They are just too stupid to properly program their software.
The easy way out is to flex the rules of the game to the software and simply ban cards for use in that software.
Its a pathetic show of failed software skills.
But what else to expect from WotC , thats how they operate now.
Does this makes sense to anyone? What does this have to do with improperly programmed software? They apparently programmed the software very well, because they can address this issue with surgical precision allowing players to use the card in formats they want it to be used in and banning it where its undesired.
Your suggestion to ban "for use in that software" rather than in individual Arena formats is akin to banning "for use in paper" rather than having separate banlists for Standard, Modern, Legacy, Vintage, Commander, Pauper etc. How is having a singular banlist a sign of better programming? The opposite is the case: Having a singular software-wide banlist would indicate that they didn't have the foresight to implement more differentiating options.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
Arena might have issues, but bad programming is seriously not one of them. The card design is simply a huge issue and even worse if you can't call a judge on someone. This has nothing to do with programming but everything to do with card design.
I mean Maro went on record and said that Nexus should have exiled itself.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Drop your knees to the floor
Hands to the sky
Give a round of applause
For the great Miss Y!
They are just too stupid to properly program their software.
The easy way out is to flex the rules of the game to the software and simply ban cards for use in that software.
Its a pathetic show of failed software skills.
But what else to expect from WotC , thats how they operate now.
Does this makes sense to anyone? What does this have to do with improperly programmed software? They apparently programmed the software very well, because they can address this issue with surgical precision allowing players to use the card in formats they want it to be used in and banning it where its undesired.
Your suggestion to ban "for use in that software" rather than in individual Arena formats is akin to banning "for use in paper" rather than having separate banlists for Standard, Modern, Legacy, Vintage, Commander, Pauper etc. How is having a singular banlist a sign of better programming? The opposite is the case: Having a singular software-wide banlist would indicate that they didn't have the foresight to implement more differentiating options.
He's not talking about the ban list in that context. We already know Arena can do "surgical" bans with that Dino card.
What the poster is talking about is that Arena isn't capable of detecting a no-wincon never-ending loop involving Nexus. From what I understand, Arena can detect infinite loops where the controller would take the same voluntary action but, for whatever reason, isn't advancing the game state. Nexus is different because the loop crosses turn boundaries. If four Nexus... Nexii? remain in the deck, programmatically, they are tagged as four distinct cards and are shuffled accordingly each time. My guess is these elements are just enough to prevent the loop algorithm from seeing it as an infinite, non-incrementing, state in the game.
So... rather than writing the necessary code to recognize this corner case and greatly increase the possibility of introducing a game breaking bug, WotC likely opted to take the easier (i.e. Less costly) route and ban the card from BO1.
This is a little off topic, but I have never understood (or played against) no-wincon Nexus. How does it win? Doesn't that force a draw every time? How does that favor the Nexus player? And why in hell would you not just play a one-of wincon? The deck has always been considered problematic, but I've never understood how it's even a deck. Going to time doesn't seem like much of a strategy.
"In single-elimination rounds, matches may not end in a draw."
"If all players have equal game wins at the end of additional turns, the player with the highest life total wins the current game."
Okay, but the deck doesn't really deal damage or gain life, so how does that help?
This is a little off topic, but I have never understood (or played against) no-wincon Nexus. How does it win? Doesn't that force a draw every time? How does that favor the Nexus player? And why in hell would you not just play a one-of wincon? The deck has always been considered problematic, but I've never understood how it's even a deck. Going to time doesn't seem like much of a strategy.
"In single-elimination rounds, matches may not end in a draw."
"If all players have equal game wins at the end of additional turns, the player with the highest life total wins the current game."
Okay, but the deck doesn't really deal damage or gain life, so how does that help?
I am ignorant. Please enlighten me.
There is no "going to time" in Arena which is why it is problematic there. The Nexus player just keeps repeating the same loop over and over again waiting for the opponent to concede.
Some decks may have win-cons (I didn't play against a lot of them) but if the wincons are gone, they fall into "keep casting Nexus again and again until the other player concedes".
Arena might have issues, but bad programming is seriously not one of them. The card design is simply a huge issue and even worse if you can't call a judge on someone. This has nothing to do with programming but everything to do with card design.
I mean Maro went on record and said that Nexus should have exiled itself.
Not necessarily true. There was the issue with Captive Audience that got quickly patched in which the player was not automatically forced to pick an option and the game could not proceed until an option was picked. There was also the issue with deciding to create a functional errata with Ajani's Pridemate instead of implementing an "always yield" option. Also it is actually still possible to do the Hostage Taker combo which creates an infinite loop as long as three takers in total are played and at least one is from the opponent which results in another case of the game unable to proceed except through conceding. Among many other examples that do or don't get patched out in usually a speedy manner.
