|
4 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 7:20PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Dec 31, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 7:30PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2008
|
Can't be done for time reasons.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 19, 2013 - 1:17PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Dec 31, 2012
|
That seems like a rather silly reason not to make an otherwise reasonable (I think) card.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 19, 2013 - 1:25PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Mar 23, 2006
|
That seems like a rather silly reason not to make an otherwise reasonable (I think) card.
not really. games are played in a limited time frame. in tournaments, I think it's 50 minutes. even if you just got to stack the top 10 cards, and could redo it every time you shuffled, it would eat up a huge portion of that time. do you want that counterspell seven turns from now or eight? do you need the wrath now, or would you rather get the card draw and cast wrath later? there's a lot of decisions to be made, and for all you know, every single one of them could matter.
in casual, there's no time limit, but do you really want to sit there waiting for your opponent to figure out the optimal choice of around 50 cards? assuming no repeats, that's 50! different combinations, or roughly 30 vigintillion. you can eliminate a lot of those for redundancy in most cases, but still, we are dealing with absolutely massive numbers of choices.
120.6. Some effects replace card draws.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 19, 2013 - 1:28PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Dec 31, 2012
|
Do you want me to just make it a one time use thing (as in, on activation)? That seems cleaner anyways, looking back on it.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 19, 2013 - 1:33PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Dec 13, 2011
|
What if you changed it to "If a library would be shuffled, instead it isn't shuffled." That way you could still know what was coming up without having the time issue.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 19, 2013 - 1:40PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Mar 23, 2006
|
Do you want me to just make it a one time use thing (as in, on activation)? That seems cleaner anyways, looking back on it.
I think that might be worse, since the inability to change your choice later means you have to commit now to making the absolute optimal choice, which means that you have to spend even longer on ordering.
okay, here's some more in-depth math than I did last time. let's say, for ease of numbers, you only have 48 cards in your deck. that's roughly 12 novemdecillion choices. now, let's say that everything left is a 4-of. that means that, for each set of 4 identical cards, you have 6 ways of arranging them, all of which function the same. so you can divide by 6 for each set. there's 12 sets, so you can divide by 6^12. that leaves roughly 6 sexdecillion meaningful choices. for reference, that's an order of magnitude larger than the number of atoms in the world. so, you know.
120.6. Some effects replace card draws.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 19, 2013 - 3:26PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2008
|
Now lets say there are 48 cards left, but 20 are lands (roughly 40%), and lets assume you put all of those on the bottom of your deck (even though you probably want a few off them, maybe you have a low curve), and the rest are 4-ofs (even more unlikely). That leaves you with only a little over 60 Quintillion meaningful arangements. If you took ever citizen of the United States and gave them their own full size copy of the Sears Tower, the massive mega city they would inhabit would weigh about as much as the combined weight of every meaningful arrangement of that deck.
I love absurb comparisons for analogies.
"I think me going Bang bang bang I win is pretty intuitive" Mafia Record: Wouldn't you like to know? 2011 Mafia Awards - Mastermind of the Year mymoment
Show
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 19, 2013 - 5:52PM
#9
|
|
|
If you just got to pick, say, one or two cards to put on top, and then shuffled the rest, it could work.
It would still slow the game a bit, because it would increase the amount of shuffling being done; but no-where near as much.
|
|
|
