just adding 2 cents on card draw

[Beo]

I have a fairly good deck, win most of the time.  However, this game would be a much bigger part of my entertainment if the AI (if that's what it's called) was not so lame from time to time.

Just lost a game where I ran through 28 cards of a 60 card deck and only got 2 pillars.  That happens way too much to be random.  And I suggest that is not AI - it's just deemed by the game at some time that I need to lose, so the deck gets stacked to ensure it.  To call that AI is an offense to all true AI everywhere. 

I am not a huge detail analyzer to craft the perfect deck, I just like to play from time to time (lately more than usual it seems).  this is a good game, but this ridiculous deck stacking really destroys enjoyment and makes me think I can use my game time better elsewhere.  That's not a threat, just giving feedback that I think many would echo. 

Would be much better if I had the same loss ratio but it was based on a more fair (and closer to random) distribution of pillars and other cards.  Saw the post listing the the most requested changes which included the "mulligan".  sounds like a good idea to me, but I suggest also that the deck stacking code be struck from the system.

[edit: Ahh, I guess I don't really know any of this.  If the code really is trying to be random, I think it needs to be tested because it sure does not seem random.  I've only played about 1500 games and I bet I have had several dozen games at least where either I have all creatures or all pillars stacked on top of the deck, so I can do nothing while the opponent decimates me.  Such a shuffle would be extreme on a normal curve and even 3% rate would be far on the edge of the curve that it would happen maybe 1 in 500 games or so.]

[Essence]

Maybe I don't understand, but a 3% rate should happen 3 in 100 games.  1 in 500 would be a .02% rate. 

For the record, 3% means that if you've played 1500 games, 45 of them would be in that 3%.  That can sure seem like 'several dozen' due to confirmation bias, but it's not. 

[Jumbalumba]

As we all know, it is rarely the case that programmed random events are truly random but in terms of long term distribution it should still be random.

There could also be other factors. Perhaps your deck has too few pillars. You also probably have confirmation bias as Essence mentioned.

I do feel there is some cyclic thing going on in the random generator thing where we could potentially get in a cycle of repeated events and continually get the same result. I had a situation where basically every game I would get 2 Stone Towers within the first 8 cards (note: confirmation bias) when I had only 4 Stone Towers in my deck. I took away 2 Stone Towers and still I kept getting the 2 Stone Towers in the first 10 cards or so.

I also feel there's something going on right after one makes a deck because I keep seeming to get multiples of some cards in the first draw even if they are uncommon in my deck.

[gueldo]

I also have a similar problem. On 50 cards, I often have 5 identicals creatures after 3 turns and not enough pillars
 

[Kamietsu]

Golden ratio people.

Bad draws happen, and with less pillars, and more other cards, you chances to draw a pillar decreases. Simple fix: lose some other cards, add some pillar cards. Or add more drawing power.

[Clathius]

I do not feel that questions about the randomness of this game should be so quickly pushed aside by simply saying "statistics." 

There are a fair number of people who believe this game is subject to clustering, myself included.  For example, statistically, the current deck I play should draw 2 or 3 pillars in the first draw.  However, based on the games I have been playing 1 or 4 pillars is most common.  Right now 5 pillars is more common than 2!   This a deck with 12 pillars in 40 cards.   I have also seen the exact same draw including draw order 2 times in a row.   

It is also extremely common to get the same FG 2 or 3 times in a row.  I never get the same FG twice in a row after winning (it has not happened since I started recording).  However, after I lose, you often get the same FG again.   

[vrt]

I just got Paradox 4 times in a row, 4 times Elemental mastery.


Also, if you don't get any pillars in a deck with 60 cards, your deck is the problem, not the game. I understand you want to blame something that isn't you, but that's pretty pointless in this instance.

[Clathius]

^^^  Did you really just use an example of clustering to argue against clustering?

[vrt]

^^^  Did you really just use an example of clustering to argue against clustering?

I used an example of randomness against your claim that there was a system. Reading helps.

[midg3333]

guys, i admit,  have also experienced times of 'clustering', where i draw like 4 of something one after the other...but remember this:
it may seem like this sort of thing happens a lot, but that's because you notice every time you draw a few of the same card in a row. If, in the middle of a game you drew an oty, then a protect artifact, then a phase shield, and did that 2 games in a row (some time in the middle of the game, not the starting hand) you would be much less likely to make that connection than if you drew 3 towers on 3 consecutive turns. It's not that thses things happen that often, it's just that you notice and/or remember every time it does.

[Delreich]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Randomness does not have a memory, nor is it as uniform as you seem to think it should be.

For example, statistically, the current deck I play should draw 2 or 3 pillars in the first draw. However, based on the games I have been playing 1 or 4 pillars is most common. Right now 5 pillars is more common than 2! This a deck with 12 pillars in 40 cards.

Where do you get "2 or 3" from? Your chance of getting one pillar is ever so slightly higher than that of getting three pillars, actually.

[BluePriest]

Also See Murphys Law:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy's_law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy's_law)

My favorite variant of it being:  "If anything can go wrong, it will, and it will happen at the worst possible time".