The end of land problem.

56 posts / 0 new
Last post
It's a very annoying problem and must be solved once and for all. It's a question of lucky and bad lucky than skills when you just draw nonland permanents you don't need or when you just draw lands when you most need nonland permanents. That's far from a fair play and it must be fixed. We should have 2 libraries, one library based on lands and the other based on nonlands permanents. Each time you start your turn you choose which of the 2 libraries you want to draw. No one will never complain about drawing only lands or nonland permanents. The game would be quite balanced and finally fair than ever. The duels would be fair and much more exciting. It's too simple to end for all this problem with a system like this implemented to fix this annoying problem.
No no and no.  It's a card game.  Sometimes you get the cards you need sometimes you don't.  Your opponent has the same chance to get flooded with cards they don't need as you do.  Proper deck building helps to aleviate some of this "randomness" but there will always be the possibility of getting to much or to little land.  Or getting your Wood Elf when what you really need is a Thragtusk.

You're a lose cannon.

 

 

"I played 70 card decks before it was cool to play 70 card decks." -Random M:tG hipster

That setup seems like it would make skill more of a factor than luck. I would not be upset by it.
These kind of solutions probably help aggro decks more than some people would like in the long run. You're giving those decks the best thing in the world by letting them choose their land drawn for the game which gives them access to drawing gas for the rest of the game. What Goblin player wouldn't love to set his 3 land start and draw spells for the rest of the game, picking up lands 4 and 5 when necessary? Since we already hear enough complaints about aggro/goblins being too good, I'd rather not have to see more of that.
These kind of solutions probably help aggro decks more than some people would like in the long run. You're giving those decks the best thing in the world by letting them choose their land drawn for the game which gives them access to drawing gas for the rest of the game. What Goblin player wouldn't love to set his 3 land start and draw spells for the rest of the game, picking up lands 4 and 5 when necessary? Since we already hear enough complaints about aggro/goblins being too good, I'd rather not have to see more of that.



Yeah but there could be another rule implemented that would fix this........"you are required to draw from the land pile once of every three turns" or something to that effect.....

I think the land mechanism in Magic is not its strongest point, but at this point there's nothing really that you can do; how can you make a massive change to the rules without completely unbalancing everything?

Having said that, I see no reason in Duels of the Planeswalkers why the shuffler shouldn't disallow starting hands with bad land distributions. For instance, 0 land and 7 land hands are unplayable always, for every deck, so why should they be allowed to appear? Given the restricted playing field, I don't think that some sort of very limited starting hand restriction would unbalance anything.
I actually like the idea.

Even the creator of Magic admitted they were somehow wrong to bring in lands to this game, increasing the factor of lucky immensely.

Be that as it may, I dont see the current (paper) developers actually being able to do anything about it. This is, after all, MtG. Can't change it too much.
The idea is "We are free to command our own gameplay to defeat or be defeated according to the particular skill of each one and not for the will of the game itself".
Do you guys honestly think this would be a good idea?

Oh, there's a Titan in my opening hand. Guess I'll draw land every turn unless I somehow fall behind.

Oh, I'm a blue deck and I get to draw some cards? Guess I'll always draw the perfect amount of action and land that I need.

This is a card game. The variance can be annoying at times, but I think the game is better off for it. You certainly have to think on your feet and play to your outs. If I hit my land drop this turn I can do x and maybe y. If I don't do I do z or w, hoping to hit my land drop next turn, and on and on. Taking away that uncertainty will somehow make this a more "skillful" game? I doubt it.

Also, try some Magic-esque card games without the land mechanic (I have). Do you think the tens of thousands of people who play, and continue to play, this game do so out of some kind of brand loyalty? No, they do it because this is (arguably) the best of the collectible card games out there.

Have you ever played Poker? Have you ever had pocket Aces cracked by something as silly as 8-2 off-suit? It happens man. Move on.
there is a card game that works literally like the op described. i keep forgetting the name of it (i always look it up then end up forgetting again) but it was designed by pro magic players and i alwaysthought it looked quite good.
These kind of solutions probably help aggro decks more than some people would like in the long run. You're giving those decks the best thing in the world by letting them choose their land drawn for the game which gives them access to drawing gas for the rest of the game. What Goblin player wouldn't love to set his 3 land start and draw spells for the rest of the game, picking up lands 4 and 5 when necessary? Since we already hear enough complaints about aggro/goblins being too good, I'd rather not have to see more of that.



Totally agree.

