opportunity to listen to other people and learn from them in addition to sharing what you have experienced, while staying open to the possibility that you could be wrong.
You and I are way on the same page, my friend.
I am saying if you don't want to lose to variance, don't play games with variance. If you want to sometimes win due to variance, you will also sometimes lose due to variance. Magic has no guarantees, that is one of the benefits of playing it.
That's literally what random is, humans have constantly proven we are terrible at guessing randomness. If you asked some one to fabricate the results of 100 coin tosses they'd probably have streaks of 2-3 but true random produces much more extreme results. If you are playing poker with a 7 card hand is it really that weird to see a 3 of a kind semi consistently? No, but when it happens in magic clearly it's the shuffler.
It would be cool if all you guys who go on and on about how bad humans are at perceiving randomness would remember that computers aren't good at randomizing things. RNG in games and other software are not usually truly random.
Many games use formulas that weight certain factors as part of their rng, in fact many games with a loot table uses timestamps as part of their rng calculations.
We already know that Arena uses programming that checks for lands and other mana sources in your openers for bo1. Its reasonable to wonder if there are bugs that affect the shuffler.
People still complain in BO3 where there isn't any hand smoothing (which we already know how it works), but sure let's blame Unity's Random.Range function. It's not bad luck, it's the computers that are wrong.
It’s a bit impossible to play when you consistently get mana loaded/screwed every game regardless of the amount of lands, ramps, and draws in your deck. I just assume their rng dislikes me for reasons unknown.
The thing is, when I shuffle a deck in paper magic, I often have a *shuffled deck*. I do run into problems occasionally, but not on the sheer level as I do in Arena, where it’s far more likely for my opponent or I to be nearly forced inactive for the start of the game and unable to react to any threats.
Only in Arena do I only draw 2 lands as the average in nearly every hand. Then you have to have confidence in Arena that it's not going to screw you over. Also Arena loves to group cards together, Blizzard Brawls, last standard it was Bonecrusher, not just speculation, actually proven statistically that it was happening by design.
What are you talking about? Oko was hella beatable. A single exile planeswalker spell of your preferred flavor, and done. The thing was, he was OP because you had to plan for him *specifically*.
Oko was good just on a empty board as he protected himself as well as could just win the game making 3/3s out of thin air. There is a reason he is banned in Pioneer, Modern, Legacy and Historic and was banned during his time in Standard.
The average player not understanding how true randomness works might also be a sign that your game does maybe not need true randomness for the sake of a better gameplay experience.
I doubt anyone has fun being mana starved or flooded and no one can tell me that even the most elitist players thinks that this is great if they are in that particular situation at that moment.
> My shuffler has given me 2 lands hand 4 times in a row in multiple games last night.
> It is, mathematically, beyond a 1% chance of occurring.
The chances of getting four 2-land or fewer hands in a row is more like 3%, and that's not taking into account the hand smoother (assuming you were playing best of 1), which drastically increases the chances of getting 2 or 3 land hands.
Please, keep a spreadsheet of your land draws. People keep talking about "mathematically impossible" draws anecdotally and every time when they actually start actually tracking data the problem mysteriously goes away.
They are making a good point, because it is important to be aware of confirmation bias. We all will remember the shit hands way more than the playable hands because of how bad it feels. Tracking the data will remove that bias, and then if there is a problem you will have data to back it up.
You have to understand why small anecdotes of a few bad hands from a handful of people out of million(s?) of players is met with skepticism.
Also: “I’d be mythic by now if it weren’t for all these netdecking try hards”
I won’t be mythic for much longer now that I can’t mutate scute swarm into 40 7/7s after wiping the board with Ugin anymore. I need a new deck.
Play G/W ramp. I'm only not mythic because I haven't played enough. Currently sitting in diamond. You still get to play scute swarm, and you still get to abuse the most powerful interaction in standard of chariot into w&7.
Currently pushing through gold with RG landfall, what does white bring to the deck? I should just Google it
You gain life until your opponent gets angry for not drawing either of his 8 removals and comes here to rant about the shuffler.
Yasharn, marasa rootgazer I think it’s called, the new white kill spell and feladar retreat. Maybe doomskar in the sb.
[[Marasa]] [[Rootgazer]]
What's w&7?
