So I was trying to come up with this on my own, and I wasn't sure of the best way to go about this. What is the formula for determining how often a player would win in the absence of mana issues, based on their observed record in games where they had no mana issues, the liklihood mana issues are hit and the general record for players who hit mana issues. Or is there a formula that uses variables different from these?
What I'm trying to get at is, let's say a given player wins 80% of their games when they have no mana issues. You can't say that they would win 80% of their games if mana issues were taken out, because some of those wins came in games where their opponent lost due to mana issues when they would not have won otherwise. I'd like a formula to figure out what the adjustment should be.
So I was trying to come up with this on my own, and I wasn't sure of the best way to go about this. What is the formula for determining how often a player would win in the absence of mana issues, based on their observed record in games where they had
Bob, you really need to find another hobby. What percentage of your posts concern mana screw issues in one form or another?
It's primarily because I win 80% of my games where I have no mana issues, and only 30% of my games where I do have mana issues and I am curious what the game would be like without them.
It's primarily because I win 80% of my games where I have no mana issues, and only 30% of my games where I do have mana issues and I am curious what the game would be like without them.
Bob, you really need to find another hobby. What percentage of your posts concern mana screw issues in one form or another?
It's primarily because I win 80% of my games where I have no mana issues, and only 30% of my games where I do have mana issues and I am curious what the game would be like without them.
Uhh... Really? So if you win the 80% of the games where you have no mana issues and you win 30% of the remaining 20% even with mana problems, what would you do if you had zero mana problems? Is that really your question? Because if it is, then it might be one of the most egotistical questions I have ever read.
You obviously are one of "those" Magic players. You know. The guys who can't stop himself from shuffling his hand over and over and over again. I admit, sometimes you say things that are intuitive and insightful. Other times you just come off as someone who wants to brag about his latest 3-0 deck and complain that you lose because of mana "problems". I don't know if you have low self esteem and just need Magic to make yourself feel good . I don't really know anything personal about you. But I do know that I am likely not the only person who sees your name at the beginning of a thread and thinks "Oh man. Not that again."
Do yourself a favor and just enjoy playing the game.
It's primarily because I win 80% of my games where I have no mana issues, and only 30% of my games where I do have mana issues and I am curious what the game would be like without them.[/quote]Uhh... Really? So if you win the 80% of the games where y
Bob, you really need to find another hobby. What percentage of your posts concern mana screw issues in one form or another?
It's primarily because I win 80% of my games where I have no mana issues, and only 30% of my games where I do have mana issues and I am curious what the game would be like without them.
Uhh... Really? So if you win the 80% of the games where you have no mana issues and you win 30% of the remaining 20% even with mana problems, what would you do if you had zero mana problems? Is that really your question? Because if it is, then it might be one of the most egotistical questions I have ever read.
No, what I am saying is that I keep track of wins/losses when I first start playing a set. In this set I have won ~80% of the games I've played where I had no mana issues. In games where I had mana issues I've won ~30%. In games where I've muliganed I've won ~33% while in games I haven't muliganed I've won ~70%. In games where I've muliganed and had mana issues or double muliganed I've won 0%. These percentages are all related, but none are expected to add up to 100%.
It's primarily because I win 80% of my games where I have no mana issues, and only 30% of my games where I do have mana issues and I am curious what the game would be like without them.[/quote]Uhh... Really? So if you win the 80% of the games where y
You should track when your opponent has mana trouble, then only consider the games in which neither of you have mana trouble, my guess is you win about 65% of those, but that's a very loose estimate.
The real problem here is the tradeoff between mana troubles and power. Without a standard level of power vs. mana consistentcy, the Stats are meaningless. I would only look at win/loss ratio, and cause of losses. That's the best way to improve your game.
You should track when your opponent has mana trouble, then only consider the games in which neither of you have mana trouble, my guess is you win about 65% of those, but that's a very loose estimate. The real problem here is the tradeoff between mana
You should track when your opponent has mana trouble, then only consider the games in which neither of you have mana trouble, my guess is you win about 65% of those, but that's a very loose estimate.
The real problem here is the tradeoff between mana troubles and power. Without a standard level of power vs. mana consistentcy, the Stats are meaningless. I would only look at win/loss ratio, and cause of losses. That's the best way to improve your game.
That is a very good point, tri-color decks are inherently more risky than dual-colored decks, but they also tend to perform better when they don't hit mana issues. So their non-mana issue stats are surely inflated. But still, I am hopeful that a generalized formula can be found.
