Lurker > Lopen

Neat Shepard build I'd actually consider getting it.

1d100% - 1% per the difference in Magus and his target's minbid.

Sub-Zero and Pit in the same set gotta be intentional right?

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/8/2/AAAlMSAAEblu.jpg

I am tempted to get this despite hardly using Wasp. Great variant.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/6/9/8/AAAlMSAAEbX6.jpg

This is actually a really cool combination of effects. I'm not sure I like it on this Mystique though I kinda prefer the rainbow background with this variant. Was hoping for foil + kirby for her. But man I wish I could get ink + white flare on other stuff. I'll probably still use this some.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/6/6/7/AAAlMSAAEbXb.jpg

Galactus had more space debris than he could eat. A true rarity.

Red seems OP if he uses his ability and kinda bad if he doesn't. Not sure that's good design but I like the build otherwise.

King Dedede is by far my favorite build of the set though. Really fun.

I'm not even sure it'll be patched because I'm not sure if it's a bug or intended. Like I said there is merit to doing it intentionally if they want performance data among other things.

Honestly this discussion has motivated me to harvest my own data to test. Next few times I have play sessions I'm gonna try to play 10 of a patriot deck and 10 of my destroy deck and record cards seen.

Am I in or out

Like I can go either way depending whether your setup works better with 13 or 14 I was just never on a player list so I legit don't know.

foolm0r0n posted...

Would you really be saying this if you personally weren't one of those people?

Yes because I've literally seen broken rng hand waved away by a bunch of very intelligent people who were eager to regurgitate stuff from their freshmen psych class happen in other mobile games and then being silently patched and fixed.

This is extremely basic statistics stuff. Random samples are unlikely to contain very unlikely events so if you have a lot of people reporting that it's more likely a problem with the algorithm than a bunch of people collectively experiencing a psychological phenomenon.

It's not design symmetry because Cosmo defeats enchantress outright. That's an asymmetrical interaction in favor of dog.

Enchantress buff will make me actually run her once in a while

What I was finding is she didn't really do what she needed to do because you lost too much power. I greatly preferred Rogue because she converts a lot of her steals to powet for you.

At 4/6 she's usable.

Dude foolmo you just don't get it and you're going to pretend you're smart just like usual

Here's the last post I'm giving you on this. I'm going to give you a completely absurd example so you can (hopefully) get why you can find anomalies in data by anecdote in extreme circumstances.

Let's say Cosmo's overall play rate was something minuscule like 0.01%. Say people never see Cosmo in games. Say you've got hundreds of reports from the playerbase where people swap to decks with Wong and claim they see him 50% of the time.

Now you can either say duh huh frequency illusion duh huh confirmation bias or you can realize that maybe some these people are reporting what's actually happening and that if Cosmo's play rate was actually 0.01% the odds of this happening in widespread numbers would be so small that you wouldn't be seeing it in random samples even if people were being biased because they would have to outright be making things up to see him that often.

Now obviously we have snap.fan's data to compare to and it does give us a decent starting point. For example, valkyrie's play rate is supposedly 6% so it does become a bit odd if I see her play rate increase to 50% if I use cards she counters-- but it's not foolproof because we don't have the data broken down well enough and there could be a higher rate of Valkyries at my matchmaking tier despite not seeing her much at all when I play other decks. It's not a low enough percentage to be ironclad.

Now if it was not Valkyrie and instead Shadow King at his 0.53% play rate I was seeing the argument is stronger. Considerably so. Because the odds of seeing multiple Shadow Kings in a short time frame is very small.

That's why if we had more confirmed data in general this becomes way more testable even with the small sample sets the playerbase has, but doesn't until then. Otherwise you have very smart people who even when presented with tallies will always call it RNG and that we should say the earth is flat because the people who know better said so until we have something that clashes as hard as a Shadow King. Valkyrie at 6% (keep in mind she was higher rarity then so even lower play rate) won't be enough to appease anyone to dive into it further, especially since the explanation then can be hand waved with "well shes in more decks but people are holding her more often when you're not using your destroy deck with big stompies"

Unfortunately because the game is reasonably well balanced you don't have a lot of cards that are basically never used, and if you do it's often because there are better options to do what you want like Shadow King vs Valkyrie. That's why we need more data. If we get breakdowns by Tier and Collector Level we could probably find a lot more low percentage counterpicks to investigate.

foolm0r0n posted...

Either it's easily explained by frequency illusion

My whole point is if the base rate is sufficiently low "Frequency Illusion" is the warm complacency blanket here that people who don't understand statistics but love thinking they understand human psychology flock to.

