"Fixing" the deck randomization

[waterzx]

How many times have you got all pillars but no creature at the start ?

How many times have you got all creatures and no pillar at the start ?

How many times have you got 10 cards you don't need in a row ?

How many times have you lost to a entirely imbalanced deck because you got insanely bad luck ?

Even though your deck is highly balanced.

Even though you took hours to perfect your deck.

Your deck seldom shows its true power because of the stupid probability

I'm not saying that the randomization of this game is broken. I believe that this game has a decent randomization system.

But the randomization is too random !

Shouldn't Zanz" fix the system so that it avoids cards of the same nature from stacking together in the deck ?

So you won't get 10 pillars in a row, you won't draw all creatures at the start

and you will have a fun game that doesn't completely depend on when you will get your key cards out of the deck.

[NaTuraL]

How many times have you got all pillars but no creature at the start ?

How many times have you got all creatures and no pillar at the start ?

How many times have you got 10 cards you don't need in a row ?

How many times have you lost to a entirely imbalanced deck because you got insanely bad luck ?

Even though your deck is highly balanced.

Even though you took hours to perfect your deck.

Your deck seldom shows its true power because of the stupid probability

I'm not saying that the randomization of this game is broken. I believe that this game has a decent randomization system.

But the randomization is too random !

Shouldn't Zanz" fix the system so that it avoids cards of the same nature from stacking together in the deck ?

So you won't get 10 pillars in a row, you won't draw all creatures at the start

and you will have a fun game that doesn't completely depend on when you will get your key cards out of the deck.

If your deck is balanced, then you'll win more than you lose but cards is all based on luck, no matter how mathmatically sound your deck is, theres always a possibility of having 10 mana cards on your first draw, or 10 creature cards etc. That's how cards work unfortunatly.

Don't get me wrong, it's annoying as...I've just basically lost to a dissapation shield because of my draw lol but a good phrase to remember is:

Where there is a potential problem, the problem is enivitable.
No deck can guarentee a perfect draw everytime, not on this, not in real life, you can only structure your deck to "minimise" a bad draw.

[waterzx]

No deck can guarentee a perfect draw everytime, not on this, not in real life, you can only structure your deck to "minimise" a bad draw.

But at least Zanz can prevent EXTREME situation such as 10 pillars stacking together on deck.

Just reshuffle the deck when such awful deck appears

We already have a auto-mulligan, why can't we have a auto-deck-reshuffle ?

[NaTuraL]

No deck can guarentee a perfect draw everytime, not on this, not in real life, you can only structure your deck to "minimise" a bad draw.

But at least Zanz can prevent EXTREME situation such as 10 pillars stacking together on deck.

Just reshuffle the deck when such awful deck appears

We already have a auto-mulligan, why can't we have a auto-deck-reshuffle ?

Don't get me wrong, I completely understand the frustration and everyone else will have similar opinions but..

Why should he when cards just don't work like that? So, someone who doesn't understand the mathmatics of cards can make a ridiculously unbalanced deck but never get a bad draw? Like I said, you only make your deck as mathmatically sound as possible to "minimise" the risk of a bad draw, not remove it completely.

If you take your own personal situations out of the equation then you'll see what you're asking for just really isn't viable, or needed. The better deck will win 9/10 times, but if you refer to the previous phrase, there's always the potential to have a bad draw, or a bad streak. That's just the law of luck

[zhangvict]

No deck can guarentee a perfect draw everytime, not on this, not in real life, you can only structure your deck to "minimise" a bad draw.

But at least Zanz can prevent EXTREME situation such as 10 pillars stacking together on deck.

Just reshuffle the deck when such awful deck appears

We already have a auto-mulligan, why can't we have a auto-deck-reshuffle ?

Because that would be too generous. You cannot know what cards will be in your deck in real life card games, so why should this be the case for elements? In games like MTG, there are rules concerning starting hand and mulligan, but since it is impossible for anyone to determine what cards will be beyond the first hand, anti-randomness only applies to the initial draw.

But now you mention it, I think the auto-mulligan system could be expanded. The first mulligan is automatic and free, and is the player is still unsatisfied with his/her draw, they may click the a re-draw button and change into a new hand at the cost of 1 turn or drawing of 1 less card. No more free auto mulligan for voluntarily re-drawn hands.

[waterzx]

You cannot know what cards will be in your deck in real life card games, so why should this be the case for elements? In games like MTG, there are rules concerning starting hand and mulligan, but since it is impossible for anyone to determine what cards will be beyond the first hand, anti-randomness only applies to the initial draw.

I see your point but I don't think comparing a digital game with real life game is fair

You can't have a Fog Shield in real life card game because it's about probability which requires a computer to calculate it.

But Fog Shield exists in Elements because Elements IS a digital game. A digital game should not be restricted to rules of the real life card game, shouldn't it ?

[NaTuraL]

You cannot know what cards will be in your deck in real life card games, so why should this be the case for elements? In games like MTG, there are rules concerning starting hand and mulligan, but since it is impossible for anyone to determine what cards will be beyond the first hand, anti-randomness only applies to the initial draw.

I see your point but I don't think comparing a digital game with real life game is fair

You can't have a Fog Shield in real life card game because it's about probability which requires a computer to calculate it.

But Fog Shield exists in Elements because Elements IS a digital game. A digital game should not be restricted to rules of the real life card game, shouldn't it ?

I don't want to answer for anyone else but I'm going to anyway  (sorry zhangvict)

You can have cards like every card in the game in (I'll use your comparison) MTG, the statement on the card would slightly differ to suit the game. so it may be based on the player making the decisions himself, or using a dice roll to determine the outcome for example, however it's difficult to compare 2 game, because although genre based they may be the same, the wway the games played is completely different. However the thing that remains the same between both, is the fact that they're both card games, which mean that a strong proportion of the game is based on luck.