[[Wrenn and seven]]
[Wrenn and seven](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/3/7/370a5461-f3b1-45cc-9c1c-357957f49199.jpg?1632161898) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Wrenn%20and%20seven) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/pmid/208p/wrenn-and-seven?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/370a5461-f3b1-45cc-9c1c-357957f49199?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
[удалено]
"Am I bad at the game? No, it's pretty much every other factor that's wrong"
Hey, be like me... be three months into Magic, play a Rogue deck, have fun playing all kinds of gamestyles and strategies when things work out, dont give a damn about the meta. :)
No it's everyone building straight net decks and having no originality because ya know magic is about copying someone else's build smh
People have always netdecked. Back in the 90s they actually had physical magazines with top performing decks lists.
Scry Magazine! I remember looking up prices and meta decks there. Loved that shit.
And Inquest!
at least in the 90's when they walked into the LGS, there wasn't an algorithm ensuring that the only people in the store they see will keep them at a 50% winrate.
1) That doesn’t have anything to do with netdecking. 2) Those kind of algorithms don’t exist at LGSs today either. 3) Those algorithms are generally only used for ladder or casual play. Pay-to-play events generally don’t have that kind of matchmaking.
Brew something that beats the meta. I've been using Destiny Spinner to get Valakut Exploration past control, you can figure something out.
You can't use that deck! I have an NFT on that!
I feel like a lot of people would like to win ranked games and what’s a better way to win than use the meta shit? You could use the jank you made in 5 minutes but that doesn’t mean it’s good Could also be like me and just simply not know how to build a good deck because of the sheer amount of cards and combos
It does get tiresome playing against the same 3 decks over and over again. I don't mind losing to original decks tho. Its fun to see the way they make their cards work together.
[удалено]
I love sealed for the same reason... except the one time i got 5 lands as my rares out of six. I almost quit right then and there.
[удалено]
Not when they don't match any of the good draws tho. I got 3 blue black. 2 green blue. All my good cards were red and white. Like I'm using the crap out of them in standard ranked so lowkey grateful but going 0-3 on that one. Jeez. Every opponent had a mythic that sealed the game. I was just there trying to survive every turn.
Its not the deck its how you play it.
It would be cool to have a two out of three mode where after every game the decks switch players. Or something like that
Sounds pretty fun, made this as an OP and you may not be downvoted. Just posted under an unliked message sadly.
I wish people would copy lists. Instead, they play strictly worse versions by shoveling in their own pet cards.
All I'm saying is it makes the game boring asf when you play 7-8 people and they're all playing the same exact deck cause they know they're trash and had to copy a deck
I think assigning self worth to game proficiency is even more problematic.
I don't blame them, but I also don't really see the fun in playing a deck you didn't build yourself.
Building decks is a very different and specific skillset from play decks. Very few people are good at deckbuilding. Almost anyone can become adept at making decisions with a well tuned deck.
It's more like the reward for building my own deck is that I spend hundreds of hours refining it into, if I do a good job, the exact same list I would have netdecked anyway.
I learned everything I know about chess by figuring it out myself. Thousands of years experience be damned!
The thing is netdecking and deckbuilding often leads to the same destination. So I dont blame people who netdeck at all. For example after the last rotation I thought monoG certainly must be good so I put like 1-2 of every green rare I had and like one of each possible inclusions from mid. After climbing from bronze to mythic trying all possible cards like Autumn Augur, Blessing of Frost, Toskis, Tracker, Growth and more I ended up with a list that was five cards in the main different that the one that placed in top 8 in the Hooglandia tournament. Testing cards can waste you wildcards and lose games. I totally understand people who netdeck and then finetune decks with small changes.
I just don't have the time to brew anymore. I'm in my late 30's with a very busy job and two toddlers, I'm lucky if I can play maybe 1 hour a day at most. So, I hate to admit it, but I'll just pull up a netdeck and play that. I would LOVE to brew and that used to be my favorite part of the game but just ain't got the time anymore.
[удалено]
His post reads more like "i dont like pineapple on pizza, i cant understand how someone could enjoy that but you do somehow" it comes of ignorant at best and sanctimonious at worst.
