|
bobvonunheil posted:Shuffling is a flawed practice and I'm doing what I can to smooth out the game experience. If we take Magic: The Gathering as an example, you're basically screwed if there's a chunk of 5 or 6 land cards together, and something like that occuring in a game with a properly randomised deck is statistically highly unlikely to actually occur, so I go through and separate out any chunks of 5 or 6 land, then overhand shuffle it until I'm happy it's mostly randomised again. I only bother doing this with games where having a deck that isn't shuffled properly will cause the play experience to be poor (MtG, Sheriff of Nottingham, Star Realms, etc) If you're shuffling your deck properly, i.e. to fully randomise it, the order of cards when you start has no effect on the order of cards when you finish.
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 00:27 |
|
|
Razor Jacksuit posted:So boardgoons, is Hegemonic any good? It's 75% off at Miniaturmarket today. It's an area control game that walks and talks like a 4x. It's all about figuring out the best way (out of military, political, and economical) to expand your influence and stop other folks from assaulting you. Your conflict power can be boosted by techs in your hand, sort of like the way Kemet does it, but this is more random since it's a random deck compared to Kemet's known set. Overall I quite like it, but a lot of folks will see space hexes and assume it's a 4x and have problems with what it wants them to do. Really threw off the two guys I played it with the first (and only) time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:You are using up the 20s that way, there's a limited supply of them and that way you are just pre-using your supply before the game even begins. Dice sellers should post a profile and back story for each die, like an adoption service, so buyers can make up their own minds.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Dice sellers should post a profile and back story for each die, like an adoption service, so buyers can make up their own minds. I have no doubt in my mind that people would pay extra for sets of dice that came with a cool printed out list of their deeds. People will already spend 30 minutes in a store trying to find the dice that're the most in character.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Nothing sends me into a psychotic blood fury more than when I meticulously shuffle my deck, offer it to my opponent to cut, and they knock it. You just jinxed the whole drat shuffle!
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Dre2Dee2 posted:Nothing sends me into a psychotic blood fury more than when I meticulously shuffle my deck, offer it to my opponent to cut, and they knock it. You just jinxed the whole drat shuffle! I always set aside the top card of my opponent's deck, riffle the rest thoroughly, then carefully put the set aside card back on top.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
I never cut, I figure if you're stacking your deck and need to win that badly I'm happy to oblige you a win.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:I always set aside the top card of my opponent's deck, riffle the rest thoroughly, then carefully put the set aside card back on top. Why?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
psychological warfare, the game starts way before you even open the box, man
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:psychological warfare, the game starts way before you even open the box, man i feel like ive taken the red pill now This changes everything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
quote:If you're shuffling your deck properly, i.e. to fully randomise it, the order of cards when you start has no effect on the order of cards when you finish. Well, uh, I seldom do "fully randomize" in casual play, and neither do my opponents. When we're playing, say, a draft at work, I pick up my deck, mash it a couple times and go. Because I'm not going to fully randomize before a game, I follow a bit of a pattern when cleaning up. At the end of the game, I pick up all my land in one hand and all my non-land in the other and mash them together such that the land is somewhat distributed (and then I put that pile on top of my deck). Technically this is cheating, because I'm essentially mana-weaving. But my intent isn't cheating - my intent is getting to "playable deck without clumps of mana" without spending much time shuffling. Similarly, I never fully randomize when playing Dominion; I have sleeved cards so I pick up my discard and mash it a couple times. But generally there isn't big clumps in Dominion, so unless I Masterpiece and take 9 silvers or something, I don't have to "pre-treat" in any way to jumpstart the randomization. I just pick it up and mash, and so does everyone else; I'd rather the game plays 20% quicker than have everyone be fully randomized.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
jmzero posted:I'd rather the game plays 20% quicker than have everyone be fully randomized. That's understandable. I think the studies say you need about 8-9 good riffle shuffles to get true randomization. That's not a problem if you only need to shuffle once, but certain MTG decks and Dominion require over a dozen shuffles per game. I'm not willing to do over a hundred riffle shuffles for a 30-45 min game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Weak shuffles, intentional or otherwise, can usually keep the same clump of cards at the bottom of the deck (and place them on top easily with an overhand shuffle at the end). I do this sometimes for fun  ( and then shuffle again). I think that's why most poker deals start with a wash or corgi pile before the shuffle, to make sure the ordering prior to shuffling is unknown to the dealer, but I'm just guessing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Seriously, though, my brother got pissed at die rolls in a game of Tactics II once and demanded we test the die. We rolled it like two hundred times and it actually had a notable bias towards sixes 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