Its not that there isn't bad coding, but that due to combinatorics when designing for a digital platform when involving a card game with so many options, these are bound to pop-up due to the coding not properly handle it and appearing as bad coding. MTG itself is actually a very complex game with several possible moving parts in a given game. Its not uncommon to hear that a judge is called over for a rules question or that a post is made for one for clarification. That these complexities can be taken for granted when applied to a non-physical medium.
Magic has a lot of moving parts and for the most part MTGA handles these things well.
The issue with loops is that despite what people say "advancing the game state" is not a clear cut concept. For example an endless loop where you do nothing but cast spells again and again without gaining mana or draw a card or moving the game forward in any way shape or form is advancing the game state regardless if you have a Grapeshot on your hand. If you don't have anything which takes advantage of number of cast spells this turn you are stalling.
Taking infinite turns can also be beneficial if you have a positive upkeep trigger or if there would be a card which cares in which turn it was cast or whatever weird scenario one might come up with...
However MTGA does not have a looping engine. That is not bad programming that is a feature missing. And you can argue that it is a crucial feature that is missing, but honestly that isn't really one that easy to implement.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Drop your knees to the floor
Hands to the sky
Give a round of applause
For the great Miss Y!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Does this makes sense to anyone? What does this have to do with improperly programmed software? They apparently programmed the software very well, because they can address this issue with surgical precision allowing players to use the card in formats they want it to be used in and banning it where its undesired.
Your suggestion to ban "for use in that software" rather than in individual Arena formats is akin to banning "for use in paper" rather than having separate banlists for Standard, Modern, Legacy, Vintage, Commander, Pauper etc. How is having a singular banlist a sign of better programming? The opposite is the case: Having a singular software-wide banlist would indicate that they didn't have the foresight to implement more differentiating options.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
I mean Maro went on record and said that Nexus should have exiled itself.
Hands to the sky
Give a round of applause
For the great Miss Y!
He's not talking about the ban list in that context. We already know Arena can do "surgical" bans with that Dino card.
What the poster is talking about is that Arena isn't capable of detecting a no-wincon never-ending loop involving Nexus. From what I understand, Arena can detect infinite loops where the controller would take the same voluntary action but, for whatever reason, isn't advancing the game state. Nexus is different because the loop crosses turn boundaries. If four Nexus... Nexii? remain in the deck, programmatically, they are tagged as four distinct cards and are shuffled accordingly each time. My guess is these elements are just enough to prevent the loop algorithm from seeing it as an infinite, non-incrementing, state in the game.
So... rather than writing the necessary code to recognize this corner case and greatly increase the possibility of introducing a game breaking bug, WotC likely opted to take the easier (i.e. Less costly) route and ban the card from BO1.
"In single-elimination rounds, matches may not end in a draw."
"If all players have equal game wins at the end of additional turns, the player with the highest life total wins the current game."
Okay, but the deck doesn't really deal damage or gain life, so how does that help?
I am ignorant. Please enlighten me.
Low-power cube enthusiast!
My 1570 card cube (no longer updated)
My 415 Peasant+ Artifact and Enchantment Cube
Ever-Expanding "Just throw it in" cube.
Some decks may have win-cons (I didn't play against a lot of them) but if the wincons are gone, they fall into "keep casting Nexus again and again until the other player concedes".
I promise I'll look at the bigger picture in another post.
Its not that there isn't bad coding, but that due to combinatorics when designing for a digital platform when involving a card game with so many options, these are bound to pop-up due to the coding not properly handle it and appearing as bad coding. MTG itself is actually a very complex game with several possible moving parts in a given game. Its not uncommon to hear that a judge is called over for a rules question or that a post is made for one for clarification. That these complexities can be taken for granted when applied to a non-physical medium.
Magic has a lot of moving parts and for the most part MTGA handles these things well.
The issue with loops is that despite what people say "advancing the game state" is not a clear cut concept. For example an endless loop where you do nothing but cast spells again and again without gaining mana or draw a card or moving the game forward in any way shape or form is advancing the game state regardless if you have a Grapeshot on your hand. If you don't have anything which takes advantage of number of cast spells this turn you are stalling.
Taking infinite turns can also be beneficial if you have a positive upkeep trigger or if there would be a card which cares in which turn it was cast or whatever weird scenario one might come up with...
However MTGA does not have a looping engine. That is not bad programming that is a feature missing. And you can argue that it is a crucial feature that is missing, but honestly that isn't really one that easy to implement.
Hands to the sky
Give a round of applause
For the great Miss Y!