If people are noticing things that are supposedly completely unlikely statistically often enough it becomes implausible to that it's a matter of Frequency illusion because even with biases you wouldn't have enough appearances of the rare event for people to notice it at that clip.

Just leaving this here so I remember

When you copy real Mysterio with Sinister, he reveals as Fake Mysterio. Or rather he doesn't reveal at all and remains as Mysterio? rather than Illusion.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/9/8/AAAlMSAAEa7y.jpg

Thank you for the history GANON I learned a lot

I feel like most of the people voting for shower pee are they themselves shower pee-ers. We need an 8 option variant to filter those mongrels out like chlorine does for urinological contaminants.

I have never blamed the matchmaking for my rank for the record. My rank is honestly just always going to be in the 70-80 range until I get motivated to grind because that's about my natural movement in a season by doing dailies and the higher rewards aren't great anyway. I guess the 500 gold from 90 wouldn't be bad but if I hit 70 each season I'm pretty good
I just know that the decks you face change wildly and have things that situationally seem very convenient when you swap decks. Just observation of deck composition not even necessarily a good or bad thing for win rate.

Also if they gave us hard data we could establish a set to compare what we are observing to.

Right now just writing down what happens doesn't achieve a lot because our data set is low. We don't know the absolute frequency of a card like valkyrie actually is in matchmaking at where our collector level and mmr is so we can't be totally sure if 60% Valkyrie rate on a deck change is completely ridiculous or not.

foolm0r0n posted...

How would fabricated data from lying devs help?

Data is hard to fake. They haven't produced any data just said it doesn't factor in.

I mean I literally cited an example that I think is less hygienic that I do (missing a day cleaning the cat box)

It's not a hygiene competition it's getting people to accept that what they're doing is not "completely fine because there is running water and soap involved" and they're making a choice to be a little gross for the sake of convenience or whatever else. And because it's so easy to just not do it it's really silly.

It's like kids who pee in public pools. With the amount of chlorination and dilution those pools have it's functionally not a huge deal but man it's still gross (and most people wouldn't debate that-- the difference is most people aren't pool pee-ers so they're not defensive) and I feel like it's probably less gross than peeing in your shower overall.

Unless the reg is daily I don't think you're really helping the issue of pee build up.

Normal shower and toilet cleaning is always good but you're just making it degrade faster sanitarily by using it as a urinal

HanOfTheNekos posted...

If you're going to use the comparison of cleaning shower to toilet, then go ahead and see which one builds up grime quicker - it's the toilet. Turns out that running water is actually pretty good at keeping things moving. Not foolproof, no, but pretty good. But that's all negligible because, again, you're washing yourself in the shower anyway.

The point is you don't want to be walking around in the filth

If you did all your peeing in the shower ot would be a lot closer-- the reason the toilet builds up quicker isn't primarily the running water but the amount of use (and the lack of pooping in it)

Toilets are fairly isolated from stuff in a bathroom by design-- yes there is splash. If you have a toilet right by your sink that's a design flaw in your bathroom.

I mean yes, this is all valid, that's why it's only a little gross and not super gross. Saying it's completely fine is the issue. It's not completely fine. You just are a little gross. And that is completely fine.

Like if you want the non-tinfoil theory about deck matchmaking the "Collector Level" element of the matchmaking calculation is weighing in the collector level you obtained the cards in your deck rather than overall collector level.

In which case yeah you can trust the devs (if they're not lazy and are tracking the right data) to have properly tested it

Personally I see enough benefits to intentionally rigging up the matchmaking that I assume it's working as intended, but SOMETHING is definitely going on with it because there are way too many people noticing it for it to just be "oh no that's just how the randomness in the matchmaking is"

He is not a dev so he doesn't actually know how matchmaking works thus doesn't know what to test and isn't running a thorough study without that.

Look up sampling bias for a start if youre still confused. Inherently because he's swapping between decks he uses and not random decks his data isn't valuable any moreso than players who are just making observations.

The fallacy is that observations are meaningless and trying to fu fu handwave them all as anecdote. Observations not matching expected behavior are literally the first step in starting any proper study. Hand waving people for not having enough data (they literally cannot have enough data for a proper study anyway as they don't have access to it) is just a masturbatory "look how smart I am I know what an anecdote is" and not productive at all. What we should be doing is prodding the developers for more data (if we care-- I personally don't as I see more benefits than drawbacks to deck based matchmaking anyway) not belittling people who are noticing it.

And like I mean I've said it multiple times it's not really THAT big a deal

My issue is less that I think it's completely disgusting and more that it's so easy to not do it and people are saying "well there's water and soap" like that means anything. That's not how cleaning actually works.