[zhangvict]

You cannot know what cards will be in your deck in real life card games, so why should this be the case for elements? In games like MTG, there are rules concerning starting hand and mulligan, but since it is impossible for anyone to determine what cards will be beyond the first hand, anti-randomness only applies to the initial draw.

I see your point but I don't think comparing a digital game with real life game is fair

You can't have a Fog Shield in real life card game because it's about probability which requires a computer to calculate it.

But Fog Shield exists in Elements because Elements IS a digital game. A digital game should not be restricted to rules of the real life card game, shouldn't it ?

First, it is actually possible to have fog shield in real life games. This can be done by some kind of dice-rolling mechanism.

But yes, there are some differences between computer animated card games and real life card games, and these differences do allow for different card mechanics. There will always be things that a real life game can't do but computer game can and vice versa. However, the element of randomness is still an inherent part of both. Elements, at least tries to mimic a real life card game, but still take advantage of new technology. [This Part Ninja'ed by NaTural]

Also, it would be restrictive to remove too much of the randomness from card drawing. Who knows, perhaps there is a playing strategy that actually depends on drawing multiple of the same thing at once. I know that Poision Dials, a sucessful Platinim farming deck, actually takes advantage of the mulligan to increase the number of SoSa and sundials in the initial hand because it needs less towers. Hence because of a specialized strategy that most decks will not use (relying on drawing fewer towers and more of other cards in first hand), it proves that removing too much randomness through a computer algorithm can limit the flexibility of card playing.

Like I said, one of the only good ways of decreasing randomness is to have the player decide what is a good hand or not, but the player cannot decide beyond the initial draw.

[waterzx]

I understand that luck is a big part of the game. But anyone noticed the word EXTREME I used ?

I'm not saying you guys are wrong but I still believe that EXTREME situation like what I said, 10 pillars in a row, should be avoided

3 dragons in a row is acceptable and could be part of the strategy

but 6 dragons in a row ruins most of the game play because you may not have enough quanta to play them every turn, especially in early game.

Besides, wouldn't it require more skills for players to decide when to chain their cards if they won't get the same cards every turn ?

[zhangvict]

I understand that luck is a big part of the game. But anyone noticed the word EXTREME I used ?

I'm not saying you guys are wrong but I still believe that EXTREME situation like what I said, 10 pillars in a row, should be avoided

3 dragons in a row is acceptable and could be part of the strategy

but 6 dragons in a row ruins most of the game play because you may not have enough quanta to play them every turn, especially in early game.

You truly never know when someone might want 6 dragons in a row for a specialized strategy. As new cards and functions are added into the game, it becomes increasingly complex and such specialized strategies that defy normal conventions get increasingly likely.

Besides, wouldn't it require more skills for players to decide when to chain their cards if they won't get the same cards every turn ?

I don't get it. Can you illustrate this with an example?

[waterzx]

You truly never know when someone might want 6 dragons in a row for a specialized strategy. As new cards and functions are added into the game, it becomes increasingly complex and such specialized strategies that defy normal conventions get increasingly likely.

Are you suggesting we should ignore a normal game play just to let a few players to find a way to play a dragon every turn ? 

This game is not solely a game for those Veterans who can deal with 6 dragons in a row. We should consider an average player.

Is it normal for an average player and an average deck to gather 10 quanta in one turn to play a dragon every turn ? (except in late game in which you have everything set up. But you are probably dead when you get your dragons so late.)

I don't get it. Can you illustrate this with an example?

Let's talk about Sundial chain.

Now it is possible for one to get 6 sundials in a row for chaining

But if such situation is prevented, it would be more difficult for chaining. So player needs to consider the fact that they may not get the next sundial soon enough to maintain the chain and thereby requires more risk assessment of player.

[zhangvict]

You truly never know when someone might want 6 dragons in a row for a specialized strategy. As new cards and functions are added into the game, it becomes increasingly complex and such specialized strategies that defy normal conventions get increasingly likely.

Are you suggesting we should ignore a normal game play just to let a few players to find a way to play a dragon every turn ? 

This game is not solely a game for those Veterans who can deal with 6 dragons in a row. We should consider an average player.

Is it normal for an average player and an average deck to gather 10 quanta in one turn to play a dragon every turn ? (except in late game in which you have everything set up. But you are probably dead when you get your dragons so late.)

Ok sorry if I made you misunderstand, but I was not specifically talking about dragons, but any kind of situation where you will get a lot of the same cards in a row. The mechanism you propose will not only prevent 6 dragons being drawn in a row, but pretty much 6 of anything. This is a dangerous mechanism to implement, because some strategies could rely on gettins a lot of the same thing. Normal strategies do not like you to draw the same card every turn, but maybe in the future some unique deck will. I gave Poison Dials as one deck that defies normal conventions (relying on not drawing too many towers in the beginning). I believe the long term health of the game demands this randomness to not be removed.

Players who do not use unique norm-defying decks will just have to deal with it. It is highly unikely to get 6 in a row of anything anyway, and plus, it encourages more deck building to have more random possibilities avalible.

Let's talk about Sundial chain.

Now it is possible for one to get 6 sundials in a row for chaining

But if such situation is prevented, it would be more difficult for chaining. So player needs to consider the fact that they may not get the next sundial soon enough to maintain the chain and thereby requires more risk assessment of player.

Sorry, this is a bad example. A player will have to consider the fact that they may not get the next sundial soon enough anyway because they don't actually know if they will get a 6 sundial draw chain or not. The risk assesment is already there regardless of whether a prevention mechanism is there or not. In fact, I argue there is less risk and skill if you make it impossible to get a 6 sundial chain. This makes draws more predictable and easier to design ways to remove having to do a rish assesment in game.