The land problem of "too many lands" or "no lands"  can be slightly solved if they allow us to customize our land ratio and if they reduce (a bit) the chance of having too many lands in a row in the library every time that the game shuffles.
Lol. wut? 2 libraries will ruin the game... Think about it Krenko's or any fast-midrange decks will become more powerful.. One of the weakness of fast aggro decks is that they tend to exhaust most if not all cards in hand early in the game meaning they have less options, combat tricks most of the time. Top decking on a fast aggro decks like Krenko is generally puts you in bad position and sometimes its nearly impossible to recover once the board is stablized by your opponent. Having 2 libraries will help them immensely.. When a Krenko or Odric player reach land drop 4-5 they won't be touching  their "land library" anymore thus filling their hand and continue putting pressure on the opponent... There's a reason why Mana Severance  is rare...

Sorry, but this may be one of the silliest suggestions ever.

Why not just take all the luck out and nix shuffling to begin with, you get to stack your deck as you see fit- then it'd be really skill based, right? Oh, but then whoever wins the coin flip wins every first turn with numerous decks in paper or turn 3 with Jace phantasm abuse in DotP 2013....hmm.....

It stinks when you top deck garbage or get land flooded/droughted but it happens to everyone. I honestly think this game doesn't screw over people with 100 card decks enough. They should get demolished on a routine basis based on statistics, but I think the "R"NG throws them a bone cause it feels sympathy (which is the first sign that the machines are becoming sentient and our time is nigh).

On top of all that this seriously would make a number of cards' effectiveness garbage/amazing. What if I hit you with Traumatize? Do I get to take 15 cards from your non-land deck or 10 from land deck instead of 25 from single library?  Actually, how would mill work in general? Do I have to mill both piles to get the mill? Then again if I can target your non-land pile with Mind Funeral or even Grindstone I guess that'd be cool right? You're consigned to draw nothing but land for the rest of the game. Scalpelexis on land pile is really fun, huh?

I mean seriously wtf. If you don't like card games don't play a card game, even if it digital....
It's a very annoying problem and must be solved once and for all. It's a question of lucky and bad lucky than skills when you just draw nonland permanents you don't need or when you just draw lands when you most need nonland permanents. That's far from a fair play and it must be fixed. We should have 2 libraries, one library based on lands and the other based on nonlands permanents. Each time you start your turn you choose which of the 2 libraries you want to draw. No one will never complain about drawing only lands or nonland permanents. The game would be quite balanced and finally fair than ever. The duels would be fair and much more exciting. It's too simple to end for all this problem with a system like this implemented to fix this annoying problem.



This may sound like a good idea at first, until you get into some of the mechanics in magic. Take mill for example. A mill deck could now focus on milling all your land (the shorter deck) and you won't be able to play a lot of your spells, or mill your non-land deck, which it can still do fairly quickly, and then you'll have nothing but land left. Greens land thinning cards just got worse, or even pointless. Cards that search your deck for a land and put it into play are now only good for acceleration, since the concept of land thinning just got thrown away. Cards that seach your deck for a land and put it into your hand are now completely useless, since you can just draw a land card instead whenever you need it. Then there's other cards like Future Sight or Shared Fate that just become really weird under this system.

Duels of the Planeswalkers deck builds and analysis: http://megamaster125.angelfire.com/dotp

 

Another one of my websites: http://megamaster125.angelfire.com/rationalchristianity/

 

I am Blue/White

This is a post about magic the gathering isn't it?  Two libraries would alter the play of the game so much, it would be a different game.  hmmmm which library do I mill... etc.  I've seen alot of bizarre complaints in these forums, but this one takes the cake. (No offense to the poster.)   I highly recommend cutting decks down to 60 cards, with as low of a mana curve as possible, unless the deck is a ramp build.  That should eliminate most problems.  I hate bad top-draw as much as the next guy, but theres no solution.  May I reccomend instead, playing a game of pure skill ie. chess?  No bad top draw in that game, lol
This isn't something that can be done as it would CHANGE way too much that is already established. I agree I always felt that there is TOO MUCH luck in MTG. I mean it takes skill to build a good deck, and it takes skills to know how to react/play, but when your opponent wins ONLY because their deck was luckier draws and not because it was the better strategy leaves a sour taste in the mouth.

I've been toying around with game designing a TCG that implores seperatation. A player can add a "land" per say by skipping their casting for the turn(think of it is studying to become more powerful). This makes the game play distincly more strategic. The difference though is cards both spell and creature I design are balanced much differently then they are in MTG.

