rps best of 3

[Lil Oldman]

It isn't just effects that are random. Randomness also plays a role in shuffling the deck and whatnot. Nobody complains about weighted odds when the next card drawn is the worst card, or that their opponent happens to top deck just the right card needed due to sheer luck.

Because odds in those cases are really small and dont happen all the time. You can top deck the best/worst card every so often, but it doesnt happen in every single duel, and the odds arent as high as a regular coin flip.

It kinda does happen all the time in every single duel though. Every card you draw will either help you win or not help you win, and players are drawing a lot in every duel, like drawing the first 5 cards for the opening hand, plus an additional card for whoever's going second, and so on. When you're drawing good, nobody complains that the shuffling system is unfairly favoring you, and when players are drawing poorly, there aren't widespread complaints that the shuffling system is "against" them.

In other words, more time is spent drawing than flipping coins or rolling dice.

Well in that scenario, yes it happens all the time. From what you said previously I got you meant the scenario when drawing a single card in complete disadvantage, turning the outcome entirely.
On the actual response. That scenario talks about how punishing drawing a dead card is. Most of the times you only need 2 to 3 cards to do a solid board which means you have a little of breathing room. Now deciding who goes first can define who wins, making that coin flip extremely punishing. This means that getting a bad streak of bad draws is less punishing than getting a bad streak of coin flips.
In another note, doing coin flips for deciding the players turn order now removes player agency, increasing the bias towards unfavorable outcomes. The game was already being meme'd of being RPS simulator.

[Christen57]

Because odds in those cases are really small and dont happen all the time. You can top deck the best/worst card every so often, but it doesnt happen in every single duel, and the odds arent as high as a regular coin flip.

It kinda does happen all the time in every single duel though. Every card you draw will either help you win or not help you win, and players are drawing a lot in every duel, like drawing the first 5 cards for the opening hand, plus an additional card for whoever's going second, and so on. When you're drawing good, nobody complains that the shuffling system is unfairly favoring you, and when players are drawing poorly, there aren't widespread complaints that the shuffling system is "against" them.

In other words, more time is spent drawing than flipping coins or rolling dice.

Well in that scenario, yes it happens all the time. From what you said previously I got you meant the scenario when drawing a single card in complete disadvantage, turning the outcome entirely.
On the actual response. That scenario talks about how punishing drawing a dead card is. Most of the times you only need 2 to 3 cards to do a solid board which means you have a little of breathing room. Now deciding who goes first can define who wins, making that coin flip extremely punishing. This means that getting a bad streak of bad draws is less punishing than getting a bad streak of coin flips.
In another note, doing coin flips for deciding the players turn order now removes player agency, increasing the bias towards unfavorable outcomes. The game was already being meme'd of being RPS simulator.

I suggest that duelingbook at least give us the option to choose to have it decide, or ourselves decide (through rock-paper-scissors), who goes first. If I select the option to have duelingbook decide, and I duel a player who also has their option set to letting duelingbook decide, then duelingbook decides, but if either of us has the option set to decide through rock-paper-scissors, that's what we go with.

I trust that duelingbook will decide randomly but fairly who goes first. I can't imagine duelingbook actually favoring any specific player unfairly like this.

Also, instead of rock-paper-scissors, I would rather have rock-paper-scissors plus 2 or 4 more options or something. That way, players are less likely to get ties and more likely to quickly have a winner and loser decided. It gets really annoying when I pick scissor, but my opponent happens to pick the same thing, so I pick paper, but my opponent happens to pick that too, so I think to go back to scissor thinking my opponent will now pick rock since they didn't pick that yet, but my opponent happens to have the same thought as me and picks scissor as well, taking up even more time just to decide who goes first.

With 5 or 7 options instead of 3, your chances of winning and losing will remain the same, but your chances of getting a tie will be smaller, allowing you to get into the duel faster instead of being stuck in rock-paper-scissors for nearly a minute or something because you keep getting ties. https://www.umop.com/rps11.htm

[Lil Oldman]

It kinda does happen all the time in every single duel though. Every card you draw will either help you win or not help you win, and players are drawing a lot in every duel, like drawing the first 5 cards for the opening hand, plus an additional card for whoever's going second, and so on. When you're drawing good, nobody complains that the shuffling system is unfairly favoring you, and when players are drawing poorly, there aren't widespread complaints that the shuffling system is "against" them.