I've already looked at win/loss ratio and cause of losses. The losses all come in games where I've muliganed, had mana issues, my opponent has played a bomb rare/mythic or some combination of the above. The majority of these were unwinnable -- the ones lost solely to bombs could not have been won prior to the bomb coming out, nor could they be won after the bomb hit the table because the removal that could have removed the bomb was never drawn or was uncastable at the point it was necessary. The ones lost solely to mana short were ones where I played every card in my hand that I could play, and would still have lost playing them in any other order, with any set of attacking/blocking decisions. The ones I lost solely to mana flood are a little harder to rate, some of the close ones were probably winnable, particularly if I knew the flood was coming, but the ones where I am drawing 3-5 more lands than spells were likely not. The muligan losses are primarily due to other factors, mana issues or double muligans, I still have a positive win percentage when I muligan and that's the only thing that goes wrong, but in RtR those games are few and far between. I've seen x->1->mana short losses, x->2->mana short losses, x->0->double muligan losses and the x->3 muligans often end up as mana flood losses. It's really quite ridiculous how few games in RtR has been standard, non-mana issue, non-muligan games.
And my estimate is that I win between 70-75% when neither me nor my opponent have mana issues. Unless my opponent has played a lot more spells than me over the course of the game, or played a bomb like Growing Ranks that is worth several cards on its own I can generally grind out a win.
That is a very good point, tri-color decks are inherently more risky than dual-colored decks, but they also tend to perform better when they don't hit mana issues. So their non-mana issue stats are surely inflated. But still, I am hopeful that a gene
You know. The guys who can't stop himself from shuffling his hand over and over and over again.
What does that have to do with anything?
Because it is an obsessive habit that a large percentage of overly competitive Magic players display.
Shuffling cards within my hand itself? I have never done that when I played paper magic and I don't think there's even a way to do it online.
What does that have to do with anything?[/quote]Because it is an obsessive habit that a large percentage of overly competitive Magic players display.[/quote]Shuffling cards within my hand itself? I have never done that when I played paper magic and I
Shuffling cards within my hand itself? I have never done that when I played paper magic and I don't think there's even a way to do it online.
Some guys do it after every draw, so you don't know what he had. Some benefit if you're bluffing with a land, or in the first couple turns. Online, there's no benefit, and no way to be random.
Some guys do it after every draw, so you don't know what he had. Some benefit if you're bluffing with a land, or in the first couple turns. Online, there's no benefit, and no way to be random.
Shuffling cards within my hand itself? I have never done that when I played paper magic and I don't think there's even a way to do it online.
Some guys do it after every draw, so you don't know what he had. Some benefit if you're bluffing with a land, or in the first couple turns. Online, there's no benefit, and no way to be random.
That does sounds interesting. The only time I remember shuffling your own hand coming into play was back in the early days, when discards were random. You had to shuffle your hand before any random discard because good players would see you looking at various cards and after that it wasn't truly random.
Some guys do it after every draw, so you don't know what he had. Some benefit if you're bluffing with a land, or in the first couple turns. Online, there's no benefit, and no way to be random.[/quote]That does sounds interesting. The only time I reme
Well, I have gotten used to moving the card that I drew for the turn to the middle of my hand and shuffle a little, just so it's not 100% clear that I drew a land. Other players told me I should do this, but I'm not sure whether it makes that big of a difference.
At physical drafts, players always shuffle up the cards they didn't take before passing the pile. I'm pretty sure that this does next to nothing, and is mostly for show.
Well, I have gotten used to moving the card that I drew for the turn to the middle of my hand and shuffle a little, just so it's not 100% clear that I drew a land. Other players told me I should do this, but I'm not sure whether it makes that big of
shuffling the pack that you pass conceals information because it is possible to memorise print runs and deduce with not unreasonable accuracy what people have taken before you; this is really only possible with commons in the first couple of picks in the pack though.
also silentbobus: you just really can't let this go can you. just let it go.
shuffling the pack that you pass conceals information because it is possible to memorise print runs and deduce with not unreasonable accuracy what people have taken before you; this is really only possible with commons in the first couple of picks in
Shuffling cards within my hand itself? I have never done that when I played paper magic and I don't think there's even a way to do it online.
Some guys do it after every draw, so you don't know what he had. Some benefit if you're bluffing with a land, or in the first couple turns. Online, there's no benefit, and no way to be random.
I do this though. Really, what's the problem with it? It's not a habit, it's a conscious decision.
1: It prevents me from signaling to my opponent that I topdecked a land I needed. And after being hit by a Thoughtseize or similar it prevents my opponent from knowing if the spell I played is the copy of the spell they saw. 2: It prevents some of the childish postgame accusations of being a topdecker.
