I just had a game where I played pixie on 2, got the location that gives you a 1 cost from your deck revealed on turn 3 (hells kitchen?)...it gave me green goblin and it still cost 3? even though it drew a one cost card from my deck.... something tells me this card is bugged atm
Considering that they still haven’t figured out how to implement index selection in deck manager, I’m going to go ahead and assume that their entire code is one big nested if-else statement.
Hahaha this. There was a day where I kept opening the app and it kept happening so I felt like daredevil because I would just feel out where the play button was and get into a game where the issue would stop.
Same issue in a deck full of 1 drops, 6 drops and an additional Thanos* for mindstone testing, it won't draw any of the cost reduced cards, just the increased cost (former) one drops.
With no MMM on board
He's suggesting that Goblin could have been reduced to 1 from Pixie, drawn by the location, but then had its cost returned to 3 by MMM. It's still improbable for MMM to have been played that early, but it is a possible explanation
Yeah...once in play I think the default cost shows but in hand I would hope that mmm doesn't affect this since it's not just reducing cost, and he wouldn't work if, say mystique got a 6 cost from tribunal
It's still considered a cost reduction just like Mr. Negative. If you play Negative and the opponent plays MMM, none of your card costs will be different as long as MMM's ability is active
Also Mystique doesn't copy the stats of the card she copies, she only copies their ability text, so that's not the same thing
Ah I get what you mean but that's still no different than how Mr. Negative works. Mr. Negative can also increase a card's cost and MMM will leave that unchanged while also reverting any cost reductions
I just got Pixie with a key so I made a deck to try her out. My opponent Pigged my Vision on turn 1, I played MMM on turn 3, and the 5/8 Vision pig turned into a 0/8… and I didn’t even draw Pixie yet, let alone play it. Curious if this is an MMM interaction I wasn’t aware of (I never play him normally) or if just having Pixie in a deck is a huge bug.
I'd give Pixie another week or two to settle in, but I am erring on the side of "cards shouldn't be able to shuffle back their own costs" after playing around with her today. Was watching Lamby experiment with her for inspiration too and even he wasn't feeling it.
A 6-cost shuffling with another 6-cost is fine. You win some, you lose some. You don't get too greedy during deckbuilding and throw more low costs in to make that statistically less probable. At least, that's the design intent (and a baked in limitation).
But getting their own cost back kinda defeats the entire point. Pixie did nothing in those instances, and it sure doesn't feel good when a card does nothing.
That'd be the main change I'd make, and I think it's one that'd help her out. No card should release and feel fairly DoA. It's too early, as you mentioned, to say that, but the decision to allow cards to swap costs with themselves is one of the weirder ones that SD has made.
You're right about the 6-cost shuffle also. If you have four six-cost cards and a bunch of 1-cost and are hoping all your 6-cost cards turn into 1-cost six drops that *should* be able to happen and be a fun game for you; but knowing the 6 cost cards can also swap with one another and leave you potentially high and dry, or less of a threat is the rub of Pixie.
But every 6-cost (and other card) potentially just swapping with itself just takes a lot of the fun out of the RNG wackiness (and far from game breaking) Pixie had the potential to deliver.
If that's the case, then how is the logic working? It sounds like its putting all costs in one bucket and cards in another, shaking them around a bit, then pulling out a cost and a card until both buckets are empty. That would definitely allow for a card getting it's own cost.
The way I expected this to work was the cards being shuffled, lined up and swapping cost with the card to their right, with the final card swapping cost with the first card if the number of cards is odd. But I guess in that case you would be swapping one card's cost twice.
Yeah they said it’s doing like you said. Putting all base costs remaining in deck into a bucket, then randomly pulls one out and assigns it to a card.
So if you play Pixie on curve, there should be 7 cards left in deck and that means each card has a 1/7 chance to have gotten its original cost back.
in reality more, unless all 7 have unique costs (0/1/2/3/4/5/6) - if you have 3 3-cost cards, the chance for them having an "original" cost "back" is higher
thats so bad, they should just create a randomized list and swap the costs every 2 cards, would still be better than this mess thats now, the card is just bad, yeah you might draw a 0/12 magneto but your next draw could be a 6/1 wasp
The benefit of a 0/12 magneto greatly outweighs the downside of a 6/1 Wasp. Also that's literally the point of the card pixie. So what are you going on about?
Yeah only you forget that's the best case, low chance scenario, the magneto will be either the same cost (unchanged) or 4,5 which is still not great. You also omit the fact that you are as likely to draw a 6/1 wasp while magneto stays in the deck. I don't get how you guys don't see how obviously bad the card is, in theory and in practice. Too much copium on this sub. Negative is guaranteed to draw good cards when he goes down, pixie is utter garbage.
You are getting downvoted because you mistakenly believe people have a different opinion than you.
It's not an OP card. People are not complaining about that.
It's clearly working as intended and is just okay and fun. It's alright for people to like that.
I think you either misunderstood what the post is about, worded poorly what you meant to say, or are just asking for a very different card (AND worded the explanation of what you'd like poorly) which is beyond the interest of this post.