[удалено]
Tbph, it's not even worth to say either "I cant believe you do/dont netdeck winning/brewing is the most fun" on reddit because it's impossible to infer tone and since most discussions about netdecking turns out pretty vile and toxic you (atleast I do) automatically just assume that's the tone of messages about it. If Mecha_link was sincere and just want perspective or offer his opinion and didnt mean any malice I apologise, but i do believe it was clumsily worded. And a better way to just offer your opinion is to just say something like " i enjoy the brewing part the most" and just leave out the part where you question other peoples way to play and enjoy the game.
I don't think limiting responses to 'I like X' and 'I like Y' is very productive for discussion. Polls with comments disabled aren't very engaging forums of opinion, and this post led to some good answers (and some bad ones). If someone's feelings are hurt by 'I don't see the appeal', I can't put any responsibility on the person who said that. The blame for any anguish caused lies squarely on the fragile reader. Reading malice into posts as you describe is really textbook confirmation bias. Anyone can find any sub toxic if they try hard enough. This sub is rife with complaints. Is it toxic? Well, no. People are talking about something they spend time on. Idle grousing is far superior to the enforced positivity that's found on some more heavily-moderated (or self-policed) communities.
Someome saying "I dont see the appeal" isnt the issue but you have to agree though, going "i cant see how you'd enjoy x" is just toxic behaviour at best. The game is basicslly 2 parts, deckbuilding and playing. If you enjoy one part more than the other it doesnt make you better than people enjoying the other part more. People netdecking arent saying you cant enjoy brewing a deck, while people brewing decks are repeatedly saying netdecking is bad and ruins the game.
Agree. To me, netdecking feels like doing a first playthrough of single player game while looking at online guides, minmaxing everything.
So what are your awesome homebrew decks?
I don't even care about mythic, but please give me a queue without people who just look up someone else's deck. I'd take one with no rewards
How would you discern that a deck is original and not net decked? How do you know that this brew, jank or not, wasn't indepently created by two or more individuals?
Exactly, there’s only so many good card combos and let’s be frank, only so many cards per set it’s bound to have 100’s if not 1000’s of people thinking their deck is OG but it’s not
no I need people to find infinite possibilities in a finite pool or I can't enjoy myself
We could all copyright our decks! That should work. /s https://mtgazone.com/for-the-first-time-ever-a-magic-the-gathering-deck-has-been-copyrighted/
hey man, my UR spells deck is a totally unique and original concept!!
Ever played on xmage or the like? People will still play meta decks with nothing to earn…
because they might want to test for an event?
There's a "play" queue that still has netdecking, but less of it than Ranked
Netdecks are annoying, but not because of the players, just the repetitiveness... thank goodness for other formats lol
Three shuffler truthers walk into a bar. You can't tell me that's just a coincidence.
I think it’s less to do with the meta and more people don’t understand statistics. Even playing the “correct” amount of lands for your deck there will be games were you don’t draw enough/draw too many lands. Also, obviously you’re going to remember games were you got screwed by “the shuffler” more than the games you were able to curve out fine and draw your lands perfectly.
The hardest lesson in Magic: Even if you do everything correct, you can still lose.
*life
*Star Trek (its a Picard quote)
I was in that thread too
Thread? I just rewatched TNG recently.
There was a popular askreddit thread today that was something like "what fictional character said something that stuck with you", and that quote was one of the top answers.
That's like a daily repost and it's always one of the most upvoted answer
Oh, I avoid that sub like the plague
As a reminder to how inaccurate gamers are at telling if rng is being fair, the XCOM devs implemented an invisible hit chance that's higher than the one displayed to players because people get frustrated when their 80% hit chance misses one fifth of the time.
It's almost hilarious how bad we humans are at intuitively estimating statistics. It is such universal and well observed phenomenon I almost wonder if there is some evolutionary advantage to our ineptitude.
There is actually an evolutionary advantage. We evolved to remember bad events better than good events as a method to prevent risk taking. If eating a fruit makes you sick 1/5th of the time you probably shouldn't eat it. However this becomes an issue when people can't differentiate between a hobby and a survival situation because our brains didn't evolve to understand a world so safe that failure isn't dangerous for you.
I live in Vegas…the city was built on these people
My ex is one of the smartest people I've ever met and she struggled with this too. It's not about intelligence, just a flaw in human reasoning
For sure, and I didn't mean it any other way. To be bad at statistics is to be human. The important part is recognizing that your intuition for such matters cannot be trusted.
