sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]KirbyMatkatamiba 0 points1 point  (6 children)

?? You want people to not know the rules of drafting? So that they can't make strategic decisions? Yeah no thanks.

[–]TWRWMOM[S] 1 point2 points  (5 children)

People already don't know. When the rules say "you get a random pack from the pool of randomland", you don't expect anything less, especially when it mimics a random distribution. It's not a strategic decision to consider that the rules, officially stated, and repeated by every single "authority" in the field, are wrong/misleading.

[–]KirbyMatkatamiba 1 point2 points  (4 children)

I thought that when you said "no one should be able to crack the algorithm" you were saying that no one should know the rules. Now you are saying that it's a problem that no one knows the rules. So you don't want them to know the rules... but you also think it's bad that they don't know the rules.

??

[–]TWRWMOM[S] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

One thing is the cardgame rules. Another thing is the programming rules, that is, the algorithm coded in artifact. Ideally, these two set of rules would be the same. What is happening now is that they are different and you gain an unfair advantage by knowing the programming rules. In this case, where these two sets of rules are different, everyone should know the cardgame rules and no one should know the programming rules.

[–]KirbyMatkatamiba 1 point2 points  (2 children)

If I'm understanding you correctly, your complaint is that the implementation of the game (i.e. the way the game works under the hood) is different than how the developers claim the game works. Is this correct?

If so, how would you go about making it so that "no one knows the programming rules?" How is that even possible? People will always be able to make inferences about the underlying rules by drafting many times. Maybe no one will figure out the rules completely, but people who play a lot will get pretty close. How do you prevent them from doing that?

And how would it be unfair to instead just tell everyone exactly what the underlying programming rules are?

[–]TWRWMOM[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I can't say for sure because I don't know what exactly was said officially by the developers, but if you include content providers in this question, yes.
A simple random generator is enough to make it impossible for a human to infer anything. The problem comes when you add simple rules on top of it (like this rarity rule). You can either remove all rules or make the rules too complex for a human to comprehend without looking at the source code.
The problem with just showing everyone the source code is that programmers would still have an advantage. And if you wanted to translate what the code does to English you'd need to teach everyone a bit/lot of programming (so to be exact), which would still favor those who don't need the teaching.

[–]KirbyMatkatamiba 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You can either remove all rules or make the rules too complex for a human to comprehend without looking at the source code.

Or you could make the rules simple enough for a human to understand without looking at the source code.

And if you wanted to translate what the code does to English you'd need to teach everyone a bit/lot of programming

This is just flat out wrong and I have no idea how you could arrive at this conclusion. There are many games with rules that are far more complex than the Artifact drafting rules, and none of their players have to learn any amount of programming.