In other words, more time is spent drawing than flipping coins or rolling dice.

Well in that scenario, yes it happens all the time. From what you said previously I got you meant the scenario when drawing a single card in complete disadvantage, turning the outcome entirely.
On the actual response. That scenario talks about how punishing drawing a dead card is. Most of the times you only need 2 to 3 cards to do a solid board which means you have a little of breathing room. Now deciding who goes first can define who wins, making that coin flip extremely punishing. This means that getting a bad streak of bad draws is less punishing than getting a bad streak of coin flips.
In another note, doing coin flips for deciding the players turn order now removes player agency, increasing the bias towards unfavorable outcomes. The game was already being meme'd of being RPS simulator.

I suggest that duelingbook at least give us the option to choose to have it decide, or ourselves decide (through rock-paper-scissors), who goes first. If I select the option to have duelingbook decide, and I duel a player who also has their option set to letting duelingbook decide, then duelingbook decides, but if either of us has the option set to decide through rock-paper-scissors, that's what we go with.

I mean, that is just wanting to add depth to a feature that doesn't require it. It can generate confusion to those who don't totally get the mechanic, will annoy those who do understand it and will barely do a difference in the grand scheme of things.

I trust that duelingbook will decide randomly but fairly who goes first. I can't imagine duelingbook actually favoring any specific player unfairly like this.

I never said dB would do such thing, but rather that people would think dB would do it.

Also, instead of rock-paper-scissors, I would rather have rock-paper-scissors plus 2 or 4 more options or something. That way, players are less likely to get ties and more likely to quickly have a winner and loser decided. It gets really annoying when I pick scissor, but my opponent happens to pick the same thing, so I pick paper, but my opponent happens to pick that too, so I think to go back to scissor thinking my opponent will now pick rock since they didn't pick that yet, but my opponent happens to have the same thought as me and picks scissor as well, taking up even more time just to decide who goes first.

With 5 or 7 options instead of 3, your chances of winning and losing will remain the same, but your chances of getting a tie will be smaller, allowing you to get into the duel faster instead of being stuck in rock-paper-scissors for nearly a minute or something because you keep getting ties. https://www.umop.com/rps11.htm

This just defeats the point of RPS. A simple to understand and fast way to define who starts. When doing Rock Paper Scissors ____ & ____ it just defeats the purpose of having RPS entirely, overcomplicating the thing.

[Christen57]

Well in that scenario, yes it happens all the time. From what you said previously I got you meant the scenario when drawing a single card in complete disadvantage, turning the outcome entirely.
On the actual response. That scenario talks about how punishing drawing a dead card is. Most of the times you only need 2 to 3 cards to do a solid board which means you have a little of breathing room. Now deciding who goes first can define who wins, making that coin flip extremely punishing. This means that getting a bad streak of bad draws is less punishing than getting a bad streak of coin flips.
In another note, doing coin flips for deciding the players turn order now removes player agency, increasing the bias towards unfavorable outcomes. The game was already being meme'd of being RPS simulator.

I suggest that duelingbook at least give us the option to choose to have it decide, or ourselves decide (through rock-paper-scissors), who goes first. If I select the option to have duelingbook decide, and I duel a player who also has their option set to letting duelingbook decide, then duelingbook decides, but if either of us has the option set to decide through rock-paper-scissors, that's what we go with.

I mean, that is just wanting to add depth to a feature that doesn't require it. It can generate confusion to those who don't totally get the mechanic, will annoy those who do understand it and will barely do a difference in the grand scheme of things.

I trust that duelingbook will decide randomly but fairly who goes first. I can't imagine duelingbook actually favoring any specific player unfairly like this.

I never said dB would do such thing, but rather that people would think dB would do it.

Also, instead of rock-paper-scissors, I would rather have rock-paper-scissors plus 2 or 4 more options or something. That way, players are less likely to get ties and more likely to quickly have a winner and loser decided. It gets really annoying when I pick scissor, but my opponent happens to pick the same thing, so I pick paper, but my opponent happens to pick that too, so I think to go back to scissor thinking my opponent will now pick rock since they didn't pick that yet, but my opponent happens to have the same thought as me and picks scissor as well, taking up even more time just to decide who goes first.

With 5 or 7 options instead of 3, your chances of winning and losing will remain the same, but your chances of getting a tie will be smaller, allowing you to get into the duel faster instead of being stuck in rock-paper-scissors for nearly a minute or something because you keep getting ties. https://www.umop.com/rps11.htm

This just defeats the point of RPS. A simple to understand and fast way to define who starts. When doing Rock Paper Scissors ____ & ____ it just defeats the purpose of having RPS entirely, overcomplicating the thing.

This change wouldn't overcomplicate anything. Rock-paper-scissor is all about picking a random option and hoping your opponent picks the option that loses to yours. It's like flipping a coin. When you flip the coin, there's a 50% chance you'll get heads, and a 50% chance you'll get tails. When you play rock-paper-scissors, it doesn't matter if you pick rock, paper, or scissor — your chances of winning will always be 50% while your chances of losing will also always be 50%.

In other words, if you pick scissor, there are 2 outcomes:
Your opponent picks rock and beats you
Your opponent picks paper and you beat them

The outcome in which your opponent also picks scissor doesn't really count because that results in a tie, causing you to simply play again. So just like flipping a coin, you have a 50% chance of winning and a 50% chance of losing.

Rock, paper, and scissor each beat 1 thing and lose to another 1 thing. With rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock, you have 5 options, each of which beat 2 things and lose to the other 2 things. Rock beats scissor and lizard, Paper beats rock and spock, Scissor beats paper and lizard, Lizard beats paper and spock, Spock beats rock and scissor.

So in this game, if you pick scissor once again, this time there are 4 outcomes:
Your opponent picks rock and beats you
Your opponent picks spock and beats you
Your opponent picks paper and you beat them
Your opponent picks lizard and you beat them

and like before, the outcome in which your opponent also picks scissor doesn't really count because that results in a tie, causing you to simply play again. Your chances of winning and losing here are, again, the same because the number of outcomes in which you win and the number of outcomes in which you lose are, again, the same. 2 outcomes are winning outcomes. 2 outcomes are losing ones. You have a 50% chance of winning and a 50% chance of losing like before — only this time, your chances of getting a tie are smaller.

This is because in rock-paper-scissor, when you pick scissor, your opponent has a 1 in 3 chance of also picking scissor, but when you pick scissor in rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock, your opponent now has a 1 in 5 chance of also picking scissor.

The smaller the chances are of you getting a tie, the less likely you'll be stuck playing rock-paper-scissors multiple times since it's more likely that someone will end up winning/losing the game upon the first attempt instead of after multiple attempts.

Yes, rock-paper-scissors is a simple and fast way to decide who starts, but rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock will be an even faster way to decide who starts since a tie is much less likely so players will be less likely to have to play more than once.

Even if these extra options would make rock-paper-scissor "harder to understand," it really doesn't matter as you don't need to understand those extra options anyways. You're supposed to simply pick an option while your opponent does the same so whoever picks the winning option decides who takes the first turn.

[Genexwrecker]

No if we change start of duel proceedings it is changing to a coin toss

What's wrong with changing it to a coin toss to make things faster?

there isnt im saying that if we change rps in any form we are making it the coin toss instead. not adding more games of rps

[Christen57]

No if we change start of duel proceedings it is changing to a coin toss

What's wrong with changing it to a coin toss to make things faster?

there isnt im saying that if we change rps in any form we are making it the coin toss instead. not adding more games of rps

What about adding 2 more options like I mentioned in my previous comment, so you have a 1 in 5 chance of getting a tie instead of a 1 in 3 chance, meaning you'll be less likely to have to play rock-paper-scissors over and over due to ties, and more likely to play it just once or twice to get into the duel?