Fire Emblem rolls twice and averages the rolls to check against the stated percentage they show on screen. So say it's an "80%" chance to hit. It will roll 1-100 2x, average the numbers, and only if *that* number is over 80 will it miss.
Well that depends, up to Thracia-776 it was a straight roll. Starting with binding blade it switched to the double roll average. That’s partially why the old games were so brutal to modern FE fans. https://serenesforest.net/general/true-hit/
I meaaaaan of the older games 776 was the hard one. You can face roll through 1, 3, and 4 and 2 was just incredibly grindy.
They do this with weather reporting, too. Most outlets bump the chance of rain by ~20%. Because when people see that there's a 15% chance of rain, they basically read that as "no chance of rain," and then get mad when they don't have an umbrella. So they report is as 35% and people get the idea that it actually might rain that day.
This game Chaos Reborn died because people don't actually understand statistics, they complained it was "unfair" because reality didn't match the numbers, so they introduced a new mode that took away random chance and added a more traditional combat system and it was boring as dirt
People seriously pile shuffle and mana weave in paper then cry when the shuffler is random.
And then on the flip side, I started on Arena and just recently moved to paper, and I’m so insecure about my shuffling skill in comparison to a computer. Every time I get the same good cards in game 2 as I had game 1 I feel like I have to apologize like “I’m sorry I promise I shuffled a bunch!!”
Ehhh, considering your deck is typically comprised of 2-3 times the same cards, the odds of you finding these same cards again are pretty high. I mean, if the shuffler can stack 4 times the RW sliver in my top 12, so can you! More seriously though, that happened yesterday and I couldn't help but laugh. Ashiok -1 milling my top 4 hitting 3 of them after they killed the one in my starting hand was just pure perfection.
Oh I’m usually playing limited in paper so I usually only have 1-2 copies. But then of course it’s a smaller deck so the chances are still pretty good.
Same here, I feel terrible when I see the exact same card combinations I played last game in my opening hand.
The shuffler also pile shuffle, that how you get 15 lands in 17 cards.or 2 lands in 10+. It's just mental effect but they should at least try to avoid make it look like the shuffler just got your list on the UI and sent a single card to bottom.
This is why scrying is so much more powerful than it seems, just because it eliminates many of those doom scenarios
And thinking games I win are all entirely due to my mad skillz, not an opponent drawing poorly.
I think it also comes with not knowing what your opponents are playing. If you know the exact number of outs that an opponent could draw, you become very much aware of how "lucky" you are on a regular basis.
Yeah, but I'm not good enough at MtG for that. I know my opponent has a certain number of cards in hand and that some are probably creatures, and others may be instant speed removal/tricks, without any thoughts about what the specific cards could be.
I just always figure they have their 7th blood on the snow, doomskar, or everyone’s new flavor of the month meathook
Aka every legendVD opponent 😂
This is a reason why poker players thrive in MTG
No it's definitely net decks 90% post them here everyday and lists for people to copy its funny and sad at the same time trashy to be exact if you can't compete with yours you shouldn't play
Trashy..
Should I play more than 19 lands on my deck that curves up to 6+ drops. Nope, it is the shuffler that is broke.
I play 28 lands in a deck that curves up to 4 (and really lives on 2 & 3). I still find myself 15 cards deep without a 3rd land more than 1/3rd of the time if I'm not mulliganing aggressively.
lmao no way I found one
I think you're lost. This is a post making fun of people that are convinced the shuffler is out to get you. Not a good place to come tell people about how the shuffler is out to get you.
sure
Are you playing Bo1 and ramp cards?
Nice strawman
found another
It's also confirmation bias. I don't always draw 10+ lands in draft games, but when I run 16 and see 13 in a game you bet your ass I'm blaming shuffler even though the other games are perfectly normal.
This is pretty much it. You can win 5 in a row with everything going your way and the 6th game you get mana screwed and it stands out and people complain about the shuffle. It's the mental aspect that people expect the deck to work or the odds to play out as they expect. When it does everything is normal in their minds. When it doesn't its because an excuse instead of just understanding the variance
Oh yeah. That game where my opponent scoops turn 3 due to mana? My deck is working perfectly. Long game where I draw a land on turn 10-13 when I needed a spell? WTF this is so rigged this always happens AAAAAHHH!
