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.
-
sobrio35#03464 commented
What good is a matching algorithm if you can't test your decks against random opponents?
I began tracking matches last Sunday. I played a mono blue deck, and kept a record of the deck types I played against. I played 50 consecutive matches, and saw 29 deck types, mostly fast creature decks.
The following day I played an Orzhov control deck. My first 3 games saw all control decks, none of which made the list of 29 on Sunday. Statistically, that's a 0% probability.
Question: How does Wizards propose we test decks, if the matching algorithm is so controlling that we literally won't see opponents of a certain deck type (unless of course, we switch decks, defeating the purpose) which we could face in a real-life tournament? -
mudblood#80669 commented
The past few days I noticed a massive discrepancy in turn order. As I started counting 9 of 11 games I played I was on the draw. Bad coin flips I thought. Now every day since I've still gotten insanely bad turn order and so I started conceding games in casual just to test how many times I got 1st vs 2nd. 13 draws 0 plays. That's not variance, it's rigging.