[greg503]

What's wrong with changing it to a coin toss to make things faster?

there isnt im saying that if we change rps in any form we are making it the coin toss instead. not adding more games of rps

What about adding 2 more options like I mentioned in my previous comment, so you have a 1 in 5 chance of getting a tie instead of a 1 in 3 chance, meaning you'll be less likely to have to play rock-paper-scissors over and over due to ties, and more likely to play it just once or twice to get into the duel?

no

[Genexwrecker]

What's wrong with changing it to a coin toss to make things faster?

there isnt im saying that if we change rps in any form we are making it the coin toss instead. not adding more games of rps

What about adding 2 more options like I mentioned in my previous comment, so you have a 1 in 5 chance of getting a tie instead of a 1 in 3 chance, meaning you'll be less likely to have to play rock-paper-scissors over and over due to ties, and more likely to play it just once or twice to get into the duel?

no

[Christen57]

there isnt im saying that if we change rps in any form we are making it the coin toss instead. not adding more games of rps

What about adding 2 more options like I mentioned in my previous comment, so you have a 1 in 5 chance of getting a tie instead of a 1 in 3 chance, meaning you'll be less likely to have to play rock-paper-scissors over and over due to ties, and more likely to play it just once or twice to get into the duel?

no

Don't you want to only have to play rock-paper-scissors once?

[greg503]

What about adding 2 more options like I mentioned in my previous comment, so you have a 1 in 5 chance of getting a tie instead of a 1 in 3 chance, meaning you'll be less likely to have to play rock-paper-scissors over and over due to ties, and more likely to play it just once or twice to get into the duel?

no

Don't you want to only have to play rock-paper-scissors once?

Which is why it would be changed to a coin flip, if it is changed

[Christen57]

no

Don't you want to only have to play rock-paper-scissors once?

Which is why it would be changed to a coin flip, if it is changed

And I explained how rock-paper-scissors is already basically a coin flip — because your chances of winning rock-paper-scissors are exactly the same as your chances of winning a coin toss: 50/50.

Nothing changes with this change I've suggested, except your chances of getting a tie, which will be smaller when 2 more options are added. Your chances of winning will remain the same as your chances of losing, just like a coin toss and just like regular rock-paper-scissors.

[greg503]

Don't you want to only have to play rock-paper-scissors once?

Which is why it would be changed to a coin flip, if it is changed

And I explained how rock-paper-scissors is already basically a coin flip — because your chances of winning rock-paper-scissors are exactly the same as your chances of winning a coin toss: 50/50.

Nothing changes with this change I've suggested, except your chances of getting a tie, which will be smaller when 2 more options are added. Your chances of winning will remain the same as your chances of losing, just like a coin toss and just like regular rock-paper-scissors.

But why would we not just coin toss to have a 0% tie chance, if DB changes the code for deciding turn order selection?

[Christen57]

Which is why it would be changed to a coin flip, if it is changed

And I explained how rock-paper-scissors is already basically a coin flip — because your chances of winning rock-paper-scissors are exactly the same as your chances of winning a coin toss: 50/50.

Nothing changes with this change I've suggested, except your chances of getting a tie, which will be smaller when 2 more options are added. Your chances of winning will remain the same as your chances of losing, just like a coin toss and just like regular rock-paper-scissors.

But why would we not just coin toss to have a 0% tie chance, if DB changes the code for deciding turn order selection?

I'd rather do that, actually, but Lil Oldman seemed to not want that so I came up with this as a compromise.

[Lil Oldman]

And I explained how rock-paper-scissors is already basically a coin flip — because your chances of winning rock-paper-scissors are exactly the same as your chances of winning a coin toss: 50/50.

Nothing changes with this change I've suggested, except your chances of getting a tie, which will be smaller when 2 more options are added. Your chances of winning will remain the same as your chances of losing, just like a coin toss and just like regular rock-paper-scissors.

But why would we not just coin toss to have a 0% tie chance, if DB changes the code for deciding turn order selection?

I'd rather do that, actually, but Lil Oldman seemed to not want that so I came up with this as a compromise.

I never said I am against the idea. I said people would feel screwed over a function they have no control over. With RPS at least these players have that agency that that was their choice and not the computer's.

[Christen57]

But why would we not just coin toss to have a 0% tie chance, if DB changes the code for deciding turn order selection?

I'd rather do that, actually, but Lil Oldman seemed to not want that so I came up with this as a compromise.

I never said I am against the idea. I said people would feel screwed over a function they have no control over. With RPS at least these players have that agency that that was their choice and not the computer's.

Well, sorry then.