land distribution/point imbalance crybaby rant

I've done some work on my starting hands and I have found that 15 of the last 20 games where I started with 2 lands in hand, I would go at least 3 draws before I got another land. On hands where I started with 4 lands I would draw land the first 2 draws and then 3 out of 4 draws 13 times out of the last 20 games. Either I am the most unlucky player on Xbox live when it comes to land, or the deck randomization program the game uses is a bunch of crap. And I'm top 500, so it's not like I'm retarded. The last game I played I drew land on red burn 9 out of the last 11 turns. The game before that I started with 2 lands in my hand playing as elves and I finished with 3 lands, 8 turns later. Something isn't right. I know that land clumps up in decks, but not well over 50% of the time, especially considering these decks have too much land to begin with.

I have also noticed that I can go 8-2 over a 10 game stretch and lose 80 points off my rank at the end. Getting 5 points for a win and losing 75 points for a loss is a little imbalanced. If you are going to keep the rate vs risk so imbalanced, at least show people's rank. Nothing worse than getting land screwed to a guy ranked 20,000. At least I hope he's ranked 20,000, because if I lose 75 points to a guy ranked top 5,000 then the point system is far, far worse.

ps- I already identified this as a crybaby rant, so if all you have to offer is regurgitated emo cutdowns then you are wasting your own time because I could care less if some pixelated, petulant *** wants to start drama. This thread is designed to see if other people are having this issue, or if people are even perceptive enough to know whether they are having this issue or not.

 

Discussion Info


Last updated July 3, 2018 Views 6 Applies to:

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.

played 100s of games so far, and havent seen anything not random. But i have heard this before, I dont think its true.

I've noticed that opening hands with 4 or more lands will typically produce 2 or more lands in the first 4 draws.  If I keep an opening hand with 2 lands I will be lucky if I pull 1 land in the first 4 draws.  I saw this type of clumping in the other MTG game too.

 

This game is pretty fun when taken lightly, but it's basically a dumbed down trial version of the game designed to get you interested in spending real $$ on WOTC product. Still, I like this game and will get any expansion released for xbox.  It's the perfect amount of time & money I'm willing to commit to MTG.

This has seemed to happen to me as well, I just chalked it up to bad luck.  But, I don't know, maybe you have something here.

We all know that there are other pretty obvious problems with the game...so it wouldnt be unreasonable to assume that this could be a legit issue.

I can't begin to imagine how many real games of Magic I've played over the years, and there are definite times when you draw too little or too much land, but this problem seems to be the same problem over and over based on how many lands you have in starting 7. It even happens when I muligan. I do like this game, watered down or not. I stopped playing when Odyssey came out and I don't care to buy more cards, virtual or real, so this gives me some nostalgic value, but come on, 'conditional' land issues based on starting hand sizes seems really weird and a bit fishy.

I'm not a computer programmer, So I'm just kindof talking out my butt here, but it seems it would be pretty easy to write a code that basically looks at your deck in secret and auto reshuffles if a certain condition is met,  say X lands clumped.

 As for the rating system.  I did some research on this and found that the Truskill system was developed by microsoft, as a very simple tool that developers can throw in their games so they can advertise "leaderboards" as a feature.  The problem is that the formula that calculates how many ranks you increase or decrease is designed for games that have actual "Skill based Match-making"  Ie. Trueskill 29's get paired against other 29's, etc.  Because this is not the case here, the formula gets all screwed up when the skill gap is very large.  The higher you climb, the more substantial this becomes.  There has been many times that I have won a game and dropped in rank, because my opponent was rated really really low.   Because of this you will rarely see the top players move in rank.  Most of them have been sitting there since the game first released, when there weren't that many people ranked.   This is not to say it's impossible to climb.  I've hit the top 10 twice, but it takes a ton of patience, thousands of games and HUGE winning streaks of 30+ wins in a row to get there, as well as luck regarding who you get paired against.    

Hopefully some day, Stainless Games will realize that Magic is a competitive game and most players would rather have a ranking system that works properly.  Or at least a match-making system that makes this system work properly.  Again, I'm not a computer programmer but is it really that hard to match a 29 with a 29? I can only speculate that their reasoning with not including this is that during "slow" times it could take a lot longer for games to get started, which would make the game look bad.  Personally I would be happy to wait longer for the opportunity to play a better opponent / game.    And there's always unranked games for players that don't want to wait long during those slow times.  

Here is the information I was referencing if you are extremely bored and/or nerdy:

research.microsoft.com/.../details.aspx

very informative. And I agree, the trueskill thing doesn't work. Why it can't match 29's with 29's seems to be a huge problem, especially when you have 30,000 people in the system. I've gone 23-7 the last 30 matches and have lost rank. Two weeks ago I ranked 156. Since then I have had a winning record and my rank has fallen to around 700. No matter what I do I can't keep it under 500 because 1 loss every 6 games erases any gains made, or comes out negative. Even if you always play matches where your deck is favored, land issues always come up, and sometimes they just get better draws, so it's impossible to win 20 in a row consistently just to raise rank 50 points.That's extremely discouraging to be punished for winning because the losses came at such a disproportionate point scale. Nothing scales properly here and they don't seem to really care. Sad.

Heart of the Cards. Pray for that land like a beast, and you will draw it. Then an anime cutseen will break out and you'll turn the game in some weird, illogical way and make your opponent cry. Thats how you fix your problem. As for fixing the rank? That's just broken. I wish they'd have some cool ranking levels, but Trueskill is bad. So bad.

It's funny how you claim to have that problem with a starting hand of two land... whenever I get a bad mulligan with only one or two land, my first draw is always land, so I never worry.  Half the time my second draw is a land too.

"Always" and "Half," huh? Very scientific words there, Mobius. I reported what I actually observed by recording it on paper during each match. You can choose to believe it or not, and regardless of what you choose, it won't change the fact that what I reported was accurate. If what you say is true and you always draw a land every single match you have ever played ever when you start off with 1 or 2 land, spiffy for you. Want a cookie?

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.