Algorithm Improvement
I'm sure you're getting a lot of complaints about how one-sided your algorithm is not being impartial and often times screwing over players with land draws that should not be happening in a purely random sample - so my complaint can be added to that pile.
But, an idea for changing the algorithm to improve randomization would be having the program assign a number to each card remaining in a deck and pile shuffling the cards into X amount of piles (let's say 6). It can repeat this process Y amount of times then take the middle of the pile and put those cards on top. A better template would be from the card shuffler for poker sets from stores.
-
kazu masu#85226 commented
初手で4枚かぶった。
-
ChardeeMacDenis#27551 commented
If I play a green deck I see more green decks… if I play something with red, then it’s nothing but red decks. It is not random, it’s color based.
-
ChardeeMacDenis#27551 commented
There needs to be a better shuffling system. I’m table top games after a match and cards get stacked I would simply 6 way shuffle to fix. In matches here I do get good hands and games at times but I also have many games where i get all 3/4 of a certain card, no land, all land, etc. This happens a lot more often than it ever would on tabletop. It takes away from the experience and the testing of a deck. If I can get a properly shuffled deck I can’t know how well the deck will play in real time. Please work on this.
-
MESSIAH333#03206 commented
You can kiss my ***. All I came across in my event was people almost on Diamond tier. You're not getting another single ******* dollar from me you worthless *****. Kiss my $30 a week goodbye, I'm certain the same situation has happened to thousands of people leaving because of your no balance system bs, all to save you a few gems ROFL.
-
Gradius9989#54610 commented
These ***** rig their bs game so u lose every fkn time ur about to win its so bad ive reported them to the better business bureau for unfair business practices and for allowing cheating and gaming that is not random matchmaking but an algorithm that rigs you against opponents who automatically are better then you. Fk you wotc ur trash and ur a biased company
-
G8oraidM8#26120 commented
This really might be more of a complaint over ****** deals. But I don't think that I'm playing real people in Draft, nor do I think that my decks are being actually dealt to me properly. I don't spend money on arena very often, especially to buy coins to get into draft. I get to play maybe two drafts a month saving up my coins to 10,000. The past three drafts that I've been in I have gone 1/9. I have not actually played magic when I play Premiere draft, because my opponents deck is either suspiciously good for a draft deck, or I get absolutely mana hosed or just dealt absolute unplayable garbage. Really puts me off from playing draft, saving up 10000 just to get rinsed in 10 minutes. Its not like I'm bad at limited formats either, my decks look good and promising I just never get dealt anything. I'm mythic in constructed and draft in real life every weekend, I don't think my decks are this terrible online.
-
kazu masu#85226 commented
本当に唱えづらい
-
Adsl#59665 commented
This game is so obviously rigged... I have a mill deck and basically more than half of the matchings "misteriously" have >100 cards in their decks. Also, in ~1/5 of the cases they have Gaea's Blessing. This does not happen with any other decks I am currently using. So this makes me think that something is going on with this game...
-
Sollarstone#82692 commented
A few weeks ago I made a criticism about the constant game manipulation for mana issues. There are times when you play 4 or 5 games where you don't come in command at all. But it seems that it didn't solve anything, after my criticism the game seems to have got worse. This is mana problems, with 1 to 3 cost creatures, I don't even want to talk about bugs related to card and spell effects, like destroying indestructible creature with combat damage.
-
Irukinar#72411 commented
The event shuffler is either rigged against F2P or events are full of hackers. Either way, I can get a reasonable amount of games without massive mana flood/*****, although ti does happen, in BO1 ranked. The SECOND I enter a standard event, *immidiately* get mana screwed and flooded THREE GAMES IN A ROW. EVERY SINGLE TIME.
There's statistics, and then there's likely WOTC ensuring that F2P players lose so that paying players get their moneys worth, which is the likely occurrence in the standard event. Decks that get to diamond shouldn't be going 0/3 for 3 events in a row purely from MANA *****. It's also possible WotC does nothing about hackers, since this is a F2P game and they clearly give 0 !@#s about players.
-
kazu masu#85226 commented
クリーチャー19
非クリーチャー21
土地22
の割合で、
7/9 が土地。初手で3/61の3枚全部そろう
ケースもあり、
とても唱えにくい。 -
Akroma#09193 commented
I know that random probability means that sometimes you draw no lands for 6 turns and sometimes you draw 7 lands in a row. But most of times you should get what is more likely. If the fall of a large meteorite had the same probability of drawing 12 lands out of 15 cards, then one meteorite per year would fall to earth. Please don't destroy the earth each year. Please don't destroy the beauty of this game I love
-
Wrath#32765 commented
this game is rriged of a hundred card you gave this opponet the perfect turn 2 greasefang is no possible in any possible way
-
Panic#40580 commented
Just played a mirror match (surprise!!!) vs a guy using 120 f cards in his deck mono green. And he drew to perfection of lands vs creatures / spells... What the actual ****. Rigged, corrupt shitshow of a game
-
Roguecel#82617 commented
Went on today with all common deck. 4 games:
1st: vs Esper Legends.
