Skip to content

garbag#70681

My feedback

5 results found

  1. 1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    garbag#70681 shared this idea  · 
  2. Algorithm Improvement

    933 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    garbag#70681 commented  · 

    Heres a suggestion. FIX YOUR ******* SHUFFLER FOR LIMITED EVENTS. There is NO legitimate reason for a deck with a ratio of 3:4 lands to spells, or 16:24 since math and statistics seem to be a foreign concept to you, to CONSISTENTLY, OVER 50% OF THE TIME YIELD AN ACTUAL DRAWN RATIO OF (>1):1. THE DECK INCLUDES 8 LESS LANDS THAN SPELLS, SO WHY DOES IT MORE OFTEN THAN NOT YIELD MORE LANDS THAN SPELLS? WHAT ******* "STATISTICS" DO YOU USE THAT MAKES 12 OF THE TOP 20 CARDS IN A 16LAND 40CARD DECK LANDS MORE OFTEN THAN ******* NOT?Losing game after game in a PAID EVENT, for no other reason than THIS KIND OF DOGSHIT "RANDOMIZATION" (read: broken shuffler concentrating literally 75% of lands in the top 50% of deck virtually very single game) is absurd. 6-3 record in draft, and ONLY TWO GAMES DID I DRAW LESS LAND THAN SPELLS. IN A DECK WITH 16, NOT EVEN 17 LAND. So, 7/9 games, or a WHOPPING 77% OF THE TIME, YOUR SHUFFLER OVERPRIORITIZES MORE LAND ON TOP THAN SPELLS. 77% of the time, a deck with LESS LAND THAN RECOMMENDED (i assume recommended since thats the autofill default AND conventionally what a 40card deck would use in real life), 77% of the time a deck like this STILL MASSIVELY FLOODS UNDER YOUR SHUFFLER. Nonsensical, ridiculous, does not line up with ANY TYPE OF REAL WORLD STATISTICAL ANALYSIS. Fix your land clumper, i mean shuffler already. Don't have anyone that actually knows statistics on your staff? I'll do your job for you, i have a background in stats.

    garbag#70681 supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    garbag#70681 commented  · 

    So, heres the raw data: 3 draft games, 40 card deck, 17 lands. Game 1: keep 3 land hand, draw 4 land straight, game ends with 19 cards in deck, only 5 lands left in deck. Top 21 cards: 12 lands to 9 nonland. Ok, massive flood, it happens.

    Game 2: keep 4 land hand w terramorphic to thin lands out. Game ends with 22 cards left in deck, 7 are land. Top 18 cards: 10 land, 8 nonland. Ouch, massive floods 2 for 2. I guess still loosely within expected variance/standard deviation, an outlier but sure.

    Game 3: keep 3 land hand, game ends with 24 cards in library, only 6 lands. Top 16 cards: 11 land, only 5 nonland. Now, this flooding is way too consistent and repeatable to be simple "bad luck". Run a Poisson distribution on any 40-card deck, or really probably any deck regardless of size with the same ratio of lands to deck size of 17/40, in both the Arena client and a physical deck of cards, and you'll find Arena's results are EXTREMELY skewed from what should be expected under real-word probability models. Fix it, that is beyond absurd variance, if it can even be called variance at this point due to how consistent the results are.

  3. 2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    garbag#70681 shared this idea  · 
  4. 1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    garbag#70681 shared this idea  · 
  5. 3 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    garbag#70681 shared this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base