Yet another pair of consecutive Limited games in which I lost due to hitting my first 10 land drops

28 posts / 0 new
Last post
I got sucked into yet another Boros deck (first pick Assemble the Legion, P2P1 Boros Reckoner), felt pretty good about it. Only to lose because I made my first 10 land drops in consecutive games. I drew out a total of 11 spells between the two games. Honestly, why does that keep happening when I keep 3 land hands? Why didn't the designers come up with some built in mechanic to prevent this from happening. Why not make every 4th game decided by a coin-flip if they needed games to be decided arbitrarily?
You signed up for a game involving a lot of variance.

 Not sure what you want us to say about this?

You could stop playing online if you think it happens too much, other than that can you suggest which direction this thread is supposed to go?

You've already made a plethora of threads about this.
bulletd Guidelines: 5.0: I will take this card no matter what. Creature 1 or playable 1 or hate 1.Archangel of Thune 4.5: Bomb and splashable. Creature 1-2, playable 1-2, removal 1. Jace, Memory Adept 4.0: Excellent first pick first pack, will sway me into same colors. Creatures 1-4, removal 1. Haunted Plate Mail 3.5: Excellent first pack pick two, will confirm colors or possibly sway into second color. Doom Blade 3.0: Good in-color addition, or splashable removal/creature. Creatures 3-9, removal 1-3. wall of Frost 2.5: Solid pick in-color; creatures 5-12, removal 3-5. Dark Favor 2.0: Creatures 10-16; removal 6-7. Elvish Mystic 1.5: My 23rd or 22nd card, depending on removal. Act of Treason 1.0: 23rd card if I don't maindeck an additional land. Lay of the Land 0.5: This card will sometimes be sideboarded in. Brave the Elements 0.0: I will shred this card for counters. Darksteel Forge
I suppose it mainly comes down to how arbitrary the variance is. In Backgammon every die roll is completely up to chance, and yet a skilled player will beat an unskilled one 95 times out of 100. In Poker every hand is completely up to chance, yet the top players will consistantly beat the poor ones. If you're playing a poker tournament and you draw two 2-7 hands in a row, you don't lose the entire tournament, you just fold those hands and play better ones.

Variance is fine when it doesn't prevent poor players from losing to skilled ones, mana issues in Magic are much more arbitrary. Roughly every 4th game is decided by mana issues alone, in which the person experiencing them has no chance at winning regardless of who well he plays. There's no reason it has to work that way.
Cut a few lands?
I was experimenting a lot a while back with the online shuffler.

It may seem strange but during deck construction if I weaved the mana into the deck before finzalizing it I had a lot less problems.

Very small sample size, admittedly. 

Definitely not every fourth game in my experience. I would say maybe every fourth game has a mulligan but I often win when I mulligan (as do my opponents). 
bulletd Guidelines: 5.0: I will take this card no matter what. Creature 1 or playable 1 or hate 1.Archangel of Thune 4.5: Bomb and splashable. Creature 1-2, playable 1-2, removal 1. Jace, Memory Adept 4.0: Excellent first pick first pack, will sway me into same colors. Creatures 1-4, removal 1. Haunted Plate Mail 3.5: Excellent first pack pick two, will confirm colors or possibly sway into second color. Doom Blade 3.0: Good in-color addition, or splashable removal/creature. Creatures 3-9, removal 1-3. wall of Frost 2.5: Solid pick in-color; creatures 5-12, removal 3-5. Dark Favor 2.0: Creatures 10-16; removal 6-7. Elvish Mystic 1.5: My 23rd or 22nd card, depending on removal. Act of Treason 1.0: 23rd card if I don't maindeck an additional land. Lay of the Land 0.5: This card will sometimes be sideboarded in. Brave the Elements 0.0: I will shred this card for counters. Darksteel Forge
Hi, I just wanted to say that variance in poker is much much higher than you are thinking, and definitly higher than magic's variance.
It is not just about getting two 2-7 hands in a row and having to fold them. That's like saying 'Variance in magic is minimal, if you get a no-land opening hand, you could mulligan, and that's it.'
If you lose in the first match of thirty drafts in a row, being a winning player, then we can start comparing poker variance with magic variance. 