Some guys do it after every draw, so you don't know what he had. Some benefit if you're bluffing with a land, or in the first couple turns. Online, there's no benefit, and no way to be random.[/quote]I do this though. Really, what's the problem with
shuffling the pack that you pass conceals information because it is possible to memorise print runs and deduce with not unreasonable accuracy what people have taken before you; this is really only possible with commons in the first couple of picks in the pack though.
also silentbobus: you just really can't let this go can you. just let it go.
What do you want me to let go? If you want me to let something go, why do you keep writing about shuffling packs and hands?
What do you want me to let go? If you want me to let something go, why do you keep writing about shuffling packs and hands?
shuffling the pack that you pass conceals information because it is possible to memorise print runs and deduce with not unreasonable accuracy what people have taken before you; this is really only possible with commons in the first couple of picks in the pack though.
also silentbobus: you just really can't let this go can you. just let it go.
Just seems like a very extreme corner case where this would ever do anything, especially at a typical FNM draft.
Just seems like a very extreme corner case where this would ever do anything, especially at a typical FNM draft.
The first few times I had a pack shuffled before being handed to Me it threw Me off completely. The guy next to Me knew it too. Gave him an advantage that night. I've since gotten used to it. But I can see it being used to an advantage against new players, definately.
And if you are being competative, then you probably try to take every edge you can get.
As for bob's mana issue. Don't want a mana issue? Stop playing. It's part of the game and they aren't going to change it just so you can get rid of that other 20% loss rate.
The first few times I had a pack shuffled before being handed to Me it threw Me off completely. The guy next to Me knew it too. Gave him an advantage that night. I've since gotten used to it. But I can see it being used to an advantage against ne
While I haven't seen a consensus for any particular method of fixing it, I believe that a majority or at least a silent majority of Magic players would like to see extreme mana/muligan issues addressed. Variability that makes games challenging, and requires players to improvise and play based on educated guesses about what they and their opponents will draw is a good thing. Variability that makes games completely unwinnable for one player right from the start is a bad thing. I am only advocating for the elimination of that second type of variability. The "I kept a starting hand of 2 lands and drew nothing but spells for the entire rest of the game" or the "I muliganed a 1 land hand into a 0 land hand into a 1 land hand" type of variability.
While I haven't seen a consensus for any particular method of fixing it, I believe that a majority or at least a silent majority of Magic players would like to see extreme mana/muligan issues addressed. Variability that makes games challenging, and r
If a shuffled pack being passed to you is a problem, simply unshuffle it (separate by rarity) before picking.
bobus, if you want stats on these things, keep them yourself. You keep talking about how your opponents only win when certain things happen. You should also keep track of how often you win because of those same things. Opponent's mana troubles, your own bombs, your opponent's mulligans, etc. Perhaps that might give you some perspective on your abilities.
Also, a single mulligan shouldn't be hurting your win rate that much. A double mulligan, sure, but having to mulligan once isn't really that bad.
If a shuffled pack being passed to you is a problem, simply unshuffle it (separate by rarity) before picking.bobus, if you want stats on these things, keep them yourself. You keep talking about how your opponents only win when certain things happen.
If a shuffled pack being passed to you is a problem, simply unshuffle it (separate by rarity) before picking.
bobus, if you want stats on these things, keep them yourself. You keep talking about how your opponents only win when certain things happen. You should also keep track of how often you win because of those same things. Opponent's mana troubles, your own bombs, your opponent's mulligans, etc. Perhaps that might give you some perspective on your abilities.
Also, a single mulligan shouldn't be hurting your win rate that much. A double mulligan, sure, but having to mulligan once isn't really that bad.
It isn't bad to muligan once if you aren't forced to muligan again, and if you don't subsequently hit mana issues anyway (which is generally what you're trying to avoid by muliganing in the first place) Muliganing once and not hitting mana issues only drops my win rate from 80% to 60% in RtR. But when you factor in all of the double muligans, mana shorts and mana floods, it drops all the way down to around 33%, which is worse than the rate for mana flooding a 7 card hand. RtR appears to be particularly bad for this, but in other sets it's still a drop from a win percent in the 80's for non-mana issue 7 card hands to a win percent in the 30's or low 40's once I've commited to the first muligan. Perhaps a lot of games really are being won by one card.
It isn't bad to muligan once if you aren't forced to muligan again, and if you don't subsequently hit mana issues anyway (which is generally what you're trying to avoid by muliganing in the first place) Muliganing once and not hitting mana issues onl
As a general question, how do you figure out how much mana to put into your deck. Of the 40 cards, how many are land? Do you have a formula?
