Randomization issues

[Ozaku]

I also have a few problems with the randomization system as follows...
  would it be at all possible to choose pvp enemies based on how close they are in points or something?
  what about shuffling? would it perhaps be possible to create limits on how many of each card type you can draw so you dont make more than half of your deck pillars and STILL end up with none?
  what about the chaos seeds and mutations? would it be possible to lower the chances of killing my monsters every time I kill another one or perhaps lower the chance of using freeze every time I get that effect? freezing and killing seem to be my most popular chaos seed and mutate effects.

basically what I'm saying is, perhaps the amount of true randomness should be reduced a bit; it's easier for computers anyway. (also, please dont murder me in my sleep if some of these issues have already been addressed elsewhere; I didnt really have time to read the whole thread)

[Daxx]

Just to address your points a little:

  * Choosing PVP based on points would be nice. I have no idea whether it's possible.
  * A truly random shuffle rewards good deckbuilding - that is, if there were a hard limit on the number of any one card you could draw, it would be much easier to make larger decks. As it is there is a push towards streamlined decks that are more efficient.
  * Chaos seed and mutation are (someone correct me if I'm wrong) mostly designed to be used offensively. The upgraded versions are meant to be used on your own critters.

[YoYoBro]

Yes, but remember that the druid's mutation (upped) is offensive, the unupped one is defensive.

[Daxx]

Yes, but remember that the druid's mutation (upped) is offensive, the unupped one is defensive.

Fallen Druid has improve, and Fallen Elf has mutate. When I say "offensively", I mean as creature control.

[Ozaku]

while I realize that true randomness rewards good deck building, I don't think true randomness agrees with me. without editing my deck at all I can get nothing but pillars in one match and then get no pillars at all in my next match, so I really couldnt win even if I had a perfectly designed deck.
as for the pvp thing, that is actually quite a simple thing to do and easy for a computer to figure out. just set limits on how high or low past the target player's score you can go for the opponent.

...the only thing it screws up is when someone like jmizzle7 wants to go and let people get free points from him


as for the druid and elf, try using mutate on your photons and skeletons in a desperate situation, or perhaps using improve on your opponents if you can then use lobotomy and antimatter on them. or what if the opponent just used antimatter on your 15|2 photon that has growth (which would obviously be caused by improve)? wouldnt that be a good time to use a chaos seed on your own creatures?

[Delreich]

Chaos Seed should be used on critters that you want to get rid of, as only one of the possible outcomes (parallel universe) leaves the target unharmed.

Mutation can go both ways. There's only a 10% chance of killing the target, so odds are good that a photon or similar will be improved.
Used on something threatening, there's only a 40% chance of creating a mutant (unless it already is a mutant) and even then it might be less threatening.

[ivalmian]

Card draws/effects should be truly random... false gods now are NOT equally distributed random.. which is what I don't like

[Essence]

Well, that's because there's 24 "slots" for False Gods, and there aren't 24 False Gods yet.  As new FGs are designed, the chance of facing a particular one will level out.

[Daxx]

while I realize that true randomness rewards good deck building, I don't think true randomness agrees with me. without editing my deck at all I can get nothing but pillars in one match and then get no pillars at all in my next match, so I really couldnt win even if I had a perfectly designed deck.

There is a tip that will improve your odds of an even hand - smaller deck sizes. If you're running 60 cards and a given ratio of pillars, the odds of drawing an unbalanced hand are much higher than if you're running 30 cards with the same Pillar:OtherCard ratio. Alternatively you could decide whether it is better to have more pillars than you want or fewer, and skew your deck so that the outcome you prefer is more likely.

You might have known all this already, of course, but these are some of the ways that randomness can reward good deckbuilding.

[Ozaku]

well I can't quite fit my strategy into 30 cards, but I only have 45 cards and I still have that problem. no matter how few pillars you have, if it's enough to support any deck then it's enough to draw continuously until a false god kills you.

...as for the chaos seed/mutate issue, I know how those are supposed to be used; I've had an entropy deck now for nearly half a year I know chaos seed is used on opponent monsters (or your own if someone used antimatter on it) and it's upgrade is used on your own monsters, while mutate can go either way depending on the monster and improve is always on your own guys unless you have an antimatter to spare (and even then I would just save the antimatter until I see a dragon)

...as for the false god randomization thing; well thats not too much of a problem for me, but I think it might be better if you could pick which element you fight for testing purposes.

[marvin]

i just want to address your second point about deck shuffling. you ever played real trade card games like MTG? The point about a good shuffled deck is, that it _isnt_ shuffled by pure random. What you usually do, presuming you have a one to three ratio between mana giving and mana using cards, is taking one mana (aka quanta) card and then 3 other, again one mana and 3 other, stacking them in this order. Then you shuffle this deck in e specific way, but you still preserve some of the initial order in this deck and by this having a more equally distributed deck sequence.

This is one thing what can't be emulated by an algorithm easily. One thing what should help all of us is the so often desired muligan which lets you draw a new hand with one card less if you had no quanta (or maybe every time).

[ivalmian]

i just want to address your second point about deck shuffling. you ever played real trade card games like MTG? The point about a good shuffled deck is, that it _isnt_ shuffled by pure random. What you usually do, presuming you have a one to three ratio between mana giving and mana using cards, is taking one mana (aka quanta) card and then 3 other, again one mana and 3 other, stacking them in this order. Then you shuffle this deck in e specific way, but you still preserve some of the initial order in this deck and by this having a more equally distributed deck sequence.

This is one thing what can't be emulated by an algorithm easily. One thing what should help all of us is the so often desired muligan which lets you draw a new hand with one card less if you had no quanta (or maybe every time).

actually, this is very easy to emulate by an algorithm...