 |
Magic-League.com Forums of Magic-League: Free Online Magic: the Gathering Play with Apprentice and Magic Workstation; casual or tournament play.
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
jukai
Joined: 02 Aug 2006 Posts: 24
|
Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:36 pm Post subject: Magic Workstation needs an update |
|
|
We've had the same version of MWS available to us for like at least a year and this is shareware(kind of). I mean if the programmers made it open source then we would see more updates. I am not too sure but the present version has been the latest version of MWS for like at least a year if not more. I wouldn't mind too much to buy this program if it is good.
I think they should:
allow more frequent shuffling. right now its like 2 secs per shuffle which is kind of annoying, maybe they could put a limit on how much times you can shuffle in a period of time but no restrict it to slow shuffles.
Better user interface. Especially the background and maybe the avatar. We dont want to see the same plain background all the time on MWSPlay do we?
What do you think? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Laplie League Staff
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 Posts: 547
|
Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
version .95 (which will now be v1.0) has been in the works for like 2 years. With it, comes a lot of stuff and a whole new game engine.
As for what you said:
The shuffling thing is new to the latest version. In previous versions you could shuffle as many times as you wanted. They put the limit to prevent shuffle flooding. This shouldn't matter because the deck is randomized by 1-2 shuffles anyway.
Changing background and avatar is possible with themes. I highly recommend them since you're able to get real card backs, real mana symbols (instead of colored circles with letters), as well as the updated 8th ed cardface. www.mwsdata.com has them. The catch is, your opponent won't be able to see you changed background or avatar unless you have the registered version. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ronnan
Joined: 08 May 2005 Posts: 161
|
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
do you know aproxemately when it will be released?
i mean rather 2 years or 2 months |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Spyx
Joined: 31 Oct 2004 Posts: 853
|
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 2:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The thing I want most for an update is multiplayer support (as in more then 2 players) 2HG would rock! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ronnan
Joined: 08 May 2005 Posts: 161
|
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
i already played 2hg on mws
well, in lan:D |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kytep
Joined: 21 May 2006 Posts: 76
|
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Laplie wrote: | This shouldn't matter because the deck is randomized by 1-2 shuffles anyway.
|
I generally like MWS (except when it crashes :), and the creators seem to claim that the shuffling is truly random and it doesn't matter how many times you shuffle (one shuffle is supposed to sufficiently randomize), but in my experience, there is no way in hell that's true. I haven't (yet) run a statistical analysis to prove my point, but anyone who has played hundreds of games on MWS like I have (or even a few dozen, for that matter) knows that the land comes in clumps - you'll get a string of all land for several draws (often 5 more more), then no land for many draws. This statistically can happen in a randomized deck on rare occasion, but not virtually every game like it does in MWS.
On many occasions, I've had 24-land decks draw nothing but two land after going through almost a third of the deck, or draw 10 of 18 lands in the first 14 cards. If the shuffler truly randomized, these should be very rare events, but they're not. Just ask the aggro players who play with 18 lands but draw 7 lands in a row starting on Turn 3, or the control players who play 26 lands but can't find that 4th land until Turn 10. Time and time again.
Sorry to rant like that, and as I mentioned, I do like MWS in general, but there is just no way the shuffler is "random", and it is extremely annoying.
Kytep |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Laplie League Staff
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 Posts: 547
|
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kytep wrote: | I haven't (yet) run a statistical analysis to prove my point,
Kytep |
There are people that have actually run statistical analysis and found that shuffler is sufficiently random. First you should read de facto article on deck shuffling http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/4004.html. I've taken a small excerpt | Quote: | Assuming a sixty-card deck, there are n-1 pairs of adjacent cards, or 59 pairs. By multiplying the probability of seeing adjacent lands (.1559) times the number of possible pairs (59), the expected number of pairs observed is 9.2 pairs of adjacent land in a completely randomized deck of 60 cards (assuming 24 lands). In this analysis, a clump of three land is considered two sets of adjacent land, a clump of four lands is considered three pairs of adjacent land, etc.
Let's look at an example: I'll put my deck in its original state, with the twenty-four lands on top, and shuffle it as I described above. To me, this emulates the state of the deck at the start of the tournament, after I registered the deck for example and double checked to see if my land count was correct. Here are the 60 cards, in order (L=land, N=non-land) with the number of adjacent pairs counted:
LNNNNLNLNLNNLNNLLNNLNNLNNNLLLLNNNLL
NLLLNLNNNNNNNLNNLNLNNLLNN
This shuffle produced eight pairs of adjacent lands, which is pretty close to the 9.2 I was expected to get. I then pulled the top 20 cards - similar to a game in which thirteen turns were taken - separated out the land (since it would be separate in play) and repeated my shuffling technique. This produced nine pairs of adjacent land, which is where I would expect the count to be, given a sufficiently randomized deck....I also had three clumps of three lands and a clump of four lands. Calculations, similar to the ones done above, show that you should expect three clumps of three lands and one clump of four land. |
So in any randomized deck, you should expect 9.2 lands next to other lands (assuming 24 lands).
I can't find the link to the guy that did this with mws, but i'll post it as soon as possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Spyx
Joined: 31 Oct 2004 Posts: 853
|
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Still in apprentice manascrew/flood seems almost absent, while in mws it happens all the time. Today in mws I was playing zoo and I kept a four land hand (3 temple garden + 1 stomping ground) while on the draw. First draw: the 4th temple garden, followed by another stomping ground, a sacred foundry and a plains...
And it's not like stuff like that happens just once... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kytep
Joined: 21 May 2006 Posts: 76
|
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="LaplieThere are people that have actually run statistical analysis and found that shuffler is sufficiently random.
So in any randomized deck, you should expect 9.2 lands next to other lands (assuming 24 lands).
I can't find the link to the guy that did this with mws, but i'll post it as soon as possible.[/quote]
Thank you very much for your post, and I'll admit that it is conceivable (but extremely unlikely, IMHO) that my perception (and memory) of non-random MWS shuffling is wrong. I'm getting more tempted to run some MWS shuffles and statistically analyzing them. I'd appreciate it if you could post a link to that MWS article. Thanks.
(I'm still not quite convinced, based on this article, but it helps. I could handle a 3-land or even 4-land pocket every now and then, but it seems to me that MWS runs tend to be a least 5 (or more) lands long, and happen almost every game (and often early, at that). Further, having lots of experience with real-life cards, I know that such long clumps don't happen nearly as often in the physical world as they do in MWS.)
Kytep |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
AKF
Joined: 17 Jan 2006 Posts: 65
|
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think that since mws is a simulation, people will scrutinize its undesirable effects more than real life decking.
Also, people tend to play more on mws than in real life, because cleaning up, shuffling, drawing, and all that stuff is a pain in the neck if done repeatedly, and that people usually get bored playing the other guy for more than three games in a row. MWS sets it up automatically, and you can play ten games in a row with ten different people, so you're less likely to get bored.
Thus, if we got a clump in five games in real life, we would just dismiss it as unlucky, but, since you could play over ten games on mws, you will get more clumps. Once clump wouldn't really stick in your memory, but two does, and three will irk the shit out of you.
this might be the reason why people keep complaining about mws. I acknowlege that computer random is not truly random, but heck, we're playing on computers, deal with it.
Also, Apprentice, from what I heard from a lot of people, mana weaves for you, so you get less clumps. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Malhavoc
Joined: 21 Sep 2004 Posts: 156 Location: Italy
|
Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Apprentice gets less clumps because it deliberately unclumps lands. Ah, that would be called "cheating" in real life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Strovil
Joined: 11 Mar 2005 Posts: 567
|
Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I can't find the link to the guy that did this with mws, but i'll post it as soon as possible |
I love being "the guy that did this with MWS". I really feel the love, Laplie.
Here is the MWS Shuffler article, which references the same shuffling article Laplie linked.
I was one of the playtesters who used and analyzed the MWS shuffler when it was upgraded to the current algorithm and random number generator. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kytep
Joined: 21 May 2006 Posts: 76
|
Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Strovil wrote: | I love being "the guy that did this with MWS". I really feel the love, Laplie.
Here is the MWS Shuffler article, which references the same shuffling article Laplie linked.
I was one of the playtesters who used and analyzed the MWS shuffler when it was upgraded to the current algorithm and random number generator. |
Thanks for the link and for your analysis. Your article has me seriously rethinking my previous position (and is relieving in that I feel much less inclined to perform my own statistical analysis - a prospect I wasn't exactly relishing).
It now seems more probable to me that my issues with MWS shuffler are either of perception and/or the superior (rather than inferior) difference of MWS over my methods of past experience (manual shuffles of physical cards and Apprentice). That Apprentice would be quite different than a truly random generator makes sense, as I understand that Apprentice mana-weaves. It is a bit more surprising to me that physical shuffles could provide such difference, not in that they are not terribly random (that I expect), but rather their lack of randomness would provide fewer and shorter land runs (than a more random generator) over time, rather than more.
So all of this is good for MWS, IMHO, although it can make one re-think testing in MWS if they plan to play the deck IRL. If RL shuffles produce significantly different results than the more-random MWS, different mana mixes are likely needed IRL than in MWS if one is to consistently win games over a sustained period, such as in a tournament.
Provided your article is accurate, my apologies to the MWS developers; it seems my own experiences - which in turn shaped my perceptions - were flawed, rather than MWS.
Thanks again for your article and work,
Kytep |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|