Note that my game design is only testing what it would be like. I haven't considered it as ever going live but I can tell you so far it is far superior strategically and all luck is factored out and I might be biased but it is fun.
This isn't something that can be done as it would CHANGE way too much that is already established. I agree I always felt that there is TOO MUCH luck in MTG. I mean it takes skill to build a good deck, and it takes skills to know how to react/play, but when your opponent wins ONLY because their deck was luckier draws and not because it was the better strategy leaves a sour taste in the mouth.

I've been toying around with game designing a TCG that implores seperatation. A player can add a "land" per say by skipping their casting for the turn(think of it is studying to become more powerful). This makes the game play distincly more strategic. The difference though is cards both spell and creature I design are balanced much differently then they are in MTG.

Note that my game design is only testing what it would be like. I haven't considered it as ever going live but I can tell you so far it is far superior strategically and all luck is factored out and I might be biased but it is fun.



Well first, this
I mean it takes skill to build a good deck, and it takes skills to know how to react/play, but when your opponent wins ONLY because their deck was luckier draws and not because it was the better strategy leaves a sour taste in the mouth.

is more the outlier than the norm. Even in DotP where the "R"NG does seem to be less than random, people with skills/trimmed decks win more than they lose and that's a fact. Are you going to lose because mana flood/drought? Yes, but you win cause of it too which most people fail to acknowledge- why? because when you win 10 games and lose 1 game and the 1 game is because you got nothing but land draws turns 1-5 that stands out in your mind a lot more than the game that some dude played nothing but swamps for 4 turns. It also helps that you know when you get screwed cause you see your hand/draws, whereas not so much when it happens to opponent.

Second, I still don't even see how "seperation" helps with randomness that much. What it avoids is late game top-decking lands, sure. But really when you draw a land on turn 4 when you already have 2 in hand, the effect is a loss of a draw- aren't you still doing that in either your game where you skip your draw, or the OPs point of choosing land library? Yea it's more as needed but guess what? I've got 5 land and I need a creature and I just drew Murder Jet Medallion Griselbrand and Corrupt - it will still happen no matter what in any game chance is involved. You may be reducing the odds but why? It's a part of the game and there are strategies for dealing with top decking lands (Mana Severance says hi).

I don't know this whole thread seems silly and the only reason I'm coming back now is some sort of morbid curiosity.
i dont get all the negativity toward this idea. same with the idea in the casual forum about drawing 2 cards a turn instead of 1.

the response is always "some deck types would benefit too much" and/or "it changes too much already established"
but the same could be said of:
commander
planechase
noble
mtgo avatars / vanguard
maybe archenemy

yea.......

Doesn't command zone benefit combo? doesnt 40 life benefit combo? It sure does.

the also funny thing is that with both ideas, a tcg exists with the exact idea implemented.
We actually used to play like this with our house rules every once in a while just for kicks.  This was back in Alpha and Beta, so there wasn't as much variety in cards back them and there was no such thing as "Mill" yet.  It was fun to goof around with, but it turned it into an inherantly different game.  
@rockshard: What in the world are you babbling about w/r/t command zones and 40 life benefitting combo? Sure, combos exist, but when you have to construct a 100 card deck where every card is different, how does this enable/benefit "combo"?
The reason I'm being negative (aside from just being kind of a D-Bag today I guess) is that the OP's suggestion that the game is inherently flawed and he has the solution seems sort of narcissistic as most players don't even a) really see the flaw and b) would see the suggestion as a negative. But moreso, neither suggestion removes the randomness of the game and nor should it' It's a card game, there's nothing wrong with randomness.

The randomness is something everyone deals with and it keeps the game from getting stagnant. I recently compared this game to Star Craft to a friend of mine who is thinking about getting it: There's rock>scissors>Paper>Rock scenarios, there's different styles of play, there's a level of resource management, etc. But the key difference is the element of randomness. Once you played Brood Wars several hundred times you saw "Okay zerg, I can probably expect a) zerglings to come pouring in within the first 5 minutes to mess with me or b) zergling/mutalisk massive attack around 8 minutes." - and then every game becomes you trying to manage better (skill) your opponent and the only variety is sometimes you play someone better than you who makes better use of his crap and sometimes you don't but it'd pan out like that a lot. Here you might play 20 games against OD and not see a Griselbrand ever resolve even though he's clearly something every OD player wants on the field. And it's as much because of the luck factor as anything.

I don't know I'm probably rambling, but the bottom line is I don't understand why you'd try to actually forcibly try to extract a key element and point of strategy (there's a reason you can only have 4x copies of non-land, non-Relentless Rats in a deck... ironically one of them is Plague Rats comboed with Dark Ritual but yea...random = good).
There's a reason why, in high level play, where games ACTUALLY MEAN SOMETHING, that matches are not decided on one game, but instead in a best 2 of 3.  It's because of the randomness that inherently comes with this being a card game.