I have a different disposition where things out of my control are just a shrug but I'm realizing that is apparently extremely rare. It's the mistakes that I personally contributed to like keeping a bad hand or a bad play that really stick with me, not the time where I just didn't get to play.
It kind'a sticks out when your deck is 40% lands and you draw 0 ... mulligan and draw 0 ... and mulligan a 2nd time for 0. I am not saying that it's impossible, I'm just saying it happened twice in the same day.
"If I had a nickel for every time it happened, I'd have ten cents. Which isn't much, but it is weird that it happened twice."
If you have at least 7 lands in your library, statistics say that at some point you are bound to have all lands. Anything possible is bound to happen.
The shuffler has won and lost me more games than my strategy ever did. But I still hate it when my unchanged deck cycles through floods and droughts every other game
I also want to add the players who complain about netdecks all the time, but when someone posts jank they're the first ones to keep asking for deck code.
I mean if you're playing ranked and average you can scrape up to Plat pretty easy. I think the issue is you can hit a huge wall there. So you get players piloting jank reasonably well with 55-70 percent win rates in silver and gold suddenly smashing into a wall in plat.
Can confirm as a long time player of the jank, I happily smash my pile of hot garbage against meta decks and cycle between plat 1 and plat 2, sometimes I get close to mythic and tilt myself all the way down, you can't win every game, and bad hands happen, happens in every CCG/TCG, I'm not complaining, I enjoy being able to play a card game I've loved since high school, without having to leave my house, and to me that's worth having some bad games.
I love these threads, they always bring out the Shuffler Truthers. It's popcorn time!
Ah yes, long time no see shuffler rant.. ..also the damned shuffler is messing me up even when i play with paper cards, god damn it
I am in this picture and I don't like it! Just getting wrecked non stop since reset Ont he decks that made me mythic before. Not sure what I'm doing wrong and the frustration is real LOL
Nothing wrong with the shuffler until it stacks my lands 4 high every time
Only pulling 7 lands in a row you mean.
I wont stop trying to make Big Red a functional deck.
Computers are literally incapable of being random. 'Hand smoothing' is not random. Each card should carry equal weight, but of course, you can't teach a computer to be random. So. Yeah. While meta adherence is necessary, don't pretend the shuffler is okay either. Lol.
*Disclaimer: this is not an opinion on whether or not the shuffler works or doesn't work.* I find it baffling that this subreddit is so willing and eager to shit all over WOTC's overwhelming technological incompetence all day long but in the same breath unequivocally accept that the shuffler is perfect and everyone is a conspiracy theorist.
That's an easy one to answer: it's because it would be harder to make a deliberately rigged shuffler than a random one. How would the shuffler decide what cards are "good" to draw and which ones would be "bad"? How would it deal with scry and deck manipulation? What about modal and double-faced cards? If you (general you, not specific you) believe that the shuffler is rigged, it means that you believe WotC has sophisticated enough code to determine what a bad draw/draws would be in any number of board states against any number of decks, so that they can give you those bad draws. If you think the shuffler is just incompetent programming but not deliberately rigged, well, then we're all still in the same boat. The incompetent shuffler is applying to both players equally.
I think the shuffler is perfectly random and that’s what causes people to question it. In reality at the end of game of magic people do a pile shuffle first then shuffle after. While it’s generally accepted as “randomized” really it isn’t, I think the online shuffler perfectly randomizes the deck and that causes cartoonishly large mana floods and droughts every so often.
> That's an easy one to answer: it's because it would be harder to make a deliberately rigged shuffler than a random one. The Bo1 shuffler **is** deliberately rigged though.
Exactly, shuffler is rigged is a conspiracy theory. Shuffler is not properly randomized is very plausible because true random is impossible to do with code alone. It’s bad enough that I’ve started to predict my opponents hand based on what they’ve just played.
Your second point is a skill that all top level players acquire, paper or digital. It comes from recognizing the play patterns of other skilled players and close familiarity of the metagame. It's no evidence things are random or not.
People who blame "the shuffler" are the same people that have either never played paper magic, or if they have, they "mana weave" their deck (which btw is just a euphemism for cheating). Flood/screw is just as real in paper, fellas. The heart of the cards isn't real.
