impossibly awful distribution of CE cords in boosters

Hi I would like to add a question to the company that prints the cards for WW. How the f..c you randomize them? I'm not relly complaining as i should content with the result but i cannot say opening my box this weekend has been funny. I've found in one box of boosters a good variety of rare, vampires and (quite) uncommon plus a full set of common, in fact exactly 1 copy of 20 cards and 2 copies of 80 cards. Calling the five cards in a boosters a "sequence" i've found 20 different sequences and 16 of those two times! Same cards, same order, absolutely no fun It seems i got a full sheet and the first 80 cards of the next sheet with exactly the same non-randomizing criteria. The uncommon also seemed to follow this criteria as i've noted that either there were 3 new cards or 3 doubles. I would like to know if this situation happened to anyone else and i've a suggestion to white-wolf... Change the printing company! Andrea

"andrea" <andrea....@infinito.it> wrote in message news:8b06c4c.02090...@posting.google.com... > Hi > I would like to add a question to the company that prints the cards > for WW. > How the f..c you randomize them? > In fact, WW, like most CCG companies does not randomize their distribution. The idea is that you're *supposed* to get an even distribution. A box is not supposed to have duplicate rares, and you will basically get one print sheet and then some. I know that this is not really in keeping with the spirit of collectible at all, but it's always been done this way, AFAIK. I don't like it any more than you, but most people *love* this system, and are very upset when they get anything other than a flat distribution. I once suggested to FRPG that their distribution *should* be randomized, and they simply laughed at me. Makes sense... I naively thought that such a process was easy to implement and that it was preferrable. Turns out I was wrong on both counts (sure, it's preferrable to *me*, but not to most everyone else). Their suggestion to me, and mine to you is that if you would prefer a random distribution, get your packs from randomized sources, dig through a booster box and grab 3 packs from different places in the box... then go to a different store (or a different box if the same store has more than one opened), and grab some more packs. Yes, I realize how amazingly inconvenient this is, especially if you can get a volume discount from one store by buying a full box (although it's suprising how few places even bother to do this anymore). Basically, I've resigned myself that a box of cards has a very standardized distribution, and you're extremely unlikely to get either a very good box (multiples of great rares), or a very bad box (multiples of Abandoning the Flesh)... basically it can only happen if somebody royally screwed up.

andrea....@infinito.it (andrea) wrote in message news:<8b06c4c.02090...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] yes, that's the way the commons and uncommons are distributed in boosters. i've started compiling a list of the content of every booster i buy, and i already have the order in which commons appear in boosters if anyone is interested (uncommons are almost done as well). but i wouldn't really blame it on the printer/sorting machines. well yes, you could, but the situation is not only present in vtes. i've seen it in a lot of other ccgs. magic is an example... even with all their dollars WoC/hasbro doesn't have better common print runs. you can get lists off the net of the order of commons in boosters. yes, sometimes they vary a bit (as in you don't get the exact same commons from booster to booster), but the order is always the same. as silly as it may sound, i actually like it. if you buy a box of booster, you're assured of getting almost all commons x2, almost every uncommon, and all different vamps. this makes buying a whole box a good thing imo, because even if you could be getting dupes of good cards, you could also be getting multiples of crappy cards if distribution was completely random. and as i already stated, this is something that can't really be avoided it would seem... i know i'd rather have all my boxes have all commons x2 (and some x1) than having what i call 'regional distribution' problems as in, certain cards you get a *ton* of, and others you don't see ever, depending on where your boxes came from (something i've experienced with other ccgs, and let me tell you it's not one bit pleasant). i guess it's all a matter of taste. i have to agree it sort of makes opening your boosters a bit less exciting in a way (since you can predict what over half your cards will be after seeing the first), but again, i prefer an even distribution than a completely random one (probably because it evens out my usual bad luck ;) my two cents, zarrak