I don't mean to sound offensive, and sorry if I did, but I wanted to clearify that.
It's pretty normal for top-level poker players to have 50-100 buyin downswings over periods of 1000+ games.  There's not as much variance in Magic, but it's still very possible for a player to run well above or below expectation over the course of several years, never mind a few drafts.  I don't think mana issues in back-to-back games tell us much.  
^Indeed. I have heard many players complain about losing to less-skilled players, but we are playing a card game with a randomized deck, so no matter how good you are or how good or bad your opponent is, there is always a shred of luck involved with every game we play. We've all been mana screwed or flooded at some point, it happens.
Hi, I just wanted to say that variance in poker is much much higher than you are thinking, and definitly higher than magic's variance.
It is not just about getting two 2-7 hands in a row and having to fold them. That's like saying 'Variance in magic is minimal, if you get a no-land opening hand, you could mulligan, and that's it.'
If you lose in the first match of thirty drafts in a row, being a winning player, then we can start comparing poker variance with magic variance. 

I don't mean to sound offensive, and sorry if I did, but I wanted to clearify that.



The point I was making about Poker is that it seems like there should be considerably more variance than Magic, since the winner for each individual hand is dictated entirely by the cards drawn, and there's very little gameplay that can change that. And yet there is considerably less variance in the overall outcome because all of the variance effectively cancels out, so you are left with skill again. In Magic there are a limited number of games per tournament, and each game is worth the same amount. In poker that would be the equivalent of starting with blinds that were over 25% of the starting chips.
 
Indeed. I have heard many players complain about losing to less-skilled players, but we are playing a card game with a randomized deck, so no matter how good you are or how good or bad your opponent is, there is always a shred of luck involved with every game we play. We've all been mana screwed or flooded at some point, it happens.



In this particular matchup I was playing against an opponent where if we had switched draws for these two mana issue games, I would have won at least 1 and 4 turns earlier respectively. It is virtually impossible to win after mana flooding as badly as I did in these games, in both games my opponent had 4 more spells than I did. Both starting hands were keepable and both games were played error free on my side.
SB, please stop acting like a scrub.  I want to believe that you are a good player, but you consistently post threads like this and make me think otherwise.
It's because I am a good player that I make posts like this, since it means that number of mana flood/screw losses encountered in an online tournament is typically the difference between a 2-1 and 3-0 finish. If I were a worse player I'd probably say something along the lines of "Oh well, mana issues happen to everyone I guess it all evens out" If I were even worse than that I might like opponent mana issues providing me with a few wins I get period.

But beyond that, it's poor game design because it's arbitrary. Every 4th game on average is decided even before it begins because of the lands a player will/won't draw. I'd rather just swap out those games with non-mana issue games, for both me and my opponent. When my opponent loses due to mana screw, it doesn't feel good unless they beat me the previous game and the mana stumble means I can force a game 3, and it never feels good to lose to mana issues. 
If I were a worse player I'd probably say something along the lines of "Oh well, mana issues happen to everyone I guess it all evens out" If I were even worse than that I might like opponent mana issues providing me with a few wins I get period.


Yeah, you've got it backwards.

VARIANCE
This is going to happen in Magic. It's built into the game. If you want to play a game where this doesn't happen, go play chess. 

Variance is worse in limited and you don't play constructed. Get over it already. 

You're a bad player because you think you're unbeatable except for getting mana screwed/flooded. If you think you're a good player you've stopped getting better. 
It's because I am a good player that I make posts like this, since it means that number of mana flood/screw losses encountered in an online tournament is typically the difference between a 2-1 and 3-0 finish. If I were a worse player I'd probably say something along the lines of "Oh well, mana issues happen to everyone I guess it all evens out" If I were even worse than that I might like opponent mana issues providing me with a few wins I get period.

But beyond that, it's poor game design because it's arbitrary. Every 4th game on average is decided even before it begins because of the lands a player will/won't draw. I'd rather just swap out those games with non-mana issue games, for both me and my opponent. When my opponent loses due to mana screw, it doesn't feel good unless they beat me the previous game and the mana stumble means I can force a game 3, and it never feels good to lose to mana issues. 



No.  Good players realize that the mana system is part of the game.  You post these threads to act like a scrub.  Please stop it.


No.  Good players realize that the mana system is part of the game.  You post these threads to act like a scrub.  Please stop it.