2nd: vs Grixis Control
3rd: vs Esper Raffeine
4th: vs Esper Legends..
-
Steponmyfoot#31893 commented
2023 still rigged af or even worse... disgusting company!
-
Steponmyfoot#31893 commented
Still in 2023 and probably even worse... disgusting company!
-
Lady Lilith#11462 commented
I agree completely. Matchmaking needs to be either completely random OR (and this is more likely a better compromise) a MMR (i.e. Glicko-2 rating) based system exclusively with rankings actually tied directly to that rating (so, therefore, no longer kept hidden of players or even generalized. We need to see our MMR at a glance to know where we stand in competitive games) AND allow us to choose a deck AFTER being matched based on that rating.
If deck weighting doesn't happen in ranked like it is implied, then there should be zero problem doing that to prove it. Considering we largely think deck-weighting still happens in ranked queues and we generally feel that it's none of the computer's business what decks we are playing with nor the other players (until we start throwing down... then its the other guy's business), choosing a deck after being matched makes more sense. Keep the MMR thing because skill-based matchmaking isn't inherently bad. But! Deck-weighting is only acceptable in non-ranked/Non-competitive queues for the benefit for newer players to the game who really shouldn't be playing in competitive queues if they want to win games while they learn the finer details of MTG. Competitive is for people who actually know what they are doing and, as elitist as it sounds, it DOES pragmatically make sense.
You encourage more buying to get the cards you need to make decks for competitive queues while not necessarily punishing inexperienced players as long as they utilize the algorithmic training wheels offered by the unranked queue's different matchmaking parameters. It's better for the players, makes the game healthier and fairer, and it's better from a business point of view, too. You DEFINATELY don't wanna punish experienced competitive players for winning, though, and the way the system is working now, it REALLY feels like it is. Winning feels good, but when you start seeing decks which stymie your strategy, even when you change decks because the algorithm currently cares what you are packing and makes a decision of who to pair you with based on what's in the deck, it becomes a punishment. If it isn't happening really (or isn't supposed to at least), then prove it by letting us pick a deck after being matched.
My personal experience which led me to conclude the game's algorithm reads your deck in ranked had ALOT to do with an incident in my first Mythic rank achievement. While I was in Diamond Rank, I had been using a Lurrus Dimir Rogues mill deck and had been VERY successful with it. I lost enough games due to variance and this was totally acceptable and normal until about Diamond rank. the vat majority of my games consistantly began running Gaea's Blessing (which is a strong anti-mill safeguard card that pretty much defeats mill decks outright). I started getting angry with this because I was losing my momentum and started to suspect something wasn't right. That's when I added Tormod's Crypt to the deck which then allowed me to exile the graveyard so that Gaea's Blessing couldn't undo my milling once it was milled. The algorithm apparently didn't have an answer for it and I started winning again and hit Mythic for the first time.
If ranked queues don't have deck weighting and biases toward counters for certain tactics, why was I running into a hard-stop counter to my most successful strategy in higher ranks? That wasn't random. Gaea's Blessing is a very situational card and NOT something I'd expect to see that commonly, which it would have to be if there was no algorithmic shenanigans going on. I am still convinced to this day that the game favours certain decks to counter your success with a particular strategy after a while, essentially learning what you are doing and pitting you against something that will make it harder to continue a winning streak deliberately.
Its unfair to defeat the purpose of modifying our decks to counter counters and answer difficult strategies if the types of decks we run into change because we changed the weight value of the deck in the course of fine tuning it. Granted, this didn't happen with my mill deck, but I also think Tormod's Crypt didn't change the weight of the deck much due to being an uncommon 0-drop. However, you change a few rares/mythics and the game will notice and react accordingly. THAT needs to stop... hardcore-stop, hence why we need to pick decks after matching so it CAN'T match based on deck weight.
Key takeaways:
1. IN RANKED, let us choose a deck after being matched based on MMR alone.
2. Let us always have at-a-glance access to our MMR at all times.
3. Base the ranking system progression and rewards directly on MMR and perhaps number of games played with additional incentives for a significant increase in MMR during a season, not the current arbitrary progression thing. We want to ACTUALLY know who is who and where we actually stand. Please stop hiding that number.4! This has NOTHING to do with the shuffler, mind you.
-
Hellome01#66773 commented
This is happening 2 out of every 3 games I play (Sealed) atm. I'll draw 10-12 lands and 4-6 nonlands and just get demolished after keeping a 2-3 lander, and this is with card draw, cycling, etc. Literally unplayable. I would understand if it's happening every once in a while, but this is happening in an absolutely insane number of games to (NOT JUST ME) me. Please WOTC look at my recent games and prove me wrong.
-
kazu masu#85226 commented
デッキの
クリーチャー
その他
土地
の枚数構成比を、意味あるものにしてほしい。