Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: A new low for WizKids.

  1. #1

    A new low for WizKids.

    Watch the video (all of it):



    Seriously WizKids?!

  2. #2

  3. #3
    Because 1 box exists like this wouldn't that mean that these exact packs would occur less frequently in other boxes printed and packed around the same time, meaning that there are other boxes with more frequent duplication? Not to the extent of this box, but moreso than in other batches.

  4. #4
    And there have, indeed, been numerous other reports of feeds that are like this and worse.

  5. #5
    That's abysmal. I'd tell you if my boxes looked like that in terms of dupes but I can speed through a case opening in less than half an hour. I look for the rare or super rare stripe and sort through commons/uncommons afterwards. This news certainly explains the recent rainbow draft we did (which I am currently typing up a report on for those interested). I do recall seeing a lot of iceman and black widow cards bunched together, and they were by far the dominant (by volume) dice in the rainbow.

  6. #6
    Did you get any Carnages with Ghost Rider dice, @Osprey ?

  7. #7
    Now that you mention it, I think I did get a lot of those. This is bothersome to say the least. Definitely enough to stop me from buying another feed to further flesh out my spare stuff at least. I'm looking at my dice box now and it's full of similar pairings.

  8. #8
    Sounds like the draft feed might have been identical to mine.

  9. #9
    We needed 2 feeds and they got mixed together by the staff somewhat, but the SR's ended up being Morbius & Venom. May have been one more but I can't recall what.

  10. #10

  11. #11
    Definitely wasn't Black Cat or I would have traded for it on the spot. It wasn't a zombie either. I think it was Spider-Girl or Iron Spidey.

  12. #12
    Looks like I made the right choice skipping this set. This company simply cannot be trusted to get their act together, and it's too bad the game was left in such consistantly incompetant hands - it was fun for a very short while.

    A couple missteps here and there is one thing, but this is an increasingly disturbing trend that continues to get worse with each release...

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by IgwanaRob View Post
    Looks like I made the right choice skipping this set. This company simply cannot be trusted to get their act together, and it's too bad the game was left in such consistantly incompetant hands - it was fun for a very short while.

    A couple missteps here and there is one thing, but this is an increasingly disturbing trend that continues to get worse with each release...
    This set clearly had production issues. They likely cause the release delay.
    We can blame WK for poor choice is producer, but the intellectual product they are releasing seems to be improving.
    Perhaps the lack of attention in one department led to better increases in the other, but certainly much can be learned from this lesson.
    Here is hoping that learning occurs before Worlds Finest.

    I doubt TMNT or DnD2 will have such issues, because of WotC involvement and the non-collectable nature of TMNT

  14. #14
    My repeats featured mostly the same pairs. Most of them times five except for Luke Cage/Dagger of which I got 7.
    In total they were more than half of the feed (which actually contained 91 packs).

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ASM_feed.jpg 
Views:	86 
Size:	357.3 KB 
ID:	3969

    Edit: Watching the video more I am pretty sure that we got identical feeds up to a single pack (same SRs, same duplication, mismatched Carnage dice, 91 packs, no Hulk or Aunt, double Cloak pack). I don't know if this is unusual maybe before some feeds were identical, just nobody noticed it. Though I assumed that the randomization process is manual, which wouldn't have such effect.
    Last edited by nutki; 11-22-2015 at 08:16 AM.

  15. #15
    Ouch, that would be frustrating. My GF was not having that issue - distribution was pretty much like the last couple releases (WOL & AOU).

  16. #16
    For anyone who would minimize this as a problem...

    So while it's possible for anything to happen with a random distribution, stuff like this should only happen at MUCH larger numbers than they could possibly be producing to be happening due to random chance. When there are identical feeds and/or feeds like Scott got, I think that damages trust. Especially when you RELY on true randomness in order to play things like draft. Draft makes it a necessary element.

    So what it calls into question is - how random is it truly? We probably shouldn't be consistently seeing "partner" cards (ie, rare MJ being accompanied by C Mysterio or whatever it was) because that indicates that their process isn't actually random. We certainly shouldn't be seeing Nutki get nearly the same feed as Scott, especially with the same mismatched die.

    And if you don't think that's an issue, I point you to the game Press Your Luck - the "Big bucks, no whammies" game show - that everyone assumed used a random pattern as the lights flashed on the various things that could happen. Turned out it was a specific algorithm that they used that repeated over time. Some guy memorized it and got on the show and took 'em for lots of money.

    (See Michael Larson heading here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Your_Luck)

    So in a game that absolutely relies on randomness for its distribution and certain methods of play, anything that points towards something ​*not*​ being truly randomized is going to inevitably damage trust. Can you imagine drafting out of a feed like Scott got? It would make me worry about drafting ever again.

  17. #17
    So while we can't fix the limited problem, I suppose people could trade to fix their opened packs.

  18. #18
    Agreed, atleast with these crazy feeds, you still have trade cards.

  19. #19
    @Dave : actually, true randomness is worse than what we have here.

