Quote from dantroha »Hi Pumpkin_Eater -
That's correct - right now it is not taking into account curve and synergy/card type. We are looking into implementing these in the future but hopefully that explains the current suggestions you're seeing.
The ratings are all maintained by me and based on experience, professional reviews, pick order lists, etc. Essentially what the rating represents is a "pick one pack one" decision based on sheer power level, with some consideration for color. As you move farther away from P1P1 and start building based on synergy, the engine is still only going to make recommendations based on power and your color commitment, not on synergy with what you have.
I will say about Built to Smash specifically that it is the second best red commonH after Welding Sparks. So part of this depends on your view of the format and the fact that WotC lately likes pushing strong combat tricks over removal, for example.
Quote from magicmerl »Quote from Golden »I'm curious to see how you tweak it to handle more synergy oriented sets, seems kinda tricky. I mean do you manually create tags/links between cards that care about each other and assign a value? Or do you design a system that reads player choices and how they change for given cards based on the cards they already have?
I think you have to add more dimensions.
You have some dimensions, like colour-red for example that are linear. The more red cards you have the more highly that causes you to rate future red cards.
Other dimensions have diminishing returns, like 5-drops. Once you have 3 good 5-drops, the bar really goes up before you want more of them. So you need different drafting logic (basically a negative modifier) for them.
So when you want combo cards like Act of Treason and Sacrifice effects, I think you have two dimensions: threaten effects that play well with sac cards, and sac cards that play well with threaten effects.
Quote from Golden »I'm curious to see how you tweak it to handle more synergy oriented sets, seems kinda tricky. I mean do you manually create tags/links between cards that care about each other and assign a value? Or do you design a system that reads player choices and how they change for given cards based on the cards they already have?
Also I don't know that the goal is to make genius-bots. I mean, it'd be cool to *truly* optimize the drafting experience but given that nobody really ever does that with the much more adaptable human brain, I kinda doubt that an algorithm brain is going to manage it. You can write in some kind of value-adjustments based on all sorts of criteria, but actually getting them to adjust correctly gets harder with every variable you add. I mean, ORI is a good format for working out the basics of a bot like this because splashes are basically never a thing and synergy is a low priority. It'll be much harder to make the bots even as realistic as they are now, in a more complex environment. I think bots that can analyze a curve and can usefully evaluate gold/colorless cards probably puts them in a really good spot for players to learn to draft a format. Getting more complex than that is probably a job for actual human players.