MTG Duel of the Planeswalkers 2013

[Anzekay]

Did they just put the price down? I could have sworn it was like £12.99 before, now it's £6.99, but there's no 50% off or anything. Was it always that cheap, and I'm just high and have been imagining it was more expensive than it is? The 2012 version is £15.

Maybe you were looking at the special edition?

[Pinky]

Not sure if you've ever participated in a proper, intelligent discussion, but you don't just get to say 'You're wrong' and walk off. Care to break down my math and show the mistake?

Your numbers were based on 20 cards in a 60 card deck being lands. They're not, 9 of the 10 decks have 25 lands and the other has 24. If I have to hold you by the hand and walk you through your own stupidity, you should realize now is the time to shut the fuck up and bitch out, idiot.

[Jonathan Meer]

When using mathematics to prove a point, it's considered good form in argumentation to be as generous as possible. Considering the focal point of the mathematics was the lower-bound of mana (2-3 lands in 20 cards), I selected an amount of mana for the deck that was on the lower end of things, to provide statistics as favorable as possible to your position, to further emphasize how ludicrous your claims are.

Redoing the statistics with 24 and 25 mana only makes the statistics for 2-3 mana in the first 20 cards that much more extreme. You're parroting that as if it's some resounding refutation of everything I've written to this point when it actually further disintegrates your argument.

And, again, the ad hominems aren't helping your case any. This isn't a high school cafeteria debate.

[Vad]

It's hilarious reading Pinky who is in your face aggressive and reading Meer who is so passive aggressive it's sickening at times.

Makes me lol

[Pinky]

When using mathematics to prove a point, it's considered good form in argumentation to be as generous as possible. Considering the focal point of the mathematics was the lower-bound of mana (2-3 lands in 20 cards), I selected an amount of mana for the deck that was on the lower end of things, to provide statistics as favorable as possible to your position, to further emphasize how ludicrous your claims are.

Redoing the statistics with 24 and 25 mana only makes the statistics for 2-3 mana in the first 20 cards that much more extreme. You're parroting that as if it's some resounding refutation of everything I've written to this point when it actually further disintegrates your argument.

And, again, the ad hominems aren't helping your case any. This isn't a high school cafeteria debate.

I said that I played five consecutive games of 12-15 lands, not five games of 2-3 lands. Your reading comprehension is shit, meer. Also, you're a stupid twat to think that statistics matter in any specific instance. Stop being a stupid twat, meer.

[Vad]

I said that I played five consecutive games of 12-15 lands, not five games of 2-3 lands. Your reading comprehension is shit, meer. Also, you're a stupid twat to think that statistics matter in any specific instance. Stop being a stupid twat, meer.

I'm fine with you arguing with him over the mechanics of a game, but just be careful at how direct you are with your aggressive replies. This is a verbal warning to not flame him. Call him out on whatever you want just keep this civil.

[Super Buu]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnHmskwqCCQ

[Anzekay]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYuF3T7s7XY

[Jonathan Meer]

Oh, wait, suddenly your play-lots-of-crappy-games clusterfuck has finally broken through to me. See, the other day I was overdrawing a metric ton of land cards. But tonight, I was drawing 2-3 lands in the first 20 cards. (for fucking real) But see, between the games where I drew too many and the new games where I drew too few, the average comes out to about 7-8 lands in the first 20 cards, which is perfectly normal. What an ideal system this is, all of my criticisms are now moot. Thanks for teaching me the joys of averages, meer.

This was the post I was replying to when I generated the statistics for the odds of consecutive bad draws (as calculated by the lower bound of <4, which you specified in the above post, and the upper bound of >10. My reference to five consecutive games was not a reference to your earlier post, but rather a suggestion for a typical number of games that might comprise a set.

If your opponent in argumentation says something that appears incorrect, it's generally much more worthwhile to be charitable and ask for clarification. That way, if there's a misunderstanding, you don't come out of it looking worse (particularly if you indulged in ad hominem).

The redone statistics (using that same calculator, which by the way is not difficult to understand and you can use yourself if you're interested) for 25 lands in a deck, drawing 3 or fewer in the first 20 cards (out of 60 total) will only occur 0.28% of the time (or, roughly, 1 in every 390 games). Will it occur? Sure. Will it occur twice in a row? Almost certainly not. Thus, the argument for multiple games in a set to weed out the unfortunate aberrations.

EDIT: Also lolwut at "statistics [don't] matter in any specific instance"?

[Pinky]

Still trying to disprove that the games actually happened with number theory and using the phrase "opponent in argumentation" is another example of how you're a parody of the pseudointellectual. This has got to be trolling. My point is that the game is broken because this shit happens. Since you decided to jump in and defend this awful system now you're just trying throw numbers up as an excuse to ignore reality. But keep flailing, I'm sure I'll get bored eventually and you can declare victory when I completely lose interest.

And yeah, the games did happen. I remember the low land games because one of the games was 2v2 and an opponent played LD so it was that much worse. The only reason I bought this game was because it's been so long I had forgotten why I stopped playing in the first place. Once the cards I got from the hacked codes lose their novelty I'll be taking another 10+ year hiatus.

[Jonathan Meer]

Still trying to disprove that the games actually happened with number theory and using the phrase "opponent in argumentation" is another example of how you're a parody of the pseudointellectual. This has got to be trolling. My point is that the game is broken because this shit happens. Since you decided to jump in and defend this awful system now you're just trying throw numbers up as an excuse to ignore reality. But keep flailing, I'm sure I'll get bored eventually and you can declare victory when I completely lose interest.

1) You've fundamentally misunderstood my argument. I'm not attempting to disprove that the games actually happened. 0.3% does not mean never. I don't doubt that you played a game where you only had 3 lands in the first 20 cards you drew. My point is, however, that the best way to minimize the impact of these aberrations on a tournament is to increase the number of games that are played in a set. Thus, instead of a X% chance that someone gets completely fucked over, it's X%^5 (assuming a five game set).

2) I'm not trolling.

3) I again invite you to point out the error in the mathematics I've presented so far, if they are as meaningless as you say. I've heard a lot of bluster from you on this point, but no actual analysis.

[Pinky]

You've aready gone back and changed your numbers, if you are trying to claim that you do not know why you did this then you're trolling. You clearly tried to use number theory to dismiss the very real issues that I am bringing up, now trying to downplay your own dismissal is trolling. And if you're not trolling then lol parody of a pseudointellectual

[Jonathan Meer]

I redid the calculations to edit an input that I was estimating earlier. The updated calculations only swung more heavily into my favor (regarding, specifically, the decks in Planeswalkers 2013, which are what upset you so thoroughly in the first place). I know exactly why I did this, and nowhere claimed otherwise. Why you continue to harp so heavily on these updated calculations, I've no idea. They only serve to undercut your argument that much more than the previous calculations.

I didn't use number theory (which refers, instead, to the study of the properties of integers and integer composites), but rather, statistics.

I'm not downplaying anything. I think your argument (that the game must be overhauled to be fair-and-balanced) is absurd, and have not found any of your criticisms compelling or substantial thus far. I've maintained that consistently over the course of this thread. My use of statistics has been to make a positive argument for another solution (that multiple games are played in a set to establish fair-and-balanced tournaments). Insofar as this other solution is far simpler, has been employed in many competitive sports to great effect, and doesn't require a fundamental rewrite of the game rules, such that the game would be radically changed, I think my solution is far superior.

[Pinky]

You're going in a circle. You demand to see where I find flaw in your math, but know full well that I pointed out where you were wrong before. You bring up useless statistics to dismiss my experience -- don't glaze over it this time -- where in a series of five consecutive games I drew 12-15 lands in the first twenty cards. This is supported only by the stupid idea that poor game mechanics can be overcome by volume of games played. And not just any volume, you specifically said five games -- the amount of my example -- is the magic number to overcome the problems highlighted in my example. Bwah? Once we're back to this point, you again demand to see where I find issue with your math and the circle continues.

Anyway, you basically accuse me of lying about my example with things like this:

"EDIT: Fun fact, assuming a typical Magic game takes 15 minutes, you would have to play non-stop for about 195 years to get five straight games of draws that poor."

But you said that's not what you're claiming... it's just the logical implication of what you're typing. I was giving you the benefit of a doubt by saying all of this is just trolling. It's now clear that you're serious. Holy shit.

[Jonathan Meer]

I'm willing to declare absolute victory at this point.

[Pinky]

I'm sure you are.

[Jonathan Meer]

[Super Buu]

I like Duels of the Planeswalkers 2013, I think it is a good game.

[Pinky]

MTG 2013 is okay for the price. I just completely forgot why I stopped playing Magic a decade+ ago, if I had remembered then I probably wouldn't have bought it.

I was thinking of replacing the body of any given post of yours with this. Thanks for doing it for me, makes my participation a lot easier. But before you go, please explain to me the rules for dealing with my "opponent of argumentation" again, it was so riveting and helpful the first time.

Or explain how my results are confirmation bias when I had fogotten why I stopped playing before, only to have resent results jog my memory? Or how my reference to number theory went over your head because you are obsessing over estimates rather than addressing my criticisms of the game? Guess I shouldn't expect you to get it since your knowledge of num theory is probably based on the first item of a google search, though.

Ride, ride into the sunset of your absolute victory.

[Jonathan Meer]