There are worse things I do. Like sometimes I miss a day of cleaning the cat litter box due to being busy. That's more gross than this. Cats in a dirty litterbox are more likely to touch their paws to poo and track the bacteria and whatnot from the poo around the house for a bit.

But it's so easy to not do this. It's effortless.

If anyone said "yeah I do it and it's kinda gross but I'm okay with it" I'd have no issue. The self delusion rampant in this topic is the problem.

You're being gross. Just own it. Don't call the people who are calling you gross OCD clean freaks or try to rationalize it because of third world countries having poor living conditions or splash on the toilet or whatever else.

Soap and body wash rushing over the floor of your shower is not cleaning your shower

Unless you all are rubbing that into the floor you aren't meaningfully cleaning the surfaces of your shower just deluding yourself into thinking you're not being disgusting to make you feel less bad about having no self restraint.

We have to lather when we clean for a reason. Just soap touching a surface is not sufficient to clean it.

LightningStrikes posted...

The rationale is not that Activision are a potential provider of cloud gaming being removed, but that Microsoft buying Activision will make them even more dominant in a space they already have a huge advantage in.

But if Activision is not a potential provider what meaningful advantage are they gaining by acquiring them.

At that point you might as well ban Microsoft from acquiring anyone as you can argue they'll gain a benefit to their cloud gaming by increased revenues allowing them to invest more into cloud gaming.

Definitely think there's some secondary agenda there.

If you mean the overall theory, literally everyone who has noticed matched cards change significantly when they change decks. Really smart and intelligent people are putting their fingers in their ears and saying lalala anecdote but I don't think it would be noticed on quite as large a scale if it wasn't actually a thing that is happening.

If you mean
"Players who don't have all the data are doing attempted statistical analysis" plenty of YouTubers who don't actually have all the data such as RegisKillbin have attempted to determine if it was happening by just tallying his games. Probably tons of highly intelligent players like yourself have in internet forum arguments as well.

"Devs are probably lying" while we don't have direct evidence they have lied to us yet we have clear motive for them to, no real conclusive way for them to be caught, other game devs who have lied about the mechanics of their game, and some poor form moves such as nerfing Shuri right when she drops to pool 3 that doesn't give me a ton of faith that this dev team is some sort of paragon of morality that would never lie to their playerbase.

I clean my toilet a heck of a lot more often than I clean my shower and am not stepping in my toilet is the difference

Aecioo posted...

where is the "poop and then mash it with your feet so it goes down the drain" option

Completely fine. There is water and soap after all. Should be on the poll.

I mean do you use soap?
When you wash your hands do you let soap run over the hands and don't use any lather?

It's not the most disgusting thing in the world but playing dumb about it doesn't change the facts your shower is less sanitary than someone who doesn't. If you're at peace with diluted filth residues and odors slowly accumulating in the place you're getting clean in by all means continue but pretending it's completely sanitary is absurd.

I'm not judging anyone just stating facts. I will still shake your hand and I will still use your shower, because while it's gross it's not super gross, but you are compromising your sanitation whether you choose to be in denial about it or not.

KingButz posted...

All you people who think peeing in the shower is disgusting are woefully ignorant about how filthy the world around you is.

You're right we should probably just shit in our beds because of all the unsanitary conditions out there. There is no saving us.

foolm0r0n posted...

This theory has exactly 0 data points. So can it even be called a theory?

It actually has a ton of data points but people who think they're intelligent and don't understand how the scientific method actually starts are discarding them all as anecdote.

Thinking about Jeff but I'm not sure he really enables any decks and he probably drops to series 4 pretty quick

Might just buy Galactus. There are interesting takes I can do on it I think. But I'm not sure it'd be super fun. Maybe Thanos would be more fun.

I'm not really cool with the amount of cleaning residual water gives. It's not sufficient. Urine stinks.

Maybe the day before I'm cleaning my shower for real it would be fine but yeah you need to clean toilets and even urinals for a reason "the water is carrying it off its no harm!!" no it is gross and becomes gross much faster than it does if you just don't do that.

Colegreen_c12 posted...

If you think peeing while you shower is gross clean your fucking drain more regularly

To me it's less about the pee that goes into the drain and more about the splash/drip

If you can get everything perfectly into the drain great. If you're dripping and splashing onto parts of the shower floor then yeah kinda gross. I'm not sure enough of my aim to want to play that game.

The scourge has deigned not to play so I am willing to play

foolm0r0n posted...

Which is the case for the people who actually tested this, and definitely not the case for the anecdotal people

The people who have tested this either

1. Are players who think they have all the data but are ignorant of what they need to test.
2. Devs who don't want the playerbase to know the matchmaking isn't pure and are probably lying because why wouldn't they.