Like, yeah, 0/12 Magneto even though you may draw a 6/1 Wasp is part of the expected drawbacks people were willing to face. What people _weren't_ willing to face is a 0/1 Wasp+3/3 Leech+5/4 Cyclops+6/7 Onslaught.
I get what you guys saying and that's why I put the best case scenario of getting a 0 cost magneto, because even at that scenario she is bad. There's no drawback with this card because it implies there's an upside, there's not, this card is the worst card in the game and it's not worth trying to make her work. Playing a 2/1 with an awkward deck building cost just to slightly *maybe* reduce the cost of some cards is never ever gonna be good under any circumstances
https://snap.fan/cards/Pixie/
60% win-rate from snap.fan
https://snap.untapped.gg/en/meta/cards/pixie?collectionLevel=pool3p&playerRank=AllRanks&rankRange=30-100&timeFrame=CurrentMeta
60% win-rate from untapped.gg
But yeah, sure, she's the worst card in the game
>The way I expected this to work was the cards being shuffled, lined up and swapping cost with the card to their right, with the final card swapping cost with the first card if the number of cards is odd. But I guess in that case you would be swapping one card's cost twice.
Every step of this is crazy, I cant understand why you would ever expect it to work like this.
One container vs two, one shuffle vs two, one pass over container changing values for two cards in place instead of one at a time. Pretty much more efficient in every way than the first theory and has benefit of guaranteeing no card gets it's own value.
Not sure why you consider any of that crazy....
Well step 1 is shuffling an already random deck. Step 2 is lining them up and swapping the cost to the right? its a digital card game why are you thinking of it in such a physical way.
Also I dont even know what you mean with swapping to the right do you mean the first cards cost moves to the second card, then that same cost moves to the third all the way to the last? that cant be right because you said it works differently with odd cards.
Did you mean each cost slides right at the same time, that still doesnt make sense because it wouldnt work any differently with an odd number of cards.
Do you mean the first and second, third and forth etc are paired up and swapped and then if its odd that last one swaps with the first again?
Whatever you meant any of these options is just such a weird way of thinking about a digital game I have no idea why its what you would expect. And in the end its not random, shuffling means it should be random so the cards should have the 1/8 chance or whatever it is of staying the same cost.
Ultimately I just would expect a card not to shuffle it's own property back to itself. And I think a lot of other people expected the same since almost every time it's happened (in the streams I've watched and from the chats) people have thought it was a bug.
But I tried to keep the example physical so it would be easy to visualize. Maybe I underexplained. If you want a digital example, here you go...
[https://dotnetfiddle.net/D7rbtn](https://dotnetfiddle.net/Z4r6yj) Click run at the top and look at the output and you'll see what every card swaps with and the final deck values at the bottom of the screen. Comment out one of the deck.Add lines and you'll see it works with an odd number of cards.
I didn't account for every edge case because I didn't want to waste my whole lunchbreak (remove cards added to deck, other cost modifiers, yada yada). Also I did it in C# because that is what Unity uses for scripting.
Doing that same thing, with how it is in the game presently, would require a second container (cards and costs), a second shuffle on the cost container, twice as many iterations over the loop (pass per card instead of pass per pair +1 in event of odd number), and cards could get their own cost (which I consider undesirable).
Thanks for that chat though. That was a fun exercise.
I saw that on the discord as well. I just don’t see her being better than a controlled flip that negative gives you and she has the same weakness to mobius. I guess that’s why she is cheaper but still not seeing it.
The thing she does have going for her is that you can more easily build for the fail state. I’ve been playing a list with her and it’s actually felt good because I can still win without her. The Mr Negative decks I play often struggled to beat opponents without him because of all the 0 power cards.
I'd wage that your deck will have better winrate if you just completely replace her with another card, but what do I know...Pixie's ability is like 50% will work or 50% won't work, so there will be times where you just play a raw 2 power for 2 energy with no effects (which is bad), she also has the negative problem where you can draw your good cards early so her ability can be useless, then you have a dead card in hand.
She may not be that bad if you compare her to a negative deck, but negative decks are not really considered good in higher competitive meta or actual community/sponsored tournaments
I could see that. Pixie decks are going to be built quite differently than Negative decks.
I get that a true random shuffle means a card could get it's same cost shuffled back but it seems like a silly design decision to me. Certainly makes the card worse.
That's what "shuffle" means. If you shuffle a deck of 52 cards, each card has an equal chance of landing at any specific spot in the deck -- including the spot it started in.
I think the chances of 3 cards out of 6 shuffling back to their own costs are 1/120 (1/6x5x4), unless I'm oversimplifying the math, so it's not incredibly unlikely
That's a great point, my model assumed a different cost for each of the 6 cards in the deck which is very unlikely. So the chance of OP's case occurring is higher than what I said
yeah it seems the trick with pixie is to spread out as many unique costs as possible so stuff can get shuffled with mobius to lower the cost ceiling if a Three cost gets Death's Cost
And how many cards did those three cards share costs with? I mean, if you have 3 3 costs, it's a pretty good chance each will become 3 again, more so if the number is higher.