This is a casual format.  If you get upset over losing because you drew 7 lands in a row in a casual game, maybe this isn't the game for you.

I would expect a suggestion like this from someone that has little experience with M:tG.  It's funny how all the vets here seem to think this is a horrible idea.  That alone should tell you something.

You're a lose cannon.

 

 

"I played 70 card decks before it was cool to play 70 card decks." -Random M:tG hipster

OP what you are suggesting isn't necessarily a bad idea for a card game.  The problem is that it would not be MtG anymore with that format.  So much would have to change that the majority of the game would be unrecognizeable.  Have you tried any of the Deckbuilder games?  They have a vibe more along the lines you are suggesting.
Of all things, Death is least permanent.
While I think the 2 library idea is taking things a bit too far away from MtG, I would love to see some coding put in to ensure each player gets a starting hand consisting of 2-4 land, and 3-5 non-land cards.  It would be a minor change, and really accomplish nothing except evening the playing field and removing a bit of the luck involved in a win.  No one likes either having to start with that 1 land, or 5 or 6 land and praying you draw what you need, lest the game be a write off.  Start both players out on the same level playing field, luck of the draw still constitutes a huge part of the game going forward, but atleast I won't have to sit thru a game where I get flooded/screwed from the get go, or have to mulligan down to a 4 or 5 card hand leaving me at a pretty severe disadvantage before the game has even begun.

i have the EASIEST MAGICAL SOLUTION...EVERYONE WOULD AGREE ON IT IM SURE!!!!

if u want a land card. return 2 non land card to base of your library
if u want a non land card, return 2 land cards to base of your library

PROBLEM SOLVED...AND EVERYONE WILL LIKE THIS SOULTION>> SO HOW CAN WE MAKE OUR VOICE REACH CREATOR??!!
i have the EASIEST MAGICAL SOLUTION...EVERYONE WOULD AGREE ON IT IM SURE!!!!

if u want a land card. return 2 non land card to base of your library
if u want a non land card, return 2 land cards to base of your library

PROBLEM SOLVED...AND EVERYONE WILL LIKE THIS SOULTION>> SO HOW CAN WE MAKE OUR VOICE REACH CREATOR??!!




I disagree. I mean sure, it's a fine mechanic, would work in some way I guess, but magic is what it is. The 20 year anniversary is coming up, and the rules are hardly going to change now, and it would be terrible if they did.

EDIT: Also, that method right there would kill mill. Being able to pad your library when they finally get you to 0 cards will net you a free turn when you should be dead and gone. Return two cards >>> draw one card >>> swing with whatever you have on the board. A lot of the time it's a close call for mill as it is, this would be the last thing it needs. 
I am Blue/White
I am Blue/White
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.
I hate land screw/flood on this game, i hate it more than sarah jessica parkers horse face. But, it this game works so well because of how it's designed. There's no way around it and no way to change it. Even if they did bring in these mechanics of a garunteed land/non-land, it would ruin the whole randomness of the game.


Leave magic as it is, if you don't like how it is, go play something else rather than trying to change it for the vast majority who enjoy it. I have a real big problem with noobs trying to change the ways of games. They ruined Gears.  
I always thought this could be a good idea too, but with a slight modification: You must keep half or more of your land in your regular deck. Also, you would not be permitted to draw from the land deck on your first turn. And the mulligan rule should be abolished.

That way, if starved, you can get that necessary land. And your chances of flood are reduced, though not eliminated. It wouldn't favour low cost decks quite so much that way. After all, if all you need is 2 or 3 land to gain a victory, what need have you to put in more than 2 or 3 land in your deck? 

This way, if you don't put enough land in your deck, you sacrifice being able to play on your first turn more often than not.
Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

I always thought this could be a good idea too, but with a slight modification: You must keep half or more of your land in your regular deck. Also, you would not be permitted to draw from the land deck on your first turn. And the mulligan rule should be abolished.

That way, if starved, you can get that necessary land. And your chances of flood are reduced, though not eliminated. It wouldn't favour low cost decks quite so much that way. After all, if all you need is 2 or 3 land to gain a victory, what need have you to put in more than 2 or 3 land in your deck? 

This way, if you don't put enough land in your deck, you sacrifice being able to play on your first turn more often than not.



But if you have a 60 card deck with say 10 land, then you have 50 cards to play with. That would make some combo's just too OP.
There are only one of two ways to fix the mana problem. First way is that everyone gets one land every turn and comes into play.My other way and this is how I wish magic was honestly, is to sacrfice a card only once per turn and you get mana.
Yak Cast - MMO Podcast: http://yak.mmoSmackTalk.com Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/yakmmosmacktalk Follow me on Facebook: http://facebook.com/YakCast
They could just slap in a few cards that read "every turn for the next X turns you may put one land onto the battlefield untapped"


X could be the number of lands, it could be 7 minus the number of cards in your hand etc. Kind of like evolving wilds but more long term.  
Almost like an Endless Horizons for everyone you say?
My other way and this is how I wish magic was honestly, is to sacrfice a card only once per turn and you get mana.



That's called "Cycling".  ;)

I wouldn't mind if they printed more cards with Cycling, but the entire game is built on the foundation of having lands in your deck, there are literally hundreds of cards that would become useless if they changed it.

In fact, the entire color Green would become less powerful because mana ramp is one of its major strengths.

Almost like an Endless Horizons for everyone you say?



Yeah, it should cost 4 colourless, as an artifact you sacrifice, so it's counted as a card and not a land card. You can't play it straight away so it doesn't give aggro an advantage. Personally i think the game is 'fine' as it is, yeah the random land screw/flood and it is annoying but it's the way it goes.
The game's fine as is. If land, the game's core mechanic, was truly a problem the game would not have endured and prospered for the last two decades...
The game's fine as is. If land, the game's core mechanic, was truly a problem the game would not have endured and prospered for the last two decades...



Exactly.  And Jyhad wouldn't have bombed.  (I actually like Jyhad, for the record.)

DotP might be a little less random if players could adjust their land count per deck, I'm guessing they left that out for simplicity's sake.

I played another CCG that handled "mana" differently, and the game definitely felt more skill based, whereas I often feel in Magic that up to 50% of the games have a mana issue on one side or another. The appeal of Magic is its simplicity, even Richard Garfield said he'd redesign the land aspect if he could do it over, but it's clearly "good enough" to last and become the most popular TCG ever.
SOMEONE TELL ME ANY REASONABLE ANSWER WHY THIS SOLUTION ISN'T PERFECT

Once per turn, only if you have NO land in your hand : you can return 2 non land cards to base of your library and get a random 1 land card ( sacrificing 2 for 1)
Once per turn, only if you have all your hands land cards only: you can return 2 lands to the base of Your library and get a random 1 non land card ( sacrificing 2 for 1)

And that can only be done once per turn
It looks terribly slow and clunky, and once again, gives benefit to aggressive strategies the most. Once they get into a situation where they start drawing duds (excess lands), they can now "cycle" away these useless draws for real cards. Whereas the "control" decks in these situations need to sacrifice card advantage to try and stabilize their manabase. The problem is aggro cares more about tempo which usually leads to them exhausting their hand first and drawing off the top deck before defensive decks do where this method effectively starts giving those aggressive decks more cards. This begins to remove one of the fundamental aspects of a control deck where it wants to control the other player's cards and while trying to maintain it's own. (which it can't easily do when it has to go down 2-for-1 if it has to stabilize its mana at any point in the game under this new "cycle" option)
It looks terribly slow and clunky, and once again, gives benefit to aggressive strategies the most. Once they get into a situation where they start drawing duds (excess lands), they can now "cycle" away these useless draws for real cards. Whereas the "control" decks in these situations need to sacrifice card advantage to try and stabilize their manabase. The problem is aggro cares more about tempo which usually leads to them exhausting their hand first and drawing off the top deck before defensive decks do where this method effectively starts giving those aggressive decks more cards. This begins to remove one of the fundamental aspects of a control deck where it wants to control the other player's cards and while trying to maintain it's own. (which it can't easily do when it has to go down 2-for-1 if it has to stabilize its mana at any point in the game under this new "cycle" option)




I said only if your hand has no land cards at all, or if your hand has only land cards, I didn't say u can change in middle of game for better cards... Read my option precisely ... It is very fair...if u have a hand like 6 land cards only.. U can sacrifice 2 to get a non land card.. But if u have 5 land cards and 1 non land u can't do it and improve your hand..the same if u have like a starting hand of 8 cards with no land, sacrifice 2 and get 1 land...next turn if u got a land u can't do it to improve your hand..and it's done once per turn...
I'd have to join those saying it doesn't need fixing.  It's random, and yes that sucks when you're playing a 1-off match.  Over time, it evens out.  You mess with the mana rules and you might have a great game... but it wouldn't be MTG.