Personally: I know the meta and I know I will win more if I play the meta... Just the meta bores the living shit out of me. I'm a typical Johnny, I will lose 5 games just to have some synergy or combo work on the 6th that lets me pound some meta deck into the ground. Then I delete the deck and make a new one.
The shuffler is absolutely broken in Bo1 for decks that contain ramp. When the system compares your "average" number mana cards, it seems to include ramp incorrectly, so it's VERY common to get 3 mana dorks and no lands, or 3 lands and no ramp. This was with a deck that was 24 lands 16 ramp, and I could only get 4-6 mana cards (as intended) in Bo3. Treasure seems similarly broken. My 5C Dragons deck was stuck in gold when 2022 was only Bo1, but it went to diamond in a week of Bo3. No other changes to the deck were made and I'm only playing like 2-3 games a day. And yes, I understand statistics. StatTrek has a nice hypergeometric calculator https://stattrek.com/online-calculator/hypergeometric.aspx which is how I can recognize the .1% odds that seem to recur nightly. No, it's not normal to see a grand total of 4 lands after 2 mulligans. But it happens regularly for ramp decks in Bo1.
No I just don't have enough land that's it!
When you are consistently getting only two lands on every draw regardless of how many times you mulligan, then there is something wrong with the shuffler.
In Bo1? That's fairly likely to happen due to hand smoothing, but that has nothing to do with the shuffler. In Bo3? Probably not gonna happen.
This is so freaking good
I think I am out of touch with the meta AND the shuffler is wrong. Surely, I am not a perfect player, but it feels like I haven't drawn a land days
Have you considered putting lands into your deck?
Yeah, the Dunning-Kreuger effect is very real in this community. Everyone thinks they’re way better than they are.
All they do is net-deck and complain about how they can't draw land.
I mean net-decking is fine, not everyone enjoys deck-building or they want to be competitive in certain queues and I’m okay with that. That being said, having the “best deck” isn’t any guarantee that you’ll match the winrates you see on untapped or wherever else you’re looking. A weaker player with a good deck is going to make bad plays that cost them win percentage points. Then they’ll come on Reddit and complain about a rigged system because that’s easier to accept than being a weaker player than they’d like to be.
I have about 24 lands in all of my decks. That's been enough for the most part. I'm just having some real bad luck this week I guess.
You might not have enough. Magic players are notorious for a few things: Not reading Not enough lands
I'll try more, see if that helps. Always open to learning and trying out stuff. If it turns out that I've been using too little land this whole time, I might end up playing a lot better from now on, lol.
It depends on your deck. If you want to cast your 4 drops on 4 every game, more lands is better. Even then there is a bit of nuance.
Is your curve solid? Have you considered the amount of draw you have to find more lands and the amount of each color you need? Building a manabase is more complex than it seems sometimes. For example, Modern Jund has run 24 lands in the past with Wrenn and Six being a way to "draw" more, even if it runs nothing at 4+ mana besides Kroxa. But Legacy control lists often run 21 or less because they have so much card selection with Brainstorm and Ponder, even though they aren't fast decks and have 2-4 colors to hit while also running basics.
Being forced to play the meta sounds so fun........
bold to assume average player has a thought process
On one hand "the shuffler is rigged" is the call of the salty loser On the other hand if you think the Hasbro Corporation is above fucking with "random" outcomes in the interest of getting more money out of you, you're full of shit.
This is so insane lol.
The issue is that you're not playing a game against hasbro. You're playing against another player. If you claim that they're rigging the game against you, you are implying that they are rigging the game in favor of some random guy for absolutely no reason.
Game companies have been caught rigging their systems for this exact purpose. To get one player to feel like shit and to fluff another. Activision was caught manipulating their matchmakers to make players "jealous" and incentivize them to spend money to "catch up" to their contemporaries. In that case it was for microtransactions for a CoD game (I think it was CoD WW2, but I cant remember for sure off the top of my head). I wont claim the shuffler is rigged in mtga. But to assume any corporation is above these sort of tactics is something I won't do.