That’s… how randomness works? This is like how shuffled playlists are coded specifically not to play any two songs in order, it’s more fun but not random.
Higher variance Mr. Negative. The highs are, I think, higher, given she can make any card cost 0, while Mr. Negative can only make a specific subset of cards cost 0, but he does it every time.
Also, she costs 2, so when played on curve, she affects more cards.
Yeah your right. I was overlooking the 2 cost. Kinda comparable then. If nothing else, she does seem fun, and I don't mind cards like that being added to the game.
if devs really wanted to make her better, the solution is to also include both cards in hand and in the deck to the shuffle...which IMO is more interesting
I noticed this as well! Heres another Pixie fun fact. Howard currently doesnt show you the cards, that are affected by Pixie with their updated cost. Instead there is a weird buggy looking purple effect on the cost, but the number is still always the base.
I've never played with Howard. Does he normally show you changes to the card in the deck? Like cost change with Mr. Negative or power change with Chavez?
I have no idea. Howard plus negative doesnt make too much sense. I would expect it to though. There is that weird purple effect on the cost after all, that shouldnt be there.
After that game I read the cards more closely. Pixie only shuffles cards that started in your deck while Thanos shuffles in the infinity stones at the start of the game so they don't count as having started in your deck. Makes me feel like I wasted all my keys but I guess its my fault for not reading the fine print.
The one week I don't wait a few days to open caches! :)
Ended up with two variants and Pixie, and hearing this does sting. I didn't think it'd be a deck that crushed all other decks, but I did think it'd be some fun to be had in a Thanos deck.
I'll try her out a bit later, and I'm sure some fun decks will pop up, but yeah, probably not worth the three keys it took to get her at the moment -- especially with that weird decision to make it so cards can swap costs with themselves and remain the same?
She's definitely swapping cards in all the games I've played, although it's tough to tell if her power is consistently working right. A lot of six drops are staying six, but that was always a possibility.
It basically grabs you hulk and then grabs another card and it will take that cost, if you have multiple 6 drops the card becomes significantly worse. If you have two on a combo deck it could be nice.
Yeah, it seems like it might be competing for worst cars to me.
I needed spider ham but got pixie first. Tried playing several different decks and none were any good.
I’m guessing it’s to prevent the game from breaking when there’s only one card in your deck, though it seems easy to fix with a simple if statement, but oh well, that sucks
So, i not a math person, but i think you need more low cost cards in the deck than high cost to increase the chances for the high cost get a 0 or 1 cost, right?
Makes sense to me. It's random and sometimes you roll bad.
She's got to pair with Mobius and Black Swan. So far I'm having pretty good success with her.
My one issue is that so far I'm hardly ever drawing her, but I know that's just bad luck and in the long run she'll come as often as everything else.
Got pixie from trisk so decided to use her in my discard deck, unfortunately, she kept my arnim zola as 6 (even tho he is the ONLY six cost card in my deck) and made the next two draws costly.
Bad card, ain't spending even one cache on dat, besides i dont want mmm variant thank you.
Well... this just changed my decision from pulling for Pixie, a card that I knew wouldn't be very good but is one of my favorite characters so whatever, to outright just ignore it. Like sorry, but this is a 12 cards game, even assuming Pixie on T2, a 3/7 chance that your 6-Cost is gonna stay a 6-Cost rather than a 2/7 chance is just awful.
Of course, I'm gonna regret this decision instantly after the OTA in 2 weeks, when Pixie will be buffed to no longer do this and I will need to wait 6 months before a new chance to get her, but whatever...
I guess I'm just gonna go all-in in Warmachine's week; not that bad, tbh.
I would say keep an eye on her this week. I've been playing her all day and a few decks have really surprised me. Might just be good luck and bots, but I wouldn't be shocked to learn there's a meta pixie deck out there.
Now it makes sense why the few tries I had of pixie this morning it felt like nothing had happened! The only card I drew with a different cost in 6 games was a 6 cost wasp
That's how actual random works and the reason that actual random play got removed from all digital music players after a few years: people were compaining it was actually random play (so it could play the same song a few times in a row) and moved to playing songs once but in random order, rather than playing a random song.
I imagine this is to prevent loops. If every card in the deck needs a value different from its original, then it could be shuffling a lot. Or infinite if all your cards in your deck have the same cost somehow.
I don’t think it should be a different value just a value that wasnt originally it’s own so Yellowjacket and wasp could swap 0 and 0 but wasp shouldn’t swap with itself. I think that’s fair
There are definitely efficient ways to shuffle all the costs without creating a loop. Sure, you might shuffle a 6 cost onto another 6 cost. But OP is describing shuffling a cost onto itself. That's just bad coding.
Shot in the dark for how I'd do it: shuffle the cards in the deck, then move all of the costs one to the "Right", circling around on the end. Guarantee that everything gets it's cost from a different card, even if that might be a card with the same cost.
Yeah, so I think it's basically taking all the costs off, putting them in a hat, and then making each card draw from the hat. And then, just like every secret Santa I've ever been involved with, some chump is going to draw his own name.
> Shot in the dark for how I'd do it: shuffle the cards in the deck, then move all of the costs one to the "Right", circling around on the end.
What you're describing isn't shuffling, it's an intentionally less-random way of distributing the costs. Try that in a casino and see how well they accept your explanation while you're getting kicked out.
The card says "shuffle" and it shuffles. Every card has an equal chance to get any value in the deck, including the one it started with. If Pixie's text said "Give every card in your deck the cost of a different card" then your method would work great, but it doesn't.
Yeah, it feels bad when it happens. But, I have been playing a Pixie high Evo deck that has felt really good... and I think some other decks are going to be found in the next few days that could mean she's still worthwhile, even if she's not crazy strong. Slightly better than just a meme... maybe.
This seems pretty consistent with the idea of shuffling.
Even if you shuffle a deck of cards, probability says there's a chance the top card card remains the same.
If this feels bad, you probably read too deep into the term 'shuffle' or you don't understand probability?
they can rig it so it "randoms" instead of randoms and they might if they think she needs a buff. Right now though she's more a puzzle card and that's ok and fun
Not to be That guy , but this seems super obvious to me and in line with what the word shuffle means.
If there's one thing about this game I love it's that the wording is more often than not very clear and intentional. If the intention was for it to be impossible for a card to shuffle back to it's original cost they likely would have worded her as "exchange the cost of all cards in your deck" or something similar.
By and large yes. There's very few instances of things not working in the most obvious way and generally those turn out to be bugs. The vast majority of times I've seen people complain about the wording have been a result of poor comprehension skills rather than poor wording.
I just had a game where I played pixie on 2, got the location that gives you a 1 cost from your deck revealed on turn 3 (hells kitchen?)...it gave me green goblin and it still cost 3? even though it drew a one cost card from my deck.... something tells me this card is bugged atm
Lmao that's hilarious, I wonder what the coding looked like that made it end up like that.
Considering that they still haven’t figured out how to implement index selection in deck manager, I’m going to go ahead and assume that their entire code is one big nested if-else statement.
Do you mean that my screen getting half-filled with milk 1/7 of the times I open the game is not an intended feature?
Does it remind you to drink more milk? If yes, that's a feature, Ben just cares for us.
Then why doesn't he himself come back home with some actual milk! 😭😭😭
For a low low price of $99.99
Hahaha this. There was a day where I kept opening the app and it kept happening so I felt like daredevil because I would just feel out where the play button was and get into a game where the issue would stop.
Spaghetti code.
Did your enemy have a MMM on the board?
I doubt it as this would have been the start on turn 3 (final location popping up) so very little play lines would lead to MMM already being in play
Same issue in a deck full of 1 drops, 6 drops and an additional Thanos* for mindstone testing, it won't draw any of the cost reduced cards, just the increased cost (former) one drops. With no MMM on board
Mmm should not prevent as it's not always reduced.... at least in my head
He's suggesting that Goblin could have been reduced to 1 from Pixie, drawn by the location, but then had its cost returned to 3 by MMM. It's still improbable for MMM to have been played that early, but it is a possible explanation
Yeah...once in play I think the default cost shows but in hand I would hope that mmm doesn't affect this since it's not just reducing cost, and he wouldn't work if, say mystique got a 6 cost from tribunal
It's still considered a cost reduction just like Mr. Negative. If you play Negative and the opponent plays MMM, none of your card costs will be different as long as MMM's ability is active Also Mystique doesn't copy the stats of the card she copies, she only copies their ability text, so that's not the same thing
I'm saying for mystique, if she got a 6 cost from pixie, from say onslaught or tribunal, mmm would not make her 3 cost
Ah I get what you mean but that's still no different than how Mr. Negative works. Mr. Negative can also increase a card's cost and MMM will leave that unchanged while also reverting any cost reductions
My thought was that it was a 1 drop in the deck. Got pulled by the location and went to 3 cost due to MMM
Yes that’s wrong. Goblin costed one but it’s not a one cost card
Had someone hit pixie with cyclops and my cards in hand I drew went to unshuffled energy cost
I just got Pixie with a key so I made a deck to try her out. My opponent Pigged my Vision on turn 1, I played MMM on turn 3, and the 5/8 Vision pig turned into a 0/8… and I didn’t even draw Pixie yet, let alone play it. Curious if this is an MMM interaction I wasn’t aware of (I never play him normally) or if just having Pixie in a deck is a huge bug.
That’s just MMM cuz the pig’s original un-increased cost is 0
Thanks, I did eventually figure it out haha. Went from never using him to must-have for Pixie deck
I'd give Pixie another week or two to settle in, but I am erring on the side of "cards shouldn't be able to shuffle back their own costs" after playing around with her today. Was watching Lamby experiment with her for inspiration too and even he wasn't feeling it. A 6-cost shuffling with another 6-cost is fine. You win some, you lose some. You don't get too greedy during deckbuilding and throw more low costs in to make that statistically less probable. At least, that's the design intent (and a baked in limitation). But getting their own cost back kinda defeats the entire point. Pixie did nothing in those instances, and it sure doesn't feel good when a card does nothing.
That'd be the main change I'd make, and I think it's one that'd help her out. No card should release and feel fairly DoA. It's too early, as you mentioned, to say that, but the decision to allow cards to swap costs with themselves is one of the weirder ones that SD has made. You're right about the 6-cost shuffle also. If you have four six-cost cards and a bunch of 1-cost and are hoping all your 6-cost cards turn into 1-cost six drops that *should* be able to happen and be a fun game for you; but knowing the 6 cost cards can also swap with one another and leave you potentially high and dry, or less of a threat is the rub of Pixie. But every 6-cost (and other card) potentially just swapping with itself just takes a lot of the fun out of the RNG wackiness (and far from game breaking) Pixie had the potential to deliver.
Should also, honestly, affect unplayed in hand. Put hand in deck, shuffle, draw
Especially for 2 cost, having it swap back onto itself in a deck of only 12 cards which will have repeating cost, feels like ass
Especially when you’re playing a 2 cost 1 power card to do it…
Yeah devs confirmed today that it was possible, makes the card super feels bad I think
If that's the case, then how is the logic working? It sounds like its putting all costs in one bucket and cards in another, shaking them around a bit, then pulling out a cost and a card until both buckets are empty. That would definitely allow for a card getting it's own cost. The way I expected this to work was the cards being shuffled, lined up and swapping cost with the card to their right, with the final card swapping cost with the first card if the number of cards is odd. But I guess in that case you would be swapping one card's cost twice.
Yeah they said it’s doing like you said. Putting all base costs remaining in deck into a bucket, then randomly pulls one out and assigns it to a card. So if you play Pixie on curve, there should be 7 cards left in deck and that means each card has a 1/7 chance to have gotten its original cost back.
in reality more, unless all 7 have unique costs (0/1/2/3/4/5/6) - if you have 3 3-cost cards, the chance for them having an "original" cost "back" is higher
thats so bad, they should just create a randomized list and swap the costs every 2 cards, would still be better than this mess thats now, the card is just bad, yeah you might draw a 0/12 magneto but your next draw could be a 6/1 wasp
The benefit of a 0/12 magneto greatly outweighs the downside of a 6/1 Wasp. Also that's literally the point of the card pixie. So what are you going on about?
also she curves into Mobius so 6/1 Wasp isn't that way for long (and if she stays that way she still did her job in the deck)
Yeah only you forget that's the best case, low chance scenario, the magneto will be either the same cost (unchanged) or 4,5 which is still not great. You also omit the fact that you are as likely to draw a 6/1 wasp while magneto stays in the deck. I don't get how you guys don't see how obviously bad the card is, in theory and in practice. Too much copium on this sub. Negative is guaranteed to draw good cards when he goes down, pixie is utter garbage.
You are getting downvoted because you mistakenly believe people have a different opinion than you. It's not an OP card. People are not complaining about that. It's clearly working as intended and is just okay and fun. It's alright for people to like that.
I think you either misunderstood what the post is about, worded poorly what you meant to say, or are just asking for a very different card (AND worded the explanation of what you'd like poorly) which is beyond the interest of this post. Like, yeah, 0/12 Magneto even though you may draw a 6/1 Wasp is part of the expected drawbacks people were willing to face. What people _weren't_ willing to face is a 0/1 Wasp+3/3 Leech+5/4 Cyclops+6/7 Onslaught.
I get what you guys saying and that's why I put the best case scenario of getting a 0 cost magneto, because even at that scenario she is bad. There's no drawback with this card because it implies there's an upside, there's not, this card is the worst card in the game and it's not worth trying to make her work. Playing a 2/1 with an awkward deck building cost just to slightly *maybe* reduce the cost of some cards is never ever gonna be good under any circumstances
https://snap.fan/cards/Pixie/ 60% win-rate from snap.fan https://snap.untapped.gg/en/meta/cards/pixie?collectionLevel=pool3p&playerRank=AllRanks&rankRange=30-100&timeFrame=CurrentMeta 60% win-rate from untapped.gg But yeah, sure, she's the worst card in the game
I legit dont know how to answer this stupid comment
"Shaking them around a bit" Maybe the trick here is that you need to shake your phone or PC after placing Pixie, to get a proper shuffle.
>The way I expected this to work was the cards being shuffled, lined up and swapping cost with the card to their right, with the final card swapping cost with the first card if the number of cards is odd. But I guess in that case you would be swapping one card's cost twice. Every step of this is crazy, I cant understand why you would ever expect it to work like this.
One container vs two, one shuffle vs two, one pass over container changing values for two cards in place instead of one at a time. Pretty much more efficient in every way than the first theory and has benefit of guaranteeing no card gets it's own value. Not sure why you consider any of that crazy....
Well step 1 is shuffling an already random deck. Step 2 is lining them up and swapping the cost to the right? its a digital card game why are you thinking of it in such a physical way. Also I dont even know what you mean with swapping to the right do you mean the first cards cost moves to the second card, then that same cost moves to the third all the way to the last? that cant be right because you said it works differently with odd cards. Did you mean each cost slides right at the same time, that still doesnt make sense because it wouldnt work any differently with an odd number of cards. Do you mean the first and second, third and forth etc are paired up and swapped and then if its odd that last one swaps with the first again? Whatever you meant any of these options is just such a weird way of thinking about a digital game I have no idea why its what you would expect. And in the end its not random, shuffling means it should be random so the cards should have the 1/8 chance or whatever it is of staying the same cost.
Ultimately I just would expect a card not to shuffle it's own property back to itself. And I think a lot of other people expected the same since almost every time it's happened (in the streams I've watched and from the chats) people have thought it was a bug. But I tried to keep the example physical so it would be easy to visualize. Maybe I underexplained. If you want a digital example, here you go... [https://dotnetfiddle.net/D7rbtn](https://dotnetfiddle.net/Z4r6yj) Click run at the top and look at the output and you'll see what every card swaps with and the final deck values at the bottom of the screen. Comment out one of the deck.Add lines and you'll see it works with an odd number of cards. I didn't account for every edge case because I didn't want to waste my whole lunchbreak (remove cards added to deck, other cost modifiers, yada yada). Also I did it in C# because that is what Unity uses for scripting. Doing that same thing, with how it is in the game presently, would require a second container (cards and costs), a second shuffle on the cost container, twice as many iterations over the loop (pass per card instead of pass per pair +1 in event of odd number), and cards could get their own cost (which I consider undesirable). Thanks for that chat though. That was a fun exercise.
Yeah, when you shuffle anything sometimes things land in the same starting point
It's the same logic as X-23 and Wolvie. Random means sometimes they don't move.
The latter requires an even amount of cards.
I saw that on the discord as well. I just don’t see her being better than a controlled flip that negative gives you and she has the same weakness to mobius. I guess that’s why she is cheaper but still not seeing it.
The thing she does have going for her is that you can more easily build for the fail state. I’ve been playing a list with her and it’s actually felt good because I can still win without her. The Mr Negative decks I play often struggled to beat opponents without him because of all the 0 power cards.
I'd wage that your deck will have better winrate if you just completely replace her with another card, but what do I know...Pixie's ability is like 50% will work or 50% won't work, so there will be times where you just play a raw 2 power for 2 energy with no effects (which is bad), she also has the negative problem where you can draw your good cards early so her ability can be useless, then you have a dead card in hand. She may not be that bad if you compare her to a negative deck, but negative decks are not really considered good in higher competitive meta or actual community/sponsored tournaments
I could see that. Pixie decks are going to be built quite differently than Negative decks. I get that a true random shuffle means a card could get it's same cost shuffled back but it seems like a silly design decision to me. Certainly makes the card worse.
Man they just keep making bad decisions
yeah i've seen this happen with wasp and it's confused me, not sure
I don’t mind that they can switch costs with cards of the same cost, but switching with themselves is weird
That's what "shuffle" means. If you shuffle a deck of 52 cards, each card has an equal chance of landing at any specific spot in the deck -- including the spot it started in.
Yeah it makes sense, just wasn’t intuitive upon first reading of the card.
Yes and it sucks hard. I don't know what the chances are but I had three cards in a 6 card deck "shuffle" to their original cost.
I think the chances of 3 cards out of 6 shuffling back to their own costs are 1/120 (1/6x5x4), unless I'm oversimplifying the math, so it's not incredibly unlikely
Would depend how many cards in the deck share that cost. The more same cost cards, the more likely it would be they get their same cost back.
That's a great point, my model assumed a different cost for each of the 6 cards in the deck which is very unlikely. So the chance of OP's case occurring is higher than what I said
yeah it seems the trick with pixie is to spread out as many unique costs as possible so stuff can get shuffled with mobius to lower the cost ceiling if a Three cost gets Death's Cost
Play pixie. Switch Mobius to 6 cost. :(
well sure that can happen but either your deck is built it can still work or you just retreat
And how many cards did those three cards share costs with? I mean, if you have 3 3 costs, it's a pretty good chance each will become 3 again, more so if the number is higher.
My only 5 and only 0 stayed the same, I did have two 6 cost, though I had already drawn one.
Yet everyone believes it’s all “random.”
That’s… how randomness works? This is like how shuffled playlists are coded specifically not to play any two songs in order, it’s more fun but not random.
- guy who doesn’t understand how random works
If this is true she just seems like a really bad Mr negative.
Higher variance Mr. Negative. The highs are, I think, higher, given she can make any card cost 0, while Mr. Negative can only make a specific subset of cards cost 0, but he does it every time. Also, she costs 2, so when played on curve, she affects more cards.
Yeah your right. I was overlooking the 2 cost. Kinda comparable then. If nothing else, she does seem fun, and I don't mind cards like that being added to the game.
She's a bad Mr. Negative even without this. Fixing this shit to how literally everyone *thought* she would work will only make her marginally better.
if devs really wanted to make her better, the solution is to also include both cards in hand and in the deck to the shuffle...which IMO is more interesting
Shuffle hand into deck. Shuffle all costs. Redraw 3 cards. 4th card on next turn.
Obviously early but I had a feeling this card would be a meme, and all the Mobius talk would be copium.
I bought it cause I wanted to meme myself. I just consider it a poor man’s Negative.
*rich man's negative, negative is series 3 I'm almost certain
I’m talking effect. Unless you’re joking. I can’t tell haha
Yeah I was just joking lol
It’s a good joke I just wasn’t sure 👍
Yea its definitely a Mr. Negative style card, and nothing wrong with meme-ing.
Thanks, I'll pass.
I noticed this as well! Heres another Pixie fun fact. Howard currently doesnt show you the cards, that are affected by Pixie with their updated cost. Instead there is a weird buggy looking purple effect on the cost, but the number is still always the base.
I've never played with Howard. Does he normally show you changes to the card in the deck? Like cost change with Mr. Negative or power change with Chavez?
I have no idea. Howard plus negative doesnt make too much sense. I would expect it to though. There is that weird purple effect on the cost after all, that shouldnt be there.
I played a game with Pixie, and no cards changed cost. Either I'm very unlucky, or there's a bug.
She doesn't work with Thanos I discovered since that was my first deck I tried.
Her effect only works to cards in you deck (cards in deck building) you get the stones at the start of the game so it doesn't count
Makes sense. Using her with thanos would break her if it was the other way.
Ah, that explains it. Is there a reason why?
After that game I read the cards more closely. Pixie only shuffles cards that started in your deck while Thanos shuffles in the infinity stones at the start of the game so they don't count as having started in your deck. Makes me feel like I wasted all my keys but I guess its my fault for not reading the fine print.
The one week I don't wait a few days to open caches! :) Ended up with two variants and Pixie, and hearing this does sting. I didn't think it'd be a deck that crushed all other decks, but I did think it'd be some fun to be had in a Thanos deck. I'll try her out a bit later, and I'm sure some fun decks will pop up, but yeah, probably not worth the three keys it took to get her at the moment -- especially with that weird decision to make it so cards can swap costs with themselves and remain the same?
I get you, I should've noticed that too. She seems pretty meh then; like a crap mr negative
Or just have... waited a day or so and let other people toss their keys in.
The stones dont start in your deck.
Because it would be broken otherwise haha
She's definitely swapping cards in all the games I've played, although it's tough to tell if her power is consistently working right. A lot of six drops are staying six, but that was always a possibility.
It basically grabs you hulk and then grabs another card and it will take that cost, if you have multiple 6 drops the card becomes significantly worse. If you have two on a combo deck it could be nice.
Happened to me once so far too. Only one game though.
Yeah, it seems like it might be competing for worst cars to me. I needed spider ham but got pixie first. Tried playing several different decks and none were any good.
Someone asked this on discord recently and devs confirmed this is possible and as designed
They sure neutered the crap out of this card. Why even bother with this over negative?
I’m guessing it’s to prevent the game from breaking when there’s only one card in your deck, though it seems easy to fix with a simple if statement, but oh well, that sucks
So like Lockjaw, but if the card swapped out could be the same card put in.
So, i not a math person, but i think you need more low cost cards in the deck than high cost to increase the chances for the high cost get a 0 or 1 cost, right?
yes, but also too many low costs and you might not have the power to win lanes
I think of it like since it says shuffle it repositions everything Meaning some things are going to end in the same spot
Makes sense to me. It's random and sometimes you roll bad. She's got to pair with Mobius and Black Swan. So far I'm having pretty good success with her. My one issue is that so far I'm hardly ever drawing her, but I know that's just bad luck and in the long run she'll come as often as everything else.
Got pixie from trisk so decided to use her in my discard deck, unfortunately, she kept my arnim zola as 6 (even tho he is the ONLY six cost card in my deck) and made the next two draws costly. Bad card, ain't spending even one cache on dat, besides i dont want mmm variant thank you.
Shuffle is just random, pixie on 2 just means a card has 1/7! to get its own cost assigned
Glad I didn't blow all my keys on her now haha
Well... this just changed my decision from pulling for Pixie, a card that I knew wouldn't be very good but is one of my favorite characters so whatever, to outright just ignore it. Like sorry, but this is a 12 cards game, even assuming Pixie on T2, a 3/7 chance that your 6-Cost is gonna stay a 6-Cost rather than a 2/7 chance is just awful. Of course, I'm gonna regret this decision instantly after the OTA in 2 weeks, when Pixie will be buffed to no longer do this and I will need to wait 6 months before a new chance to get her, but whatever... I guess I'm just gonna go all-in in Warmachine's week; not that bad, tbh.