zar...@yahoo.com (MiF) wrote in message news:<40d56764.02090...@posting.google.com>... > andrea....@infinito.it (andrea) wrote in message news:<8b06c4c.02090...@posting.google.com>... > yes, that's the way the commons and uncommons are distributed in > boosters. i've started compiling a list of the content of every > booster i buy, and i already have the order in which commons appear in > boosters if anyone is interested (uncommons are almost done as well). > but i wouldn't really blame it on the printer/sorting machines. well > yes, you could, but the situation is not only present in vtes. i've > seen it in a lot of other ccgs. magic is an example... even with all > their dollars WoC/hasbro doesn't have better common print runs. you > can get lists off the net of the order of commons in boosters. yes, > sometimes they vary a bit (as in you don't get the exact same commons > from booster to booster), but the order is always the same. as silly i did not find this situation in Blood Lines or Final Nights, ok maybe i should say i did not note it, probably in CE the problem is with the 100 cards, 5 per booster ratio that makes repetition so clear, bah! > as it may sound, i actually like it. if you buy a box of booster, > you're assured of getting almost all commons x2, almost every > uncommon, and all different vamps. This is not exactly true: i've found the situation described on common but doubles of vampires, uncommons and triple of rares (missing a fragment of the book of nod anyone?) >this makes buying a whole box a > good thing imo, because even if you could be getting dupes of good > cards, you could also be getting multiples of crappy cards if > distribution was completely random. > > and as i already stated, this is something that can't really be > avoided it would seem... i know i'd rather have all my boxes have all > commons x2 (and some x1) than having what i call 'regional > distribution' problems as in, certain cards you get a *ton* of, and > others you don't see ever, depending on where your boxes came from > (something i've experienced with other ccgs, and let me tell you it's > not one bit pleasant). i guess it's all a matter of taste. i have to > agree it sort of makes opening your boosters a bit less exciting in a > way (since you can predict what over half your cards will be after > seeing the first), but again, i prefer an even distribution than a > completely random one (probably because it evens out my usual bad luck > ;) > > my two cents, > zarrak Thanks anyway, i presumed i did find a box with printing problems, you explained this is not the case and now i feel ....worse ;-) Andrea

Chris Berger wrote: > > "andrea" <andrea....@infinito.it> wrote in message > news:8b06c4c.02090...@posting.google.com... > > Hi > > I would like to add a question to the company that prints the cards > > for WW. > > How the f..c you randomize them? > > > In fact, WW, like most CCG companies does not randomize their distribution. > The idea is that you're *supposed* to get an even distribution. A box is not > supposed to have duplicate rares, and you will basically get one print sheet > and then some. > Untrue. I just opened a box, 6 duplicate R2s (not possible under well-designed sequential sorting because identical R2s would be 50 cards apart on a print sheet), and not a single new rare (again impossible under well-designed sequential sorting, because with 5 of them, they'd be 20 cards apart). [More of the useless stuff like Praxis Seizures than would be expected from a well-designed sequential sorting, though.] Clearly short of a full set of uncommons, with 2 Baltimore Purges being just about the only redeeming feature to the entire box (well, that, and some Simpsons UNO miscut Krusty Reverse which I'm sure I cannot redeem for a useful card anywhere). Doubles of vampires within the display (impossible with sequential sorting). The only rarity that did seem to have proper sequential sorting was the commons... but that alone is not going to motivate me into buying any more CE. [For that, seeing the 1-2 new rares expected in a display under proper sequential sorting would have been a huge incentive. Sequential sorting would have been a good idea, I think.] Thomas

"Thomas Pichler" <tom.p...@aon.at> wrote in message news:3D785AE7...@aon.at... > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > "andrea" <andrea....@infinito.it> wrote in message > > news:8b06c4c.02090...@posting.google.com... > > > > > In fact, WW, like most CCG companies does not randomize their distribution. > > The idea is that you're *supposed* to get an even distribution. A box is not > > supposed to have duplicate rares, and you will basically get one print sheet > > and then some. > > > Untrue. I just opened a box, 6 duplicate R2s Circumstantial. My box had no duplicate rares or vampires, and nearly no duplicate uncommons.