    Let's start by looking at what we know about a 'normal' feed:

    1. You will get a complete set of commons.
    2. You will get most of a complete set of uncommons.
    3. You will get around 16 rares, most, if not all, will be unique in that feed.
    4. You will get somewhere between 0 and 3 SRs with 1 or 2 being the vastly most common outcome.

    If feeds were truly rare those 4 things would not hold true for a significantly large proportion of feeds.

    And I believe DM sells in large enough numbers that we would see feeds with a great many duplications of a just few cards very frequently.

    But those above marks of a normal feed have held true across multiple sets.

    So, feed contents simply cannot be truly random, and there have been numerous independent reports from each set since about DnD, to support this.

    Unfortunately, that means that when errors like this occur, the problem will be duplicated across all the feeds that have the same distribution.

    But, non-random feeds are actually vastly more desirable than non-random ones.

    The ideal, though, is to use such a large number of packing permutations that the non-random nature is not so readily apparent.

  20. #20
    Well rarity effects this as well, which would account for your points above. And, we're talking about combinations, not permutations, because the order doesn't matter.

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Well rarity effects this as well, which would account for your points above. And, we're talking about combinations, not permutations, because the order doesn't matter.
    I was not using permutation in it's strict mathematical sense.

    Anyway...

    The rarity distribution only affects the number of each rarity you can expect in a feed.

    It does not affect the distribution of characters within each rarity.

    And it is that second point that is key to understanding why they cannot be truly random.

    Let's take the normal 16(ish) rares in a feed.

    If the distribution of characters across those 16 rares is truly random then getting 16 identical rares is just as likely as getting any other of the possible combinations.

    However that is a wholly undesirable outcome.

    And, so, the production line will be programmed to select a pseudo-random combination of cards to go in to a given feed.

    There will then be several different such combinations, either as different sequences the production line cycles through, or different productions lines each of which produce a different sequence.

    Either way, each sequence will be reused over time, and so 'twinned feeds', and probably 'twinned cases' too, will inevitably occur.

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion0x17 View Post
    I was not using permutation in it's strict mathematical sense.

    Anyway...

    The rarity distribution only affects the number of each rarity you can expect in a feed.

    It does not affect the distribution of characters within each rarity.

    And it is that second point that is key to understanding why they cannot be truly random.

    Let's take the normal 16(ish) rares in a feed.

    If the distribution of characters across those 16 rares is truly random then getting 16 identical rares is just as likely as getting any other of the possible combinations.

    However that is a wholly undesirable outcome.

    And, so, the production line will be programmed to select a pseudo-random combination of cards to go in to a given feed.

    There will then be several different such combinations, either as different sequences the production line cycles through, or different productions lines each of which produce a different sequence.

    Either way, each sequence will be reused over time, and so 'twinned feeds', and probably 'twinned cases' too, will inevitably occur.


    anyway, it is possible to make it random. I don't feel like putting nearly the amount of thought or effort into this as you do, but they can use a randomness script of some kind which can detect if something it picks has already been picked, and then throws that choice away for another, only allowing a couple duplicates, such as the normal full amount of commons plus dupes, a couple uncommons missing plus some dupes, and then 16 or so rares, and I usually then get about 5 more that are duplicates, plus the 1-3 SRs.

    so the gravity feed distribution could be that the computer has a script saying it has like, 0-3 SR slots, 16-21 rares, and so on, and then for each rarity grouping, such as SRs, let's say the computer chooses to have two SRs. it randomly picks one, let's say Morbius, and then throws that out of the pool, and picks another... for rares, they allow it to copy up to X times, Y times for uncommons, and Z for commons

    I'm not going to argue past this, and I'm sure I haven't fully explained this to the point that you aren't going to find 100 holes to poke and argue about, but you just seem to be personally mad about your gravity feed, and you're on this rampage - just from all the posts I've read since you opened the gravity feed at least, they've all been pretty negative stuff

    "A New Low?" It sounds like the name of the next Star Wars movie
    Last edited by Dave; 11-22-2015 at 07:27 PM. Reason: No need to do that.

  23. #23

  24. #24
    I agree. Regardless of what it does to collecting (not a huge hassle but it certainly isn't a welcome sight), it does have a very noticeable and negative impact on the entire ASM draft format. As I explained in my recent blog entry about the draft, the duplicates decrease diversity and make the few power combos even more powerful because they aren't a part of these common pairs. It certainly doesn't help that the characters that get paired up (with the exception of black widow) aren't terribly usable cards. I'm probably not explaining my position really well, but I'm sure it makes sense if you think about it.

  25. #25
    What's as much, if not more, of a concern as this to me is that there isn't any particular avenue of contacting WK that I have confidence such an issue will be heard or addressed. Who exactly should Scott reach out to with this issue? Could he get some kind of reimbursement or replacement? Should he expect a response at all? If he doesn't get a response, should we believe that he got through to anybody? If this is caught and fixed in the production process, will we be told? I don't know the answer to these and countless other questions, and that's problematic. WK really needs to address their community outreach for the game.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •