>>32980999I have no idea where the supporters and energy are when I shuffle because I don't organize my decks aside from when I have to provide my list or when I'm making changes, once I start shuffling the cards are in whatever order they end up in until I change my list.
clumps of 3 energy or whatever are fairly common, that's within average. It's when I get half of the energy in my deck on one Sycamore or when I get starting hands with 2 sycamore and 4 seekers that I feel something isn't right, because I see something that bad once every few hundred games IRL and once every ten to twenty online.
>>32981139Again, it's not the fact that I'm not getting good hands that really clues me in to the fact that something is wrong here. It's the fact that I seem to get disproportionately good or bad hands while when I'm playing IRL, whether I have an opponent cutting/shuffling or I'm doing it myself, I get more average looking hands with small clumps (1-2 of my 4 of cards rather than 3-4, 2-3 energies instead of 5+ energies) or a more even looking distribution of cards.
>>32981094There's no such thing as a perfect shuffle because nothing is perfectly random. I'm mostly complaining that the online game generally feels like a poor mirror of the paper game mostly because of how divergent the shuffling seems to be. I'm far from the only one who has observed this.
>>32981217Online, for example I have had one game with 3 prized lele and four games with two (in decks with two Lele). IRL. I've played maybe 400 games since Guardians dropped and probably 150 real table games plus 2-300 games in testing sessions and haven't seen that happen once.
Again, I understand that it's totally possible to just get shit on via probability, but the probability of these events is low and there's a pretty wild difference between what I see in these supposedly mechanically identical games.