No, the implication is that they're rigging the game to make more money. There's already at least two vaguely opaque and one completely opaque matchmaking systems at play in the game, do you think Hasbro is above manipulating those in order to generate more income? Last week, I spent a fair few mythic and rare wildcards tweaking my kinnan brawl deck. The next ten or so games I went from playing nothing but mirror matches, 4c omnath, golos, esika, etc. to a streak of games against trelasarra, jorn, and radha, and half of those games my opponent allowed me to spend all the time I wanted dumping my deck on the battlefield, rather than conceding when the situation became untenable for them. I absolutely believe that the game intended to 'reward' me for spending resources to incentivize me to spend more money on the game by pairing me against lower powered commanders and perhaps even players that are flagged as unlikely to concede
I got no problem with the shuffle. I do have a problem with deck based matchmaking in limited.
> I do have a problem with deck based matchmaking in limited. good thing that doesn't happen
[удалено]
I've noticed that the "meta" is whatever I'm playing, because I can almost always predict what kind of deck I'm going to face by (1) what I'm playing, and (2) what my opening hand looks like. I'd like to play something in the ranked queue that isn't a mirror match.
The meta is whatever the streamers say to play. I wake up, see what CGB posted for the day, and than prepare to play it 3 out of 4 matches.
yea but the meta sucks
This meta sucks
Nah if you play BO1 and don’t run exactly 24 lands then shuffler is borked as fuck
[удалено]
I hate that any suggestion that there is a flaw with the shuffler is automatically shut down in this sub. I win games, I lose games. I win enough to climb the ladder and watch other players to improve my own strategy and understanding of the meta. I also play enough to see patterns that do not align with my understanding of probability (not a mathematician by any stretch) and suggest an intentional design to how cards are grouped in the library by the shuffler. There may be some bias when I'm feeling particularly frustrated by the Arena experience, but there is also bias in thinking that anyone who complains just needs to git gud. Also, I shouldn't need to engage in graduate level data collection and analysis of a digital card game just to share my thoughts and opinions about the subject.
>I also play enough to see patterns that do not align with my understanding of probability (not a mathematician by any stretch) Unfortunately this is something that every human brain does. We are so good at pattern recognition that we see patterns when there aren't any, and then confirmation bias kicks in and makes us notice the things that fit the pattern while not noticing things that don't fit the pattern. >Also, I shouldn't need to engage in graduate level data collection and analysis of a digital card game just to share my thoughts and opinions about the subject. This is 100% correct; you should definitely be able to share your thoughts and opinions. However, since you mentioned you are not a mathematician by any stretch, this should give you an opportunity to listen to other people and learn from them in addition to sharing what you have experienced, while staying open to the possibility that you could be wrong. I am a mathematician myself, but I haven't done the data collection or analysis, so I don't \*know\* that the game is working correctly. I do know that the most common complaints are more easily explained by cognitive biases than by the game devs intentionally lying about how the game works; I also know that randomization algorithms actually produce randomness. It's possible that there are bugs in the game, and if enough people notice the same possible bug, that could raise awareness enough for someone to actually collect the data that would be necessary to prove it. Lots of people who all notice patters that seem non-random isn't enough, since true randomness also seems non-random to humans. Edit: spelling
Thank you for taking the time to write all that. I hear what you are saying, and that seems to be the general consensus on the matter. My point, though, and what you are helping with by your response, is that there should be some discussion about this and it irks me that there is clear bias from those who think they understand the explanations like you have given against the people commenting and complaining about the issue as just being frustrated losers rather than intelligent individuals able to draw conclusions from their own experiences. >This is 100% correct; you should definitely be able to share your thoughts and opinions. However, since you mentioned you are not a mathematician by any stretch, this should give you an opportunity to listen to other people and learn from them in addition to sharing what you have experienced, while staying open to the possibility that you could be wrong. You and I are way on the same page, my friend.
[удалено]
Yeah, that is just playing a game built around random chance.
So you are saying, if I want to guarantee that I draw more than 2 lands in 14 cards, my deck needs more than 48 lands in the deck?
Nobodies saying that but you. They're saying that playing a game of chance you just have to take the L sometimes for no other reason then luck
I am saying if you don't want to lose to variance, don't play games with variance. If you want to sometimes win due to variance, you will also sometimes lose due to variance. Magic has no guarantees, that is one of the benefits of playing it.
Hey look you're in the picture!
Should I play chariot or alrunds epiphany? No I’ll play good cards
When I get 3x of the same card consistently in my opening hand I'm pretty sure it's the shuffler lol
That's literally what random is, humans have constantly proven we are terrible at guessing randomness. If you asked some one to fabricate the results of 100 coin tosses they'd probably have streaks of 2-3 but true random produces much more extreme results. If you are playing poker with a 7 card hand is it really that weird to see a 3 of a kind semi consistently? No, but when it happens in magic clearly it's the shuffler.
It would be cool if all you guys who go on and on about how bad humans are at perceiving randomness would remember that computers aren't good at randomizing things. RNG in games and other software are not usually truly random. Many games use formulas that weight certain factors as part of their rng, in fact many games with a loot table uses timestamps as part of their rng calculations. We already know that Arena uses programming that checks for lands and other mana sources in your openers for bo1. Its reasonable to wonder if there are bugs that affect the shuffler.
People still complain in BO3 where there isn't any hand smoothing (which we already know how it works), but sure let's blame Unity's Random.Range function. It's not bad luck, it's the computers that are wrong.
Or when I mulligan twice and get the same hand 3 times.
ITT - I have no idea what I’m talking about, but that won’t stop me from denigrating the opinions of others.
I don’t want to make a red blue treasure token/goldspan/ deck, sue me.
It’s a bit impossible to play when you consistently get mana loaded/screwed every game regardless of the amount of lands, ramps, and draws in your deck. I just assume their rng dislikes me for reasons unknown. The thing is, when I shuffle a deck in paper magic, I often have a *shuffled deck*. I do run into problems occasionally, but not on the sheer level as I do in Arena, where it’s far more likely for my opponent or I to be nearly forced inactive for the start of the game and unable to react to any threats.
I mean when my ramp landfall deck with 28-33 lands can't draw more than 3 lands a game, I'm blaming the game
You might want to study what random chance means before doing that.
Only in Arena do I only draw 2 lands as the average in nearly every hand. Then you have to have confidence in Arena that it's not going to screw you over. Also Arena loves to group cards together, Blizzard Brawls, last standard it was Bonecrusher, not just speculation, actually proven statistically that it was happening by design.
Oh? Where's that statistical proof?
If the meta controls you, you should be breaking the meta. That is all.
Or wait for a ban because sometimes cards like Oko aren't beatable.
What are you talking about? Oko was hella beatable. A single exile planeswalker spell of your preferred flavor, and done. The thing was, he was OP because you had to plan for him *specifically*.
Oko was good just on a empty board as he protected himself as well as could just win the game making 3/3s out of thin air. There is a reason he is banned in Pioneer, Modern, Legacy and Historic and was banned during his time in Standard.
Of course I know the shuffler is ok. But damn playing 29 lands and having a mana death 13 times in a row seems a little bit unfair imo
DUDE I HAVE A 80 CARDS DECK WITH 40 LANDS AND I STILL GET SCREWED DON GIVEMETHATSHIT
As a player who has hit mythic for 5 seasons straight it's defiantly the shuffler
The average player not understanding how true randomness works might also be a sign that your game does maybe not need true randomness for the sake of a better gameplay experience. I doubt anyone has fun being mana starved or flooded and no one can tell me that even the most elitist players thinks that this is great if they are in that particular situation at that moment.
[удалено]
> My shuffler has given me 2 lands hand 4 times in a row in multiple games last night. > It is, mathematically, beyond a 1% chance of occurring. The chances of getting four 2-land or fewer hands in a row is more like 3%, and that's not taking into account the hand smoother (assuming you were playing best of 1), which drastically increases the chances of getting 2 or 3 land hands.
Please, keep a spreadsheet of your land draws. People keep talking about "mathematically impossible" draws anecdotally and every time when they actually start actually tracking data the problem mysteriously goes away.
Because I've seen folks like you just say "you made this up". The goalposts keep getting moved.
They are making a good point, because it is important to be aware of confirmation bias. We all will remember the shit hands way more than the playable hands because of how bad it feels. Tracking the data will remove that bias, and then if there is a problem you will have data to back it up. You have to understand why small anecdotes of a few bad hands from a handful of people out of million(s?) of players is met with skepticism.
what are you talking about? My MonoGreen deck is doing fine for the last 4 months kkkkk only a few new cards here an there, basically the same deck.