The part of the mana system that works well is that it balances a spell against it's cost and you can play at most 1 land per turn. This means you have to includes cards at every point in the curve, you can't field a deck entirely of 6 CMC cards and expect to win. The part of the mana system that doesn't work is that from time to time it completely dictates the outcome of games, regardless of how carefully the decks are constucted or how well they are played. In the first 17 cards you would expect to draw 7 lands and 9 spells on average, if instead you draw 10 lands and 6 spells your opponent effectively gets a 3 spell advantage on you. Even against a player making serious mistakes, a 3 card disadvantage is typically insurmountable.

I don't think anyone is questioning that mana short/mana flood pulls all game win rates towards the center. This means that it is beneficial for players with game win rates under 50% and harmful to players with win rates over 50%. Now, do you think scrubs are above, or below 50% in game win percentage?


No.  Good players realize that the mana system is part of the game.  You post these threads to act like a scrub.  Please stop it.



The part of the mana system that works well is that it balances a spell against it's cost and you can play at most 1 land per turn. This means you have to includes cards at every point in the curve, you can't field a deck entirely of 6 CMC cards and expect to win. The part of the mana system that doesn't work is that from time to time it completely dictates the outcome of games, regardless of how carefully the decks are constucted or how well they are played. In the first 17 cards you would expect to draw 7 lands and 9 spells on average, if instead you draw 10 lands and 6 spells your opponent effectively gets a 3 spell advantage on you. Even against a player making serious mistakes, a 3 card disadvantage is typically insurmountable.


False. In the first 17 cards you'd expect to see 6-8 lands and 8-10 spells 1/3 of the time (using a very rough estimate and not going back and runing that actual numbers, naturally. The point is the existence of an expectations curve.). Probability isn't a hard point, it's a distribution.

I don't think anyone is questioning that mana short/mana flood pulls all game win rates towards the center. This means that it is beneficial for players with game win rates under 50% and harmful to players with win rates over 50%. Now, do you think scrubs are above, or below 50% in game win percentage?



I think scrubs are anyone who refuse to just focus on getting better and instead complains that something ought to be changed. People who complain that slivers are too good in casual who refuse to shell out for the WoGs, for instance. 
76783093 wrote:
Luckily, we have stop-having-fun guys to remind us that having anything more than 60 cards in your deck is tantamount to being a rapist and anyone considering it should be strung up by their ****.
If I were a worse player I'd probably say something along the lines of "Oh well, mana issues happen to everyone I guess it all evens out" If I were even worse than that I might like opponent mana issues providing me with a few wins I get period.


Yeah, you've got it backwards.

VARIANCE
This is going to happen in Magic. It's built into the game. If you want to play a game where this doesn't happen, go play chess. 

Variance is worse in limited and you don't play constructed. Get over it already. 

You're a bad player because you think you're unbeatable except for getting mana screwed/flooded. If you think you're a good player you've stopped getting better. 



Variance was built into the game back when the Magic games were played for ante. The idea was that a veteran player with a strong deck needed to lose to a completely new player every so often. Because the veteran's deck was much stronger, the few cards the new player won would be much more valuable than the ones they lost. Thus making it impossible for someone to dominate based solely on having deep pockets.

I have never said that I am unbeatable outside of mana flood/short, but games where I hit mulligans and mana issues do account for the majority of my losses. I win between 80-85% of the games where I keep my original 7 and hit neither mana flood, nor short. This means that for a given match where this is true I am winning between 90 and 94% of the time. Certainly getting through an entire 3 match tournament with no mulligans or mana issues isn't something that a player should expect, but getting through a 3 match tournament without a match loss that is entirely due to mana issues (2 out of 3 games) seems resonable.

The problem I have with the variance introduced by mana issues is that at this point the best predictor of my record for any given tournament is how many games I hit mana issues. Not the strength of the deck I drafted or the strength of the decks drafted by my opponents. And mana issues the way I've defined them (Either missing one of your first 3 land drops, or drawing more lands than spells) varies only based on the number of lands in the deck, and the vast majority of the decks I play are 2 color decks with 17 lands. So by extension, the best predictor of whether I end up 3-0 or 2-1 is completely random.

I think scrubs are anyone who refuse to just focus on getting better and instead complains that something ought to be changed. People who complain that slivers are too good in casual who refuse to shell out for the WoGs, for instance. 



On these message boards I think a scrub is someone who complains about someone proposing a change, without presenting any arguments related to the change itself. People who focus only on their personal dissatisfaction in someone bringing up the topic of a change at all.