Chris Berger wrote: > > "Thomas Pichler" <tom.p...@aon.at> wrote in message > news:3D785AE7...@aon.at... > > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > > > "andrea" <andrea....@infinito.it> wrote in message > > > news:8b06c4c.02090...@posting.google.com... > > > > > > > In fact, WW, like most CCG companies does not randomize their distribution. > > > The idea is that you're *supposed* to get an even distribution. A box is > not > > > supposed to have duplicate rares, and you will basically get one print > sheet > > > and then some. > > > > > Untrue. I just opened a box, 6 duplicate R2s > > Circumstantial. Not really. It means that either rares are not included by sequential sorting, or the print sheets were poorly designed (since R2s could be 49 spots apart and not possibly be duplicated in a single booster box), so a box with good distribution is still lucky. Thomas

tom.p...@aon.at writes: >Not really. It means that either rares are not included by sequential >sorting, or the print sheets were poorly designed (since R2s could be 49 >spots apart and not possibly be duplicated in a single booster box), so >a box with good distribution is still lucky. I've never seen a Jyhad or V:tES box that was anywhere near as bad as a true random distribution. Anybody complaining about distributions has to be ignorant of how nasty random is. I just opened 3 booster boxes of CE. Were it random, I'd still be missing 11 vampires! As it was, I got 1 single, 84 2s, and 15 3s, which is so close to a perfect distribution as to be impossible from a random distribution. WW's system is very, very kind. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) "It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson

CurtAdams wrote: > > tom.p...@aon.at writes: > > >Not really. It means that either rares are not included by sequential > >sorting, or the print sheets were poorly designed (since R2s could be 49 > >spots apart and not possibly be duplicated in a single booster box), so > >a box with good distribution is still lucky. > > I've never seen a Jyhad or V:tES box that was anywhere near as > bad as a true random distribution. Anybody complaining about > distributions has to be ignorant of how nasty random is. I just > opened 3 booster boxes of CE. Were it random, I'd still be missing > 11 vampires! As it was, I got 1 single, 84 2s, and 15 3s, which is so > close to a perfect distribution as to be impossible from a random > distribution. WW's system is very, very kind. > Note that vampires and rares are two different things. I have a box to proove that the sorting of rares isn't kind (sequential sorting that guarantees no doubles and one new rare per box would be possible, so sorting that can give 6 doubles and no new rare cannot qualify as kind). Also, I wonder how you'd imagine a kind sorting system to work if it's not plain sequential sorting? Anything but sequential sorting or random distribution would, I imagine, be a bit much effort. Thomas

tom.p...@aon.at writes: >Note that vampires and rares are two different things. I have a box to >proove that the sorting of rares isn't kind (sequential sorting that >guarantees no doubles and one new rare per box would be possible, so >sorting that can give 6 doubles and no new rare cannot qualify as kind). Doesn't a box have 36 rares? What happened to the rest? As to rare sorting, I haven't paid much attention to that lately as my desire to collect has gone out the window. However, if you want 60 R1s from a sheet of 100, you need 12.5 boxes median and I don't think it's ever been that bad. >Also, I wonder how you'd imagine a kind sorting system to work if it's >not plain sequential sorting? Anything but sequential sorting or random >distribution would, I imagine, be a bit much effort. Dunno. I saw a lot of evidence of sequential sorting in my vampires in the form of packs with identical composition. But, overall, there wasn't a clear pattern. Maybe the packs get jumbled around a bit. [ quoted text not captured ]

CurtAdams wrote: > tom.p...@aon.at writes: > > >Note that vampires and rares are two different things. I have a box to > >proove that the sorting of rares isn't kind (sequential sorting that > >guarantees no doubles and one new rare per box would be possible, so > >sorting that can give 6 doubles and no new rare cannot qualify as kind). > > Doesn't a box have 36 rares? What happened to the rest? > That'd be 24 R1s/R2s that were not doubled in the display, with none of them being a new rare (should be 1:20, or 1-2 per box in sequential sorting). > >Also, I wonder how you'd imagine a kind sorting system to work if it's > >not plain sequential sorting? Anything but sequential sorting or random > >distribution would, I imagine, be a bit much effort. > > Dunno. I saw a lot of evidence of sequential sorting in my vampires > in the form of packs with identical composition. But, overall, > there wasn't a clear pattern. Maybe the packs get jumbled around > a bit. I would have thought that, too, were it not for the commons. With anything but straightforward sequential sorting, I'd expect drawing triples or blanks on a few commons, but that didn't happen. It's more like there's some jumbling on the higher rarities (but no real randominzing), and that's what seems very odd - it can generate displays just as good/bad as purely random sorting, and would be more effort than random or true sequential sorting. Thomas

