Cockatrice, a new program better then MWS

mbruker · Joined: 03 Jan 2011 Posts: 1

Hi. I'm the main developer of Cockatrice. Thanks for your interest.
The way I see it, there are two points to be clarified.
First of all, the Cockatrice shuffler does not try to simulate real-life shuffling in any way, nor does the MWS one. Both are supposed to be as random as it gets, and if one works worse than the other (you can check that with simple statistical tests), it is because of a faulty implementation. Please stop discussing this topic unless you post results of a properly done statistical test.
Second, with open-source programs developed with security in mind, cheating is much less of an issue than it is with closed-source programs. Cockatrice uses a client-server protocol where the client (the program used by the player) does not know anything the player is not supposed to know. You can change the code any way you like, and you still will not be able to, for instance, determine or modify the contents of your library. It is a really simple concept and inherently unbreakable. Of course, I'm not claiming the server to be perfectly bug-free, and apart from that, if a malicious player controls the server, he controls all (hidden) pieces of information, but that only shows that the server should obviously be controlled by an independent person (e.g. me). These problems are present in a closed-source program with a perfectly thought of security model as well, but unless you reverse engineer it, you cannot even know how secure it is, making it strictly worse from a security point of view. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_by_obscurity

braden · Joined: 14 Dec 2010 Posts: 10

I'm sorry, but since you said "gr8", your post is rendered invalid. I hate it when people say "gr8".

Azania · Joined: 13 Aug 2008 Posts: 104

Security is always as good as it is coded. For Open Source programs this can be easily checked. Saying things like Open Source is always easy to hack something form years ago and lost its meaning since a very long time. Most of the time, it is the closed source programs that are less secure then that they claim. Reverse engineering is also quite common these days and can easily be done. The generated code is in general also lot more readable then it was in the past.

For most client/server applications (such as this one and most mtg apps, not apprentice though) it is the server where there is the security implemented, that checks the data, the actions, and send it to both players. Meaning that hacking a client would result in a lot of refusal from the server. The server in general also stores the gamestate and actions and info.

No one should say that open source has any less security then closed source apps. In fact it is more the opposite since with open source everything can be checked.

DeMeuh · Joined: 15 Mar 2011 Posts: 1

Hi,

a guy on a french forum did a lot of tests on the MWS shuffler, and even had access to the MWS's shuffler source code, and his conclusion is that THERE IS A BIAS in the algorithm. The results on 100.000 hands show that you will have more mana full hands than with a perfect random shuffler.

http://www.magiccorporation.com/gathering-forum-viewtopic-14-49577-mws-enquete-le-melangeur-de-mws-truque.html

Celebrir · Joined: 14 Aug 2007 Posts: 4

Hi everybody,

I really like this software and I play with it a lot. And I can say that my hands are more or less what I expect from the statistic so I have to highly disagree with the theory that the Cockatrice shuffler is not random (Besides I'm shocked by all the persons who say that rl shuffling is not random. Think about your shuffling methods !).

Despite from that I really enjoy playing on Cockatrice. Yes, it is not perfect now, but it is under development. If I look at my MWS and see that there wasn't much development for ~5 years, I know which software I prefer.

Besides I already played tournament games at Cockatrice and can say that it is very comfortable and secure as far as I (with my knowledge as a uninvolved computer scientiest) can tell.

nsideguy · Joined: 05 Apr 2005 Posts: 1

It's just a matter of time before magic-league moves to Cockatrice. It is available to a much wider audience because it requires less setting up, less hard drive space as card images are loaded from the internet, and quite frankly has a more user-friendly interface.

The future has arrived Magic-league! Support Cockatrice!

frozentoy · Joined: 29 Jun 2005 Posts: 1

I'm with you!
100% support!

Moonstomper · Joined: 14 Aug 2011 Posts: 1

It works perfectly with linux as well

Pokemaster · Joined: 16 Sep 2007 Posts: 40

Cockatrice has a security code, so why is it not used?

EMA · Joined: 15 Feb 2007 Posts: 189

A switch to cockatrice would be awesome, as long as any cheating can be prevented.
The program is just miles better than mws.

p.s A big lol @ irl your shuffles are not random.. Pile shuffling just helps you to divide chunks of cards of the same type that naturally tend to chunk together during a game, so it's actually a better randomization compared to "normal" shuffling.

eaglewolf · Joined: 08 Sep 2004 Posts: 56

See here for some discussion on the trice forum. http://forum.cockatrice.de/index.php?topic=409.msg4072#msg4072

The short version is that trice still lacks game logs and notification when sideboarding is allowed. Once those are added ML should be able to use it. At some point I'll get around to doing it if brukie doesn't get to it first.

stall_19 · Joined: 26 May 2007 Posts: 10

JC_Strainer · Joined: 05 Jul 2009 Posts: 36

The latest release on the homepage is still from (2012-07-02), so those features don't seem to be implemented. Where did you get this information from?

stall_19 · Joined: 26 May 2007 Posts: 10