Kirby's Pinball and Pokmon Pinball were both very fun

Someday I'll try Metroid Prime Pinball

Space Cadet is overrated for sure, but better than Sonic Spinball

foolm0r0n posted...

You're talking about statistics, which is the most easily tested thing possible

It's only easily tested if you have all the data and know what you're actually testing.

If I'm changing the data based on variables you're not accounting for or properly weighing your statistical analysis is worthless.

Like consider the following hidden values, each card having one and your deck also having them summed up and weighed until matchmaking

Speed
Control
Combo
Interaction
Test1
Test2

Maybe they intentionally rig up decks that have mutually high Test values to test match-ups on cards they want to see interactions between. Maybe they rig up speed decks vs control decks, or combo decks against one another. The possibilities are endless. And this is just a hypothetical by one person thrown out. With a team of developers who have all the data and game theory at their fingertips you could come up with all sorts of things.

And frankly they would be stupid not to rig the matchmaking in some ways to get data to help balance the game with.

WazzupGenius00 posted...

Their collection filter cant even differentiate between cards that move and a card like Cyclops that says move out in its flavor text, how could you possibly think they have the technology to analyze what your decks strategy is and pair you against people who perfectly counter you (or run the same strategy as you, if thats the particular flavor of this conspiracy that you believe)

Different focuses of development. You might as well argue that the balance of the game can't be good because there is no thought put into the card filters too.

Matchmaking is pretty vital to the function of the game and it wouldn't really be as complicated as you might think to measure a lot of different factors when determining your opponent. People have already said it factors CL and Rank-- giving each card some other factors to throw into the mix and giving each individual deck a value that draws from those that also influences matchmaking wouldn't be some sort of inconceivable leap in tech.

The alternative is a bunch of people are having some weird bias on random data based on "???"

Like I will stress I don't even mind it-- it's not some sort of grand conspiracy theory where Im losing games and blaming this-- overall I don't think it costs me more games than it wins me. I just know if I have a long session and play one deck many times and then swap decks, most of the time I will start seeing weird things I never saw playing the other deck. Without fail. And it's always glaringly weird like not seeing Valkyrie for 30 games then seeing her 60% of the time after swapping decks.

I mean anecdote is meaningful in certain strange situations if you're testing extreme edge cases. Just as tests with data can be misleading if you're testing the wrong aspects of the data.

I remember I used to play this game called WWE Supercard and people who said that a certain pool of like 6 to 8 Super Rares were way more common as drops from the rewards board than the rest of the pool of like 50 other SR. The devs rebutted by posting STATISTICS.

The problem is the drop statistics tested included King of the Ring drops which were like 95% of the Super Rare drops which did not experience this bug.

Eventually the problem was silently patched out. No one admitted anything but it was extremely obvious when the flip got switched to anyone who played a lot of exhibition games.

Yeah to me it's less something that is easily tested and more a "well I changed decks and now I'm seeing a bunch of different decks archetypes than I was seeing before and repeatedly at that" and this will be in the same sitting.

Like I think people are not testing the right thing. I want something like "if I run this decklist what are my odds of seeing card X Y and Z in the other deck"

I think for example if I run Stature I will see more discard decks. If I run Patriot I will see more enchantress/rogue decks. If I run Ronan I will see more Devil Dino decks, etc. It's not about overall win/loss but just specific match-ups. Certain decks like self destroy or Lockjaw tends to mirror a lot too I notice-- Like I play Nimrod I see more Nimrod decks than I normally see otherwise.

skullbone posted...

Lose 4 games in a row to Super Skrull when I haven't seen Super Skrull 4 times total in my entire Marvel Snap history.

Switch to a Bishop zoo deck and lose to Killmonger on turn 6

I give up, 60 isn't happening.

I still think the game rigs matchups. Not so much to specifically counter a player but just to make things "interesting" which hoses one player or the other depending on which player gets the bad half.

Like the tea?

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/2/8/AAAlMSAAEaEA.jpg

First time I ever BMed someone

They revealed first. My gambit didn't go off. They see they are winning right by 1 and spam Thanos Snap.

Then Adam Warlock goes off and makes their Dark Hawk + Mystique weaker and I win.

You bet I spammed a snap emote there.

Orka isn't really that bad.

Lol my stupid degenerate combo deck getting both of its comboes off on turn 7

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/2/1/AAAlMSAAEaD5.jpg

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/7/2/AAAlMSAAEZzg.jpg

Funniest Doc Ock ever

He pulls my own Juggernaut (from Cable) and 3 of their good cards into rickety bridge. Juggernaut punts Doc off the bridge to save him, and also before Shang Chi goes off

Needless to say I won this one (he chose to play it out which was strange)