Thomas Pichler wrote: > That'd be 24 R1s/R2s that were not doubled in the display, with none of > them being a new rare (should be 1:20, or 1-2 per box in sequential > sorting). Actually, seven of the 100 cards on the rare sheet are new. 3 new rares are R1s; two are R2s (Tension in the Ranks and Zoning Board). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

tom.p...@aon.at writes: >That'd be 24 R1s/R2s that were not doubled >in the display, with none of >them being a new rare (should be 1:20, or >1-2 per box in sequential sorting). The double vs. single rate is pretty reasonable for random sorting. None of them being new is odd, but how many did you already have? It's surprisingly plausible to open a new box when you're only missing 10 or fewer and get no new ones by random sorting. >I would have thought that, too, were it not for the commons. With >anything but straightforward sequential sorting, I'd expect drawing >triples or blanks on a few commons, but that didn't happen. Maybe they have a blocking system as well (e.g. cards from 1-10 go in the first slot, etc.) That plus nearly sequential sorting within blocks could produce random-looking packs but very even distributions. Might even be natural depending on the collation scheme. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Thomas Pichler" <tom.p...@aon.at> wrote in message news:3D7E2E61...@aon.at... [ quoted text not captured ] It could mean any number of things. It could mean that the rares are randomized (or "jumbled"), it could mean poor design of the rare sheet (are you actually ruling that out? this seems most likely to me), it could mean the display was tampered with, it could mean you have a poor memory, or it could mean that there was a cock-up in the printing (also very likely - there have been plenty of printing screwups seen already, and when I've seen complaints about distribution not being sequential in other CCG's, it was due to printer screwups). It could also mean that something occurred in the middle of your box - perhaps ink needed to be changed or the blade sharpened or the sheet removed for any number of reasons. I don't know the exact mechanics of the process by which sheets are printed and cut and sorted, but I do know that if a minor malfunction, or even general maitenance, occurs in the middle of a box's worth of cards, then it could easily skew the results of a few boxes. So your "findings" are absolutely circumstantial.

CurtAdams weote: > tom.p...@aon.at writes: > >That'd be 24 R1s/R2s that were not doubled > >in the display, with none of > >them being a new rare (should be 1:20, or > >1-2 per box in sequential sorting). > > The double vs. single rate is pretty reasonable > for random sorting. None of them being new > is odd, but how many did you already have? That's new to the set as LSJ interpreted correctly. And with two of them actually R2s, it's 2-3 per box that could be expected in sequential sorting, a well-designed print sheet (new rares farly evenly distributed) provided. Thomas

Chris Berger wrote: > "Thomas Pichler" <tom.p...@aon.at> wrote in message > news:3D7E2E61...@aon.at... > > Not really. It means that either rares are not included by sequential > > sorting, or the print sheets were poorly designed (since R2s could be 49 > > spots apart and not possibly be duplicated in a single booster box), so > > a box with good distribution is still lucky. > > > It could mean any number of things. It could mean that the rares are > randomized (or "jumbled"), it could mean poor design of the rare sheet (are you > actually ruling that out? this seems most likely to me) That'd be the two options I listed. Would be an extremely badly designed print sheet if that's the explanation, and I'm really starting to think that's it. > it could mean the display was tampered with, it could mean you have a > poor memory, or it could mean that there was a cock-up in the printing A cock-up in printing under supposed sequential sorting would have to cause an entire sequence of cards from the sheet be repeated. Even if that's what happened, an extremely badly designed print sheet would be part of the problem, because the sequence would be 6 R2s. Thomas

Howdy, > I would like to add a question to the company that prints the cards > for WW. > How the f..c you randomize them? OK, I hate to jump in with what is essentially a 'me too', but I've just got to vent on this. My brothers finally got it together and got me my two birthday boxes of CE boosters. I failed my willpower roll and opened them both in a frenzy of card sorting when they arrived yesterday. By the sixth or seventh pack of the second box, though, my frenzy began to diminish as a chilling theory began to take hold: that somehow I had managed to get ahold of two identical boxes... In the end, this did not turn out to be true. Not completely, at least. Of 36 packs in each box, 28 were common to both boxes. I didn't verify this down to the individual commons, but I'd open a pack, scan through the cards starting from the commons side and think, "Hmmm... this seems familiar," and voila, there would be a rare and two vampires that I'd already opened together in a pack in the other box. The first eight packs of the first box and the last eight packs of the second box were distinct, but otherwise, I got duplicate packs. Theoretically, of course, I now have lots of duplicates for trading. Well, yes and no. Here's a listing of the rares I got: Carthage Remembered Slashers, The Secret Library of Alexandria, The Giant's Blood Temptation of Greater Power Smiling Jack, The Anarch Sixth Tradition: Destruction Nosferatu Justicar Praxis Seizure: Atlanta Praxis Seizure: Dallas Tasha Morgan Dominate Kine Day Operation Brothers Grimm 2 Al's Army Apparatus 2 Malkavian Prank 2 Spawning Pool, The 2 Arcane Library 2 Charnas the Imp 2 Island of Yiaros 2 Golconda: Inner Peace 2 Protected Resources 2 XTC-Laced Blood 2 Anarch Troublemaker 2 Blood Puppy 2 Soul Gem of Etrius 2 First Tradition: The Masquerade 2 Praxis Seizure: Houston 2 Praxis Seizure: Miami 2 Toreador Justicar 2 Ventrue Justicar 2 Ghoul Retainer 2 Fists of Death 2 Abandoning the Flesh 2 Zoning Board 3 Fragment of the Book of Nod 3 J.S. Simmons, Esq. 3 Telepathic Vote Counting 3 Tension in the Ranks But wait, you say, that's only 68 rares - where are the other four? Here they are... And the loser is: 4 Mr. Winthrop me. I mean, yes, 3 Tension and 2 Protected Resources is good, and Dominate Kine and Giant's Blood don't suck, and the Soul Gems and Fists and Golconda and Arcane Libraries are pretty tradeable (already traded 3 out of 4), but you have to admit that this is an impressively sucky spread of fairly massively sucktastic rares. Al's? J.S.? Ghoul Retainer (I opened another in one of the five loose packs I've bought...)? Spawning frickin' Pools? Justicars and Praxes? What am I going to do with them? I'm trying hard to come up with a deck that can use 12 Mr. Winthrop (someone suggested that Tremere who can eat her retainers - hmmm...), which is how many I now own. I'm also seriously considering adding a new rider to my Communal Haven comments field, "Free Mr. Winthrop with every trade," but I'm not even sure whether it would encourage or discourage potential traders. Doh!, and sorry for wasting the time of anyone who's still reading, Alex

tom.p...@aon.at writes: writes: >That's new to the set as LSJ interpreted correctly. >And with two of them >actually R2s, it's 2-3 per box that could be expected in sequential >sorting, a well-designed print sheet (new rares farly evenly >distributed) provided. Yes, your duplicates are worse than sequential sorting. What you got, though, is very reasonable for random sorting - there are few new rares and it's not odd for a box to have none. So maybe the uncommons and commons have a pseudo- sequential distribution and the rares a pseudo-random. I haven't looked carefully at my own rares from 3 boxes (I have virtually 0 interest in collecting these days; too much money for something that just sits on the shelf) In general, though, I seem to have gotten pretty much all the rares. I got all the rare disciplinary cards, all the Justicars and 8 of the Praxis Seizures. That's a lot better than random, and more like sequential. Maybe you just got a screwup. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Thomas Pichler" <tom.p...@aon.at> wrote in message news:3D80B9A7...@aon.at... > Chris Berger wrote: > > > It could mean any number of things. It could mean that the rares are > > randomized (or "jumbled"), it could mean poor design of the rare sheet (are you > > actually ruling that out? this seems most likely to me) > > That'd be the two options I listed. > I know... that's why I listed them first. Although I assumed you were giving them as ridiculous possibilities, to illustrate what I thought was your original point - that the rares were randomized. And I suppose they might be, but I doubt it. Seems like too much work for too little gain. Anyway, yeah, I'm thinking that you're right in leaning toward poor design as the likely culprit. Maybe LSJ would be so kind as let us know how the rare sheet is set up. Although, that could potentially be a lot of work that he shouldn't, realistically, be responsible for, so if you're reading this LSJ, I understand if you don't care to enlighten us here. 8)