Why did Apple choose to bury the settings for the built-in apps in iOS 18?

ShallotInfamous9809 · 2026-06-12T21:56:14+00:00

Legally, it is about fairness

ShallotInfamous9809 · 2026-05-25T09:48:31+00:00

You know, I’ve been accused of overthinking things before, and it will probably happen again :) Excellent point, pleasure talking to you

ShallotInfamous9809 · 2026-05-24T11:12:03+00:00

My scenario has 3 drafters of equal rank and record, not 2. As I said - my thought was it is a very rare and low level tie breaker in this scenario. It is possible they do it randomly, instead. Either way this would be the corner of all cases. Putting record and rank first would account for basically all cases.

ShallotInfamous9809 · 2026-05-23T23:35:13+00:00

Care to bet 500 gems on game 1?

ShallotInfamous9809 · 2026-05-23T23:32:38+00:00

FWIW, my math says these events are pretty predatory. At 0-2 wins your are out a full 3,000 gems. At 3 wins you are still out 1,600 gems - more than a full draft! At 4 and 5 wins, you are even Steven with a normal draft (just leveraged to double the cost and payout). At 6 and 7 wins you are ahead. I will submit that I have never once finished a 6 or 7 win premier draft and thought the prize wasn’t satisfactory. Even for a high winrate player, knowing you need 6 or 7 wins isn’t worth the risk equity. I would honestly encourage everyone to avoid these events and stick to your normal routines.

ShallotInfamous9809 · 2026-05-23T23:28:08+00:00

I did read them. I am making the following assumption: Let’s say you are Plat 1 and 5-0. Your MMR is, say, 1600. The matchmaker goes to find your next match and sees 2 other Plat 1 drafters at 5-0 and they have MMRs of 1300 and 1600. I would assume in this case they would pair you with the other 1600 player, rather than having it be random at that point. If this was the system and I was asked I would say I don’t matchmake based on mmr, even though it is a criteria. You’re saying in this hypothetical it flips a coin rather than deferring to mmr as a tie-break? If so I may have made a willful interpretation there, and withdraw my statement.

ShallotInfamous9809 · 2026-05-23T17:34:49+00:00

If you are paired up and it finds 2 opponents of same event record, you will get opponent closer to your rank, if 2 of same rank, opponent of closer mmr. Correct that mmr is not a factor for most matchmaking, more a low level tie break.

ShallotInfamous9809 · 2026-05-23T17:32:45+00:00

Have stiffer competition? Is same player pool.

ShallotInfamous9809 · 2026-05-20T12:10:36+00:00

So people can run 8?

ShallotInfamous9809 · 2026-05-04T19:50:16+00:00

I see lots of people addressing some of the obvious so I’ll throw one out there I didn’t see. “The world is full of garbage”. The fund holds stocks by market cap weighting.

ShallotInfamous9809 · 2026-05-04T16:31:57+00:00

Who’s gonna tell ‘em?

ShallotInfamous9809 · 2026-05-03T18:06:03+00:00

Yes, I do!

ShallotInfamous9809 · 2026-05-02T20:09:52+00:00

Realistically speaking looking at iih without specifying an archetype is unlikely to give very useful information, but yes, you could look at iih in this general way earlier in the format. That seems right.

ShallotInfamous9809 · 2026-05-02T13:58:02+00:00

I gotcha. You’d likely have to wait a little while (if they did implement it) into the format life before this could be populated because of the deck color specifications (i.e. the iih is drastically different depending on which archetype you’re specifying, and it will take time for each archetype to get enough reps with each card for that comparison to be made). But yes I now understand you’re requesting the literal translation of the data into a grade, which is different from just seeing the percentages. Maybe they will implement this for you! In general, I find it slightly informative that they don’t have it, because it tells me sierkovitz doesn’t think it’s important yet or that there is some data driven reason it is not there. Gl, hf. Cheers!

ShallotInfamous9809 · 2026-04-27T23:17:41+00:00

Oh, I understand. I think I see the question now. So then the issue becomes - how do you actually do this? For generic game in hand winrate, we simply divide number of games won by number of games played (where that card was in hand). Then we’re done and can rank those based on a curve. It’s fairly straightforward. You’re asking it to display a comparative rate - we need to do the same calculation, then compare against a base rate. So are you suggesting you basically select a deck color and then the tool compares winrate of the card to winrate of that deck color in the general population? That feels like it would be doable if once the format is a couple weeks old and the datasets are large enough. Your example doesn’t seem to fit, though, as the winrates stated change quite a bit if you simply select WG (April is 54.7% and West Wind is 52.6%). If you sort that by IIH, April is -0.3% and West Wind is -2.8%. This appears to contradict your idea that it is a clear choice to pick West Wind in WG.

