|
12 months ago ::
Jun 24, 2012 - 12:09AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Mar 12, 2011
|
Fact: Duels only has basic lands save one deck.
Fact: The difference between 24/60 and 24/61 is a higher chance of drawing a useful card instead of a bland useless land.
Fact: Richard Garfield said, if he was to make MtG game all over again, he would remove the lands or decrease their huge impact on the game.
Fact: If there are enough quality cards available, having 37 of them gives you a slightly higher chance of winning than if you had 36. If you can keep the quality of your cards to a certain degree, adding it to the deck along with a mandatory land won't lessen your chances of winning.
Fact: If anything, your 61th card will always make your deck statistically better. I think I may even add some more cards to some other decks.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 24, 2012 - 12:11AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
Whoa, those are some bold facts. I'm not going to argue my point, but I'm gonna argue the Magic Pros' point. You never see them rolling with 60 card decks. And they play Magic for a living.
Even in the land of Duels, I'm going to defer to the knowledge of the best.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 24, 2012 - 12:14AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Jun 12, 2011
|
I agree with Hydramarine and reapersaurus. 61 makes sense when you can't control the # of lands in deck.
@mobiuschickenstrips
The pros use 60 card decks when they can control the number of lands. If you forced them to play with, say 26 lands I have a hunch that many would increase their deck sizes to above 60. Take an extreme case where you were forced to play with 40 lands. I guarantee you then that a 90 card deck would be better than a 60 card deck.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 24, 2012 - 12:15AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Mar 12, 2011
|
While I see pro's point of view, Duels has a different meta than pro scene.
You can't specify your land count and land types for starters. And half of the matches will be determined how much land you draw in a game. Lands that don't do anything special. So, you need your other non-land cards to finish the job for you.
Yeah, if I had a 250 dollar to spare in order to make a deck, I would stick to the minimum, because every card of mine would have a usefullnes in the deck, including at least 8 special lands. But that's not the case in Duels. Until we get non-basic lands on regular basis that is.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 24, 2012 - 12:15AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2012
|
The anti-61 lobby seems to be calling this 61st card a Bad Card, but personally with these decks once I've got my deck down to 61 I can't really call any of them bad cards any more. It's more like there are about 20 cards I definitely want and everything else is pretty much all the same to me, so I just take one of those out.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 24, 2012 - 12:19AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
Honestly, I'm not one to toot my own horn, but all my decks are 60, and I'm hovering in the top 100 of 1v1 ranked play.
Dang, I can't believe I just posted this. I sound like a pompous fool.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 24, 2012 - 12:22AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Mar 12, 2011
|
Nobody said anything about 60 cards being a bad thing. I am only arguing that having 1 more non-land card would increase your draw chances like %0.5 or whatever. This is only theorycrafting.
That doesn't make or break champions in Duels. Most of the time, the opponents I face and I have a skill difference of somewhere between 0% and 1000% that numbers above just dont mean anything. Most of the time, it comes down to using your cards right.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 24, 2012 - 12:26AM
#18
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
I'm not even hating on going 60+ really. I won't do it, of course. But I'd say 80% of my losses have been to the 90 card decks. Maybe even a 61 card deck. I don't remember. I was blinded with rage and sadness at the time.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 24, 2012 - 1:28AM
#19
|
|
|
I mostly play 61. Andarguements about 0,001% chance (or maybe a little more) with 61 instead of 60 are bs. Usually yoave more lands than you need, so i prefer decreasing land % than increasing by a slim margin your chance of drawing specific card. Sometimes I play even more cards, because they're so nice. And I usually won (at least I did in 2012). And frankly, it doesn't really mater 60/61 change in chance of drawing etc. are so minor, that really nbody shuld care nd waste their ime on discussing that 
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 24, 2012 - 2:55AM
#20
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2001
|
Whoa, those are some bold facts. I'm not going to argue my point, but I'm gonna argue the Magic Pros' point. You never see them rolling with 60 card decks. And they play Magic for a living.
Even in the land of Duels, I'm going to defer to the knowledge of the best.
You could not have epitomized the example I was talking about better if you'd tried.
Since Type 2 came out, and the advent of the "net deck" with Ice Age and the Necropotence deck, people have been slavishly following the tournament Magic players traditions - complete with the most embarrassing, pathetic tick that some amatuers do, continually fanning their cards annoyingly just to copy some popular tourney stooge.
This particular case, in DotP, it's completely inapplicable since tournement players aren;t mandated to have at least 24 lands in every deck.
If adding the 61st card increases the land ratio efficiency in a DotP deck, it would be silly not to do it, just because tournament players in a completely different structured format don't do it.
|
|
|