How about this, why don't you improve your own gameplay to the point that the majority of your loses are due to mana issues? Then decide for yourself whether you still think mana induced loses are a boon to Magic as a whole.
If I were a worse player I'd probably say something along the lines of "Oh well, mana issues happen to everyone I guess it all evens out" If I were even worse than that I might like opponent mana issues providing me with a few wins I get period.


Yeah, you've got it backwards.

VARIANCE
This is going to happen in Magic. It's built into the game. If you want to play a game where this doesn't happen, go play chess. 

Variance is worse in limited and you don't play constructed. Get over it already. 

You're a bad player because you think you're unbeatable except for getting mana screwed/flooded. If you think you're a good player you've stopped getting better. 



Variance was built into the game back when the Magic games were played for ante. The idea was that a veteran player with a strong deck needed to lose to a completely new player every so often. Because the veteran's deck was much stronger, the few cards the new player won would be much more valuable than the ones they lost. Thus making it impossible for someone to dominate based solely on having deep pockets.

I have never said that I am unbeatable outside of mana flood/short, but games where I hit mulligans and mana issues do account for the majority of my losses. I win between 80-85% of the games where I keep my original 7 and hit neither mana flood, nor short. This means that for a given match where this is true I am winning between 90 and 94% of the time. Certainly getting through an entire 3 match tournament with no mulligans or mana issues isn't something that a player should expect, but getting through a 3 match tournament without a match loss that is entirely due to mana issues (2 out of 3 games) seems resonable.

The problem I have with the variance introduced by mana issues is that at this point the best predictor of my record for any given tournament is how many games I hit mana issues. Not the strength of the deck I drafted or the strength of the decks drafted by my opponents. And mana issues the way I've defined them (Either missing one of your first 3 land drops, or drawing more lands than spells) varies only based on the number of lands in the deck, and the vast majority of the decks I play are 2 color decks with 17 lands. So by extension, the best predictor of whether I end up 3-0 or 2-1 is completely random.


No, variance exists in magic because you randomly order cards in a x card deck. Not because of ante cards. There is no card game where you randomly order a deck of cards in which there won't be variance. And the rest of your statement is just completely wrong. What are you talking about? 

No, it's only reasonable to you. A three round tournament is a small sample so it is high variance. When you increase the sample size statistical trends are formed. For every 3 round tournament you don't mulligan at all there is the same amount of tournaments where you mulligan every game. It's just how it is. You run hot, you run cold. You say that it's unfair but it basically makes you a whining baby.

This issue has literally been bothering you for x amount of time but for some reason you feel the need to tell us about it and nobody cares. It's your problem, you deal with it. You have never given a real way to solve this "problem" and quite frankly, complaining about the MODO shuffler the same of this forum. 

1. Get your own blog/live journal/twitter/whatever
2. Go play chess 

I think scrubs are anyone who refuse to just focus on getting better and instead complains that something ought to be changed. People who complain that slivers are too good in casual who refuse to shell out for the WoGs, for instance. 



On these message boards I think a scrub is someone who complains about someone proposing a change, without presenting any arguments related to the change itself. People who focus only on their personal dissatisfaction in someone bringing up the topic of a change at all.

How about this, why don't you improve your own gameplay to the point that the majority of your loses are due to mana issues? Then decide for yourself whether you still think mana induced loses are a boon to Magic as a whole.



Firstly, let me respond to the post before the quoted one (the novel): The game developers have repeatedly talked about how variance is a key aspect to magic, mostly after ante went away. So... that doesn't fly.


And now to the quote:  Words mean things. Scrub has a definition, which has caused it's emotional connotation. Attempting to redefine it while retaining it's emotional weight is silly at best and a textbook example of an utter failure to understand dialect thus calling your skills as a magic player into doubt at worst. Granted, that doesn't mean you're a bad magic player - people who are not primary speakers of the language they are communicating in run into this sort of thing all the time in other areas - it just means that your ability to discuss magic with the rest of the world suffers.


That being said, the assumption that I'm not working on improving is rather silly. I've got a long way to go before variance becomes my only bane and I would argue that if variance is your only problem when playing magic you should probably stop clubing baby seals and play in a more competitive environment. 
76783093 wrote:
Luckily, we have stop-having-fun guys to remind us that having anything more than 60 cards in your deck is tantamount to being a rapist and anyone considering it should be strung up by their ****.

No, variance exists in magic because you randomly order cards in a x card deck. Not because of ante cards. There is no card game where you randomly order a deck of cards in which there won't be variance. And the rest of your statement is just completely wrong. What are you talking about? 

2. Go play chess 



1) When Richard Garfield was asked about mana issues, and why they weren't fixed in the original design, he responded that he thought that allowing anyone to win, regardless of deck strength or play skill was beneficial, and the rationale he gave was tied to ante. There will always be variance in card games because the cards are shuffled together. The good type of variance allows strong players to do better than weaker ones, because they can juggle the percentages in their heads and modify their gameplay to account for contingencies better than the weaker ones. The bad type of variance is the one that causes veteran players to lose every nth game, regardless of their individual play skill. Once you've shorted/flooded there are no contigencies or play decisions that will allow you to beat a half-way decent player who did not hit mana issues. It's just something that happens at random every 4th game or so. Having it happen on a roughly equal frequency to my opponents is not a consolation, as I do not like playing mana issues games from either side of the table.

2) Why play Chess when you can play Starcraft? 
Citations on Garfield saying this. 

There is only "good" and "bad" variance because you're saying one is unfair to you. All you are doing is complaining and making up some BS reasons why it's bad. Arbitrarily saying Garfield didn't want Magic to be this way is irrelevant because Magic isn't what you're saying it should be. Shuffling cards will have this happen. Too bad. 

Your complaining is futile because you have never given a way to fix any of this. Accept it will happen and get over it or stop playing Magic.

Fine, play any game that starts at even resources and skill level is all that matters. Magic is not that game and never will be. 
And now to the quote:  Words mean things. Scrub has a definition, which has caused it's emotional connotation. Attempting to redefine it while retaining it's emotional weight is silly at best and a textbook example of an utter failure to understand dialect thus calling your skills as a magic player into doubt at worst. Granted, that doesn't mean you're a bad magic player - people who are not primary speakers of the language they are communicating in run into this sort of thing all the time in other areas - it just means that your ability to discuss magic with the rest of the world suffers.


That being said, the assumption that I'm not working on improving is rather silly. I've got a long way to go before variance becomes my only bane and I would argue that if variance is your only problem when playing magic you should probably stop clubing baby seals and play in a more competitive environment. 



My general definition for scrub is someone who loses more often than not. I define Message Board scrub differently. A message board scrub is someone who is contrarian without presenting any concrete arguments supporting their positions.

I would like to play against more competitive opponents, but I find playing in more competitive environments stressful. When I last played at a GP my opponents used every possible 'rules lawyering' they could think of to try and trip me up. In one game I said "I'll attack with my soliders" Referring to my soldier tokens. And my opponent said, "Alright, I'll block your Captain of the Watch" and he actually called over a judge to point out that my Captain was technically a soldier, even though he knew what I intended all along. The whole tournament was like that. The whole thing ended up being exceptionally stressful, and despite a 10-5 finish I ended up out of the money. In another high-level event I had an opponent use Path to Exile during the blocking phase, then tell me I could not get a land because I wrote down the combat damage and put my other blocking creature in the graveyard, then went to look for my land. He knew that I didn't forget and I was just recording the entire result of the combat at once. He called over a judge anyway because he knew that extra land would be pivotal.
Citations on Garfield saying this. 

There is only "good" and "bad" variance because you're saying one is unfair to you. All you are doing is complaining and making up some BS reasons why it's bad. Arbitrarily saying Garfield didn't want Magic to be this way is irrelevant because Magic isn't what you're saying it should be. Shuffling cards will have this happen. Too bad.



Richard Garfield wrote that in my edition of the Magic Pocket Players Guide, which I purchased when I first started playing Magic way back when. I can't remember the exact wording, but the thrust of the essay was that Garfield wanted a game in which a new player with insight into the game could be competitive with an established player with an extensive library of cards. The way he said this happened was through ante and variance. There was no discussion of variance being beneficial out of this setting. 

How about this for a definition for good and bad variance:
"Variance is good when it is improves the win ratios for skillful players and diminishes the win rates for unskillful ones."

Backgammon and Poker certainly fit this model. The variance related to mana issues in Magic just drags all win rates back to the center, and sets a practical upper limit for how good any player can do. (As was its original intention, back when Magic was played for ante)
Citations on Garfield saying this. 

There is only "good" and "bad" variance because you're saying one is unfair to you. All you are doing is complaining and making up some BS reasons why it's bad. Arbitrarily saying Garfield didn't want Magic to be this way is irrelevant because Magic isn't what you're saying it should be. Shuffling cards will have this happen. Too bad.



Richard Garfield wrote that in my edition of the Magic Pocket Players Guide, which I purchased when I first started playing Magic way back when. I can't remember the exact wording, but the thrust of the essay was that Garfield wanted a game in which a new player with insight into the game could be competitive with an established player with an extensive library of cards. The way he said this happened was through ante and variance. There was no discussion of variance being beneficial out of this setting. 

How about this for a definition for good and bad variance:
"Variance is good when it is improves the win ratios for skillful players and diminishes the win rates for unskillful ones."

Backgammon and Poker certainly fit this model. The variance related to mana issues in Magic just drags all win rates back to the center, and sets a practical upper limit for how good any player can do. (As was its original intention, back when Magic was played for ante)


Yeah, I don't believe you until you provide proof of it existing. On top of that it isn't important because his intent was not actualized. 

Skill just diminishes the effects variance have on your win rates. There is no way to abolish it.

It's the same in these other games. Poker players talk about "bad beats" because somebody hit a 4% or an 8% to win. It happens. You can have technically perfect play and lose because that's the nature of the game.

Also, your last statement is just wrong. It just forces people to adjust what a good win percentage is. If you're consistently at a 62% match win rate you're doing something right. If you're at that or above you have nothing to complain about and should not be complaining about variance and find other ways to improve your game. 

No, variance exists in magic because you randomly order cards in a x card deck. Not because of ante cards. There is no card game where you randomly order a deck of cards in which there won't be variance. And the rest of your statement is just completely wrong. What are you talking about? 

2. Go play chess 



1) When Richard Garfield was asked about mana issues, and why they weren't fixed in the original design, he responded that he thought that allowing anyone to win, regardless of deck strength or play skill was beneficial, and the rationale he gave was tied to ante. There will always be variance in card games because the cards are shuffled together. The good type of variance allows strong players to do better than weaker ones, because they can juggle the percentages in their heads and modify their gameplay to account for contingencies better than the weaker ones. The bad type of variance is the one that causes veteran players to lose every nth game, regardless of their individual play skill. Once you've shorted/flooded there are no contigencies or play decisions that will allow you to beat a half-way decent player who did not hit mana issues. It's just something that happens at random every 4th game or so. Having it happen on a roughly equal frequency to my opponents is not a consolation, as I do not like playing mana issues games from either side of the table.

2) Why play Chess when you can play Starcraft? 



First of all, this is WAY off.

New/unskilled players already face a HUGE uphill battle, even with the mana system.  For truly good players, even when they hit mana short, a lot of times they will play well enough to work their way out of it.  It may be the case that you're just not there yet.  Best way to get there is to forget about all of this complaining, and strengthen your technical play, card evaluation, deck construction, and those types of things.  The mana system is correct as is and should not be changed.  If you don't like it, as been explained to you hundreds of times, this is not the game for you.

As I've said many times in the past, I like the Magic mana system as a whole. I think it's a good way to balance high CMC cards with low CMC ones, such that it takes a lot of thought to put together a deck that works with varied draws. It also does a good job of presenting a risk/reward system for playing additional colors and splashing strong individual cards vs making a deck of comparitively weaker cards that is more tightly focused around 1 or 2 colors. The shortcoming in the system as written comes out in the extreme cases, games when the ratio of lands and spells drawn from the deck bear no resemblence to the deck that was drafted as a whole. Games where one player loses due to playing significantly less spells than their opponent, due to the ratio of lands and spells drawn in that particular game and nothing more.
 
I think it's time to end the 'good players play out of mana issues' myth because the situational statistics do not support it. You could say that a Veteran player gets an 8% chance to win a game where he misses his third land drop 3 times in a row, instead of a 6% chance like the average player, but there is no Veteran whose win rate in games where he hits mana issues is over 50%. As stated earlier, just getting over a 62% match win rate overall is considered an achievement, and that can be done with a game win rate which is much less than that. Online I win over two thirds of my Limited matches, offline it was closer to three quaters and the story with the majority of losses was always the same. I hit mana issues and my opponent did not. And when people like you make passive-aggressive comments along the lines of 'If you were a truly good player you'd find someway to overcome your opponent playing 10 spells to your 6' it drives me crazy. Skillful play is about winning the winnable games. The majority of extreme mana issue games are not winnable when you are playing against a competent opponent. Seriously, how incompetent would my opponent have had to be to not shut the door when the shuffler handed him 10 spells to my 6? He won the game 3 turns after he should have as it was.

We don't need Yet Another thread on this topic.

Locked. 

Magic and Magic Online Volunteer Community Lead. On Strike

I'm trying to make my official VCL posts in purple.

You posted saying my thread was moved/locked but nothing happened.


Show
Unfortunately, VCLs do not currently have the tools necessary to take moderation actions directly. VCLs submit their actions to ORCs, who then actually perform the action. This processing can take between a few minutes and several hours, depending on how busy/attentive the ORCs are.

If you see something that needs VCL attention, please use this thread to make a request and a VCL will look at it as soon as possible. CoC violations should be reported to Customer Service using the "report post" button. Please do not disrupt the thread by making requests of either kind in-thread.

General MTGO FAQ

Yes, the Shuffler is Random!
The definitive thread on the Magic Online shuffler.

Magic Math Made Easy
Draw probabilities, Swiss results, Elo ratings and booster EV

Event EV Calculator
Calculate the EV for any event with a fixed number of rounds and prizes based on record

Dual means two. A duel is a battle between two people. Lands that make two colors of mana are dual lands. A normal Magic battle is a duel.
Thanks to PhoenixLAU for the [thread=1097559]awesome avatar[/thread]!
Quotables

Show
"While a picture is worth a thousand words, each lolcat actually produces a negative wordcount." -Ith "I think "Highly Informed Sarcasm" should be our Magic Online General motto." -Ith "Sorry, but this thread seems just like spam. TT is for off-topic discussion, not no-topic discussion." -WizO_Kwai_Chang "Stop that! If you're not careful, rational thinking may catch on!" -Sax "... the only word i see that fits is incompitant." -Mr44 (sic) "You know a thread is gonna be locked when it gets to the hexadecimal stage." -Gathion "It's a good gig" - Gleemax "I tell people often, if you guys want to rant, you've certainly got the right to (provided you obey CoC/ToS stuff), and I don't even really blame you. But if you see something you think needs changing a well thought-out, constructive post does more to make that happen." - Worth Wollpert

As I've said many times in the past, I like the Magic mana system as a whole. I think it's a good way to balance high CMC cards with low CMC ones, such that it takes a lot of thought to put together a deck that works with varied draws. It also does a good job of presenting a risk/reward system for playing additional colors and splashing strong individual cards vs making a deck of comparitively weaker cards that is more tightly focused around 1 or 2 colors. The shortcoming in the system as written comes out in the extreme cases, games when the ratio of lands and spells drawn from the deck bear no resemblence to the deck that was drafted as a whole. Games where one player loses due to playing significantly less spells than their opponent, due to the ratio of lands and spells drawn in that particular game and nothing more.
 
I think it's time to end the 'good players play out of mana issues' myth because the situational statistics do not support it. You could say that a Veteran player gets an 8% chance to win a game where he misses his third land drop 3 times in a row, instead of a 6% chance like the average player, but there is no Veteran whose win rate in games where he hits mana issues is over 50%. As stated earlier, just getting over a 62% match win rate overall is considered an achievement, and that can be done with a game win rate which is much less than that. Online I win over two thirds of my Limited matches, offline it was closer to three quaters and the story with the majority of losses was always the same. I hit mana issues and my opponent did not. And when people like you make passive-aggressive comments along the lines of 'If you were a truly good player you'd find someway to overcome your opponent playing 10 spells to your 6' it drives me crazy. Skillful play is about winning the winnable games. The majority of extreme mana issue games are not winnable when you are playing against a competent opponent. Seriously, how incompetent would my opponent have had to be to not shut the door when the shuffler handed him 10 spells to my 6? He won the game 3 turns after he should have as it was.



Nothing about my comments are passive aggressive. I'm telling you outright that you are wrong. 

If your win percentages are 66% on MODO and 75% in person you must be Jon Finkle because actual magic players don't have real win percentages like that.

Your quality of competition stat must be really low if you steam roll all players all the time. I would suggest you start playing people who are actually good because maybe it will humble you so you don't think you're such hot ****.