I only use the finest, perfectly balanced anodized wooden platinum-enameled d6's
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
I have an app on my phone to monitor my shuffling and tell me what percentage randomized it is. That way I can avoid over shuffling and accidental de-randomization.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Seriously, though, my brother got pissed at die rolls in a game of Tactics II once and demanded we test the die. We rolled it like two hundred times and it actually had a notable bias towards sixes This is likely quite true, cheap dice are put into tumble polishers that bias them in random ways. There is a reason casinos use laser cut dice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSQIir5xxWc
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Shuffle like this if you have decent sized deck and no sleeves: http://youtu.be/Pd-71L3KoOI Riffle riffle riffle block riffle cut (poker deal) If you have sleeves, replace riffle with faro Small deck with sleeves just faro a few times and cut, un-sleeved overhand shuffle a few times and cut and mutter swear words to yourself fozzy fosbourne fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:This is likely quite true, cheap dice are put into tumble polishers that bias them in random ways. There is a reason casinos use laser cut dice: Not discounting what he's saying, but his 80s airbrushed shirt and semi-hoarders style stall does disturb me greatly
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Riffle shuffle is bad and you should feel bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Dre2Dee2 posted:Not discounting what he's saying, but his 80s airbrushed shirt and semi-hoarders style stall does disturb me greatly It's Zocchi. Dude is literally the Einstein of dice. Being the gooniest neckbeard is part and parcel of the experience.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:I think the studies say you need about 8-9 good riffle shuffles to get true randomization. It varies with deck size. If your deck has more than 2^n cards, you need at least n+1 riffle shuffles before you can even think about being done, since until you have that many some orderings will be impossible. After that you may want more depending on the degree of randomization desired and how good your riffle shuffles are; if you're a decent shuffler, one more should be enough if money's not on the line. Dr. Video Games 0069 posted:That way I can avoid over shuffling and accidental de-randomization. That's not a real thing. Once randomized, you can't de-randomize without looking at the card faces. If you can, it means either you didn't randomize in the first place or the cards are damaged.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
bobvonunheil posted:Shuffling is a flawed practice and I'm doing what I can to smooth out the game experience. If we take Magic: The Gathering as an example, you're basically screwed if there's a chunk of 5 or 6 land cards together, and something like that occuring in a game with a properly randomised deck is statistically highly unlikely to actually occur, so I go through and separate out any chunks of 5 or 6 land, then overhand shuffle it until I'm happy it's mostly randomised again. That is not actually true. Take 60 card, 24 land deck and properly randomize it, the chances that somewhere there is a run of at least 5+ lands are decent enough. Buddy did a quick brute force simulation of 100000 randomizations, and the percentage of them with at least one 5+ land run was ~27%. "Properly random" means that runs (of spells and of lands) can occur, equal distribution would be pretty much the opposite of random.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:It varies with deck size. If your deck has more than 2^n cards, you need at least n+1 riffle shuffles before you can even think about being done, since until you have that many some orderings will be impossible. After that you may want more depending on the degree of randomization desired and how good your riffle shuffles are; if you're a decent shuffler, one more should be enough if money's not on the line. It also depends on if the cards are unique or not. That 7 riffle study was based on the premise that the cards in the 52 card deck can be considered unique and that the order of every card dealt matters. That research was followed up with research that shows that for a game where suit is meaningless like blackjack, 4.5 riffle shuffles achieves the same level of randomness as 7 in the singleton game. Also, the order that cards are dealt and whether the order of one's hand matters or not affect this calculation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:It also depends on if the cards are unique or not. That 7 riffle study was based on the premise that the cards in the 52 card deck can be considered unique and that the order of every card dealt matters. That research was followed up with research that shows that for a game where suit is meaningless like blackjack, 4.5 riffle shuffles achieves the same level of randomness as 7 in the singleton game. Also, the order that cards are dealt and whether the order of one's hand matters or not affect this calculation. All good points. In a Dominion kingdom with no draw effects, you only care which block of five each card appears in, and you'll likely have several copies of several cards. In that situation you can get away with significantly fewer riffle shuffles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:This is likely quite true, cheap dice are put into tumble polishers that bias them in random ways. There is a reason casinos use laser cut dice: This was an interesting watch, thanks 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Lunsku posted:That is not actually true. Take 60 card, 24 land deck and properly randomize it, the chances that somewhere there is a run of at least 5+ lands are decent enough. Buddy did a quick brute force simulation of 100000 randomizations, and the percentage of them with at least one 5+ land run was ~27%. "Properly random" means that runs (of spells and of lands) can occur, equal distribution would be pretty much the opposite of random. You can find an exact formula for this sort of thing using recursive probabilities, but a monte carlo simulation like this should be more than accurate enough. Anyway, MtG games typically end before turn 9, so you really want to know if there will be a 5+ land run in the first 15 cards, or so. That probability is much lower, but still high enough to drive me away from the game. EDIT: I did a monte carlo simulation for the run lengths for the first 15 cards of a 60 card, 24 land deck using 100000 randomizations. There's about a 7% chance for a >=5 land run and a 2.5% chance for a >5 land run. golden bubble fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Apr 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Out of all the actual problems with MtG and it's community, land screw probability is what drove you away?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Out of all the actual problems with MtG and it's community, land screw probability is what drove you away? Land screw and land drought's a pretty obnoxious problem and IMO the way magic handles its resources is kind of dog poo poo
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
I tried playing MtG again after picking up eurogames and I couldn't stand having the game randomly designate whether or not you get to do anything on a given turn.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
I agree, I was just joking about that being one of the least annoying parts of playing MtG. I personally love the way Hearthstone manages mana, are there any other card games that have a similar resource system?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
Hearthstone's mana system is bottom of the barrel too it's just better than lands. I would just suggest playing lots of modern card games because there's a variety of resource systems being used and they're pretty much all better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Though it's now defunct, Kaijudo had a pretty good resource system: every card in your hand could be played as a resource of its type or as a spell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
Some Numbers posted:Though it's now defunct, Kaijudo had a pretty good resource system: every card in your hand could be played as a resource of its type or as a spell. ...kinda like Race, or San Juan, or yeah. Not an uncommon mechanic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:...kinda like Race, or San Juan, or yeah. Not an uncommon mechanic. A lot less common in the realm of TCGs, but sure, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
Some Numbers posted:A lot less common in the realm of TCGs, but sure, I guess. The question was phrased "card games", not a specific type. The concept of "your hand is also your pool of resources" is, as I said, common these days.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
Yeah. Magic has the absolute worst resource system except for all the other ones.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
The WoW TCG used a system where any card in your hand could be played face down as a resource (there were no types/colors), but there were also cards called "quests" that could only be played as resources and could be completed for various costs if you didn't have other stuff to spend your resources on that turn to do stuff like draw cards, buff units, etc. e: lots of games have good resource systems, but I can't think of any others that are similar to hearthstone
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
I think you guys are not giving Magic's system enough credit. The WoW TCG used the 'play cards as resources' system, and it was a huge problem for the competitive balance of the game. Decreasing the variance of lands led to a dominance of certain deck types, and also gave experienced players that much more of an edge against newbies that made it hard to break into tournament play. Hearthstone to some extent has the same issue, although they add in additional variance by having randomized card abilities. I don't think Magic is successful in spite of its mana system; I think it plays a huge role in growing the game, even if it leads to feelbad moments. If anything I think the Kaijudo/WowTCG 'play anything as lands' mechanic is an uninformed kludge of a fix for the perceived problems of Magic that the designers made without fully understanding its repercussions. An alternative resource system that I found intriguing, if a bit unbalanced at times in practice was the 'control check' mechanic from UFS. It gave you a lot more ways to manipulate your ability to use your cards, but there was still an essentially random component.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 00:27 |
|
|
Mince Pieface posted:I think you guys are not giving Magic's system enough credit. The WoW TCG used the 'play cards as resources' system, and it was a huge problem for the competitive balance of the game. Decreasing the variance of lands led to a dominance of certain deck types, and also gave experienced players that much more of an edge against newbies that made it hard to break into tournament play. Hearthstone to some extent has the same issue, although they add in additional variance by having randomized card abilities. I don't think Magic is successful in spite of its mana system; I think it plays a huge role in growing the game, even if it leads to feelbad moments. If anything I think the Kaijudo/WowTCG 'play anything as lands' mechanic is an uninformed kludge of a fix for the perceived problems of Magic that the designers made without fully understanding its repercussions. While I agree with you, "I want to design this game but it will only work if I use one of the most random and frustrating resource systems ever" is damning with faint praise. For all its importance and how much people enjoy it Magic is just an awful, awful game in many ways. I maybe shouldn't have said Hearthstone's system is better than lands because honestly that system is pretty bad and lands at least have interesting design space.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 04:55
|
|