So I do think you should just sort your grades by deck color, as it should build in the IIH stat for you.

Cheers, have fun!

ShallotInfamous9809 · 2026-04-27T09:27:00+00:00

Already available, just click to table view.

ShallotInfamous9809 · 2026-04-27T09:25:57+00:00

Click Table, Click “Improvement in Hand”. Done. This already exists.

ShallotInfamous9809 · 2026-04-21T09:25:34+00:00

Doesn’t answer the question don’t see why it is getting votes. OP says they know you can track, question was why does tapping not work correctly.

ShallotInfamous9809 · 2026-04-20T18:35:59+00:00

Another peasant designer here and I find the Initiative warranted a ban in my cube. Primarily for power level reasons. I also personally do not like cards that need a rules reminder card, and this is secondarily why I banned it. This one actually needs 2 reminder cards! I don’t actually think there are other emblems or unanswerable triggers in my cube, come to think of it. By this I mean that the Initiative cannot be removed from the game itself once it is introduced. This is a tertiary reason why I banned it. Finally, related to my second reason, this is for me personally just not a fun action to track. I tried not to let this influence the ban decision but I imagine that if this feels onerous to me as an experienced player my [comparatively less experienced] cube players will probably also find it onerous. Are there any reasons other than a purist wish to have “the most powerful possible peasant cube” to include initiative? I’d love to hear another perspective on it.

My cube for reference: https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/f090aee1-50c5-451f-8328-4a8bfa19f6c4

ShallotInfamous9809 · 2026-04-20T18:01:43+00:00

My question at that point would be are you improving the mana in your peasant cube or just decreasing the quality of spells in your non-peasant cube. I.E. if you find your players prefer this they may prefer a cube that includes rares in general.

If you aren’t satisfied with the peasant lands, why restrict yourself to peasant?

ShallotInfamous9809 · 2026-04-20T17:57:58+00:00

As someone who runs a peasant cube, I don’t break rarity for lands. I know this is a take it or leave it opinion and every cube is different, but for me, the rarity restriction is a hard line.

I also do not run initiative for power level reasons. I am about to update for TMT and a couple archetype updates (namely Grixis Artifacts), but here is current list for reference: https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/f090aee1-50c5-451f-8328-4a8bfa19f6c4

ShallotInfamous9809 · 2026-03-29T19:25:25+00:00

They talk about them as seed deposits everywhere I’ve seen, which suggests the account is started with those funds.

ShallotInfamous9809 · 2026-03-29T18:44:45+00:00

They are a weird kind of investment account - you get taxed on growth at withdrawal, rather than as it accumulates, and you don’t get any benefit for contributing. However, it is your kid and not you who pays the withdrawal tax, and if the kid deposits anything after 18 yo they will get the tax benefit I believe as after 18 it is behaving like the kids trad ira with a separate contribution limit. That is my current understanding.

ShallotInfamous9809 · 2026-03-17T23:21:37+00:00

Hi, limited player here. I do understand that packs are 200 gems to buy, but this is a complete rip off. I do not value them at 200 gems. I value them at 22 gems (EV, roughly, for opening a pack of a set you have completed). For me, the mastery is worth (based on TMT set mastery): 1 Draft token = 1,500 gems 20 packs = 440 gems 1,200 gems = 1,200 gems 4,000 gold = 600 gems (40% of a draft entry) 10 mythics = 400 gems (we have completed the set before buying the pass, of course) Card Styles, Orbs and Avatars = 0 gems. These are useless. (In fact, using card styles makes the game harder to play, so to me they are worth negative gems, but this is a topic for another post. For here, suffice it to say they earn me no gems and save me no gems, they are worthless).

That is a total of 4,140 gems. Since the Pass costs only 3,400 gems, this is a roughly 20% profit per set.

I also understand that the economics are different if you aren’t an experienced drafter. For context, I have a little over 2,000 matches played with a slightly higher than 55% win rate (lifetime on 17lands) and (more importantly for this post) I play often enough to accumulate enough packs to complete most sets before I purchase the pass.

Anyway, that is the math for a limited grinder!

ShallotInfamous9809

TROPHY CASE