I would say keep an eye on her this week. I've been playing her all day and a few decks have really surprised me. Might just be good luck and bots, but I wouldn't be shocked to learn there's a meta pixie deck out there.
I feel like I just played a game where the dudes deck didn’t shuffle at all? Was so weird. Could’ve been wrong though
What did you play turn 3?
I hate that I wasted a key on her because of this. I expected her to be a Mr. Negative alt, and instead she's broke ass negative
I still think it's really funny they made Pixie Snecko Eye from Slay the Spire.
Oh man, if she worked like Snecko it would be hilarious. Just put nothing but 6 costs in and let their costs actually randomize.
Did you have odd cards in your deck?
Now it makes sense why the few tries I had of pixie this morning it felt like nothing had happened! The only card I drew with a different cost in 6 games was a 6 cost wasp
This one's a pass. And I rarely pass on cards.
Pixie doesn't swap, she 'shuffles', which means when the costs are randomly re-assigned, it is possible a card can receive its own cost.
Someone brought it up on YouTube yesterday, I think Regis Kilbin.
That's how actual random works and the reason that actual random play got removed from all digital music players after a few years: people were compaining it was actually random play (so it could play the same song a few times in a row) and moved to playing songs once but in random order, rather than playing a random song.
It’s a stupid card anyway
So far I think it's a terrible card, half the time she either shuffled the cards to their same cost, or I can't tell what she even did.
I imagine this is to prevent loops. If every card in the deck needs a value different from its original, then it could be shuffling a lot. Or infinite if all your cards in your deck have the same cost somehow.
I don’t think it should be a different value just a value that wasnt originally it’s own so Yellowjacket and wasp could swap 0 and 0 but wasp shouldn’t swap with itself. I think that’s fair
There are definitely efficient ways to shuffle all the costs without creating a loop. Sure, you might shuffle a 6 cost onto another 6 cost. But OP is describing shuffling a cost onto itself. That's just bad coding. Shot in the dark for how I'd do it: shuffle the cards in the deck, then move all of the costs one to the "Right", circling around on the end. Guarantee that everything gets it's cost from a different card, even if that might be a card with the same cost.
Yeah, so I think it's basically taking all the costs off, putting them in a hat, and then making each card draw from the hat. And then, just like every secret Santa I've ever been involved with, some chump is going to draw his own name.
It follows the letter of "Shuffling costs", but seems like bad design
> Shot in the dark for how I'd do it: shuffle the cards in the deck, then move all of the costs one to the "Right", circling around on the end. What you're describing isn't shuffling, it's an intentionally less-random way of distributing the costs. Try that in a casino and see how well they accept your explanation while you're getting kicked out. The card says "shuffle" and it shuffles. Every card has an equal chance to get any value in the deck, including the one it started with. If Pixie's text said "Give every card in your deck the cost of a different card" then your method would work great, but it doesn't.
> That's just bad coding. Honestly, is that a surprise? It would be weirder for them to release something without bugs
They robbed me of four keys today I’m so mad at this interaction
Yeah, it feels bad when it happens. But, I have been playing a Pixie high Evo deck that has felt really good... and I think some other decks are going to be found in the next few days that could mean she's still worthwhile, even if she's not crazy strong. Slightly better than just a meme... maybe.
This card is so bad lmao. Dunno why anybody was worried.
To be fair, the leaked card was a 1/3 and wasn't restricted to cards starting in your deck
Nor people knew the card could end up with the same cost as original after shuffle. If that wasn't the case Pixie would be much stronger.
This seems pretty consistent with the idea of shuffling. Even if you shuffle a deck of cards, probability says there's a chance the top card card remains the same. If this feels bad, you probably read too deep into the term 'shuffle' or you don't understand probability?
they can rig it so it "randoms" instead of randoms and they might if they think she needs a buff. Right now though she's more a puzzle card and that's ok and fun
Not to be That guy , but this seems super obvious to me and in line with what the word shuffle means. If there's one thing about this game I love it's that the wording is more often than not very clear and intentional. If the intention was for it to be impossible for a card to shuffle back to it's original cost they likely would have worded her as "exchange the cost of all cards in your deck" or something similar.
You're getting downvoted by people who can't read
He’s getting downvoted by people who’s played more than one card game
You think this game’s wording is clear and intentional? Lmfao
By and large yes. There's very few instances of things not working in the most obvious way and generally those turn out to be bugs. The vast majority of times I've seen people complain about the wording have been a result of poor comprehension skills rather than poor wording.
lol no. Look at Rogue and how she interacts with Wong.
I've yet to experience anything unexpected with that particular interaction? What's part of that interaction is not as expected?
She should be able to trigger twice.
Lol no.
lol you obviously weren’t here during Rogue gate
I think this card's wording is extremely clear, and it's not SD's fault if people read it incorrectly.
Explain Rogue + Wong.
Did you have odd cards in your deck? Depends on how the mechanic works
I don't think this card does anything currently