I generally play 17 lands, occasionally 16 if the curve is low enough. I'll play additional mana sources over 17, but never additional lands (well, I suppose sacrifice for creature lands and non-mana producing lands are an exception). I have a good formula for land color distribution, but it's pretty close to the suggested lands formula on MtGO, and you still have to tweak it to account for card strengths and curve.
I generally play 17 lands, occasionally 16 if the curve is low enough. I'll play additional mana sources over 17, but never additional lands (well, I suppose sacrifice for creature lands and non-mana producing lands are an exception). I have a good f
17 is the lowest I will curve. I did a 16 once and failed horribly. I will usually find Myself at about 19 mana or so, and never have any problems.
What do you define as a Curve being low enough though?
17 is the lowest I will curve. I did a 16 once and failed horribly. I will usually find Myself at about 19 mana or so, and never have any problems.What do you define as a Curve being low enough though?
Which had 5 one drops, 9 two drops, 6 three drops, 3 four drops and only one five drop. I had quite a few issues hitting double mountain in my first 3 lands and I mana flooded to 8 lands, 3 spells after keeping a 4 land hand once, but in general it felt like the right number of lands.
I suppose to figure out the exact right number you'd need to run the percentages for how often you'd muligan vs mana short vs mana flood with the deck and your win percentages under those conditions. But I can tell you that conventional wisdom states 19 is much too many for limited decks. Most should be in the 17 land range.
I played this one at 16 lands:9 Mountain 7 Swamp 1 Rakdos Cackler 3 Deviant Glee 1 Dynacharge
What do you want me to let go? If you want me to let something go, why do you keep writing about shuffling packs and hands?
what i'm saying is that half of the threads in this forum are you complaining about how you can't accept that sometimes you lose because of something that happens to EVERYONE.
what i'm saying is that half of the threads in this forum are you complaining about how you can't accept that sometimes you lose because of something that happens to EVERYONE.
What do you want me to let go? If you want me to let something go, why do you keep writing about shuffling packs and hands?
what i'm saying is that half of the threads in this forum are you complaining about how you can't accept that sometimes you lose because of something that happens to EVERYONE.
My position on this has been, and always will be that I would prefer that no one lose because of mana issues or muligans instead of everyone. There is already enough variance introduced by the fact that most limited decks field only 1 or 2 copies of each card, you don't need to tack on games where one or both players start down a spell or can't play spells at all for extended periods of time on top of that. I'd rather wins and losses be determined strictly according to play skill and the choices made during drafting. The only reason I bring this up so often is because I find the opposing position ludicrous, and I can't believe people on these boards feel compelled to defend it.
So for you it's very simple, just agree that you think Magic would be a better game without the unwinnable games introduced by mana issues and muligans. Once the majority of people state that they agree with this I will drop this line of discussion. (Except possibly to discuss the best rules revision to make this happen!)
what i'm saying is that half of the threads in this forum are you complaining about how you can't accept that sometimes you lose because of something that happens to EVERYONE.[/quote]My position on this has been, and always will be that I would prefe
So for you it's very simple, just agree that you think Magic would be a better game without the unwinnable games introduced by mana issues and muligans. Once the majority of people state that they agree with this I will drop this line of discussion. (Except possibly to discuss the best rules revision to make this happen!)
You've brought this idea up before, and the majority disagrees with you. So stop bringing it up. The argument's old. Magic will never be the game you want.
I do like what the VS. system did to avoid this, however, any card play may be played face-down as a resource, some cards give bonuses from the resource row, but you're not screwed without them. Your opening hand is four cards, but you draw two cards a turn. theSpoils game also claimed to fix this issue, but I don't remember how. Magic is not those games, it never will be, and it shouldn't be.
You've brought this idea up before, and the majority disagrees with you. So stop bringing it up. The argument's old. Magic will never be the game you want. I do like what the VS. system did to avoid this, however, any card play may be played face-dow
Which had 5 one drops, 9 two drops, 6 three drops, 3 four drops and only one five drop. I had quite a few issues hitting double mountain in my first 3 lands and I mana flooded to 8 lands, 3 spells after keeping a 4 land hand once, but in general it felt like the right number of lands.
I suppose to figure out the exact right number you'd need to run the percentages for how often you'd muligan vs mana short vs mana flood with the deck and your win percentages under those conditions. But I can tell you that conventional wisdom states 19 is much too many for limited decks. Most should be in the 17 land range.
Alright, by My forumla you should have been running approximately 19 lands in this deck to not get completely screwed.
Formula as follows:
You have 24 cards @ a combined 58cmc. That works out to an opening hand requiring 2.416 land. Divide that by the number of cards in the opening hand and you get a percentage of 34.52%. Of a deck of 40 cards that works into 13.8 lands. So round that up to 14 lands, and then add the highest cmc card you have to the total for a grand total of 19.
You might put yourself at a 53 card deck by adding in those few lands, but I doubt that you would be short Mana as often as you complain about getting Mana screwed.
Alternately you could drop the two Tavern Swindler's and you'd be down to a cmc of 54 divided by 22 divide by 7 times 41 plus 5... equals 19.37, round down.
You still maintain 7 turn 2 drops (all bodies), haven't lost any removal, and reduced your chances of being Mana Screwed by 7.5%.
You could even afford to maybe lose one of the lands to bring you to an even 40 with the inclusion of the Keyrune as a Mana source.
If you can do simple math, guestimate, or even have a calculator (most smart phones have them) on hand you can fix your problem with that formula.
Alright, by My forumla you should have been running approximately 19 lands in this deck to not get completely screwed.Formula as follows:You have 24 cards @ a combined 58cmc. That works out to an opening hand requiring 2.416 land. Divide that by th
I do like what the VS. system did to avoid this, however, any card play may be played face-down as a resource, some cards give bonuses from the resource row, but you're not screwed without them. Your opening hand is four cards, but you draw two cards a turn.
See, this is the part that is confusing to me. You've seen a system that fixed this very issue, something that has an easy analog in magic, and yet you don't want to fix Magic using the same system. Why is that? I like most every aspect of the Magic system over every other CCG I have played, and yet there exists this one glaring weakness where the rest of it seems so polished.
I often wonder if the rules would have been written differently had the ante system not been such a large component when Magic was initially developed. According to Richard Garfield the mana system was designed to hand out arbitrary wins in order to allow poor (monetarily poor) players to build their collections by winning valuable cards off of players with access to decks of rare cards. Without the initial arbitrary wins the only way for a beginning player to build a competitive deck was to buy tons and tons of cards to get access to the important rares, something Richard didn't want anyone to have to do.
So once that reason was lost in time there is primarily the inertial "It's the way the game is" and "It happens to everyone" arguments left, which I don't feel are particularly good ones.
See, this is the part that is confusing to me. You've seen a system that fixed this very issue, something that has an easy analog in magic, and yet you don't want to fix Magic using the same system. Why is that? I like most every aspect of the Magic
I'm all for finding an improved method to the mulligan rules, I've posed a few but there needs to be a decent amount of further testing. While at some level getting the occasional win/lose for mana issues is part of the game, walking away with a win because your opponent has 2 same colored lands on turn 8 and you pummel him to death isn't very satisfying.
At the same time, the rules need to also account for the fact that some players will mulligan hands to find bombs/god draws, or attempt to abuse a system designed to level the playing field.
I'm all for trying to convince the community to implement a new change, but after a while I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, even if all your evidence and numbers were totally correct and you have a 100% win rate despite mana/mythics/mulligans, great, to what end? It just proves that you believe the luck factor in MtG should be reduced, at some level I agree but Richard Garrot gave an hour long lecture recently on why luck is helpful to the game and he makes some compelling points as to why it's needed.
I'd like to see the luck factor reduced a bit, but not removed. I feel like Wizards is doing this at some level by so many dual/shock/tap/pain lands in standard. I'd like to see some sort of system to exchange cards for lands exclusive to limited, but it would have to be very finely tuned to prevent abuse. That I think is a worthy goal to explore instead of data collection.
I'm all for finding an improved method to the mulligan rules, I've posed a few but there needs to be a decent amount of further testing. While at some level getting the occasional win/lose for mana issues is part of the game, walking away with a win
Which had 5 one drops, 9 two drops, 6 three drops, 3 four drops and only one five drop. I had quite a few issues hitting double mountain in my first 3 lands and I mana flooded to 8 lands, 3 spells after keeping a 4 land hand once, but in general it felt like the right number of lands.
I suppose to figure out the exact right number you'd need to run the percentages for how often you'd muligan vs mana short vs mana flood with the deck and your win percentages under those conditions. But I can tell you that conventional wisdom states 19 is much too many for limited decks. Most should be in the 17 land range.
Alright, by My forumla you should have been running approximately 19 lands in this deck to not get completely screwed.
Formula as follows:
You have 24 cards @ a combined 58cmc. That works out to an opening hand requiring 2.416 land. Divide that by the number of cards in the opening hand and you get a percentage of 34.52%. Of a deck of 40 cards that works into 13.8 lands. So round that up to 14 lands, and then add the highest cmc card you have to the total for a grand total of 19.
You might put yourself at a 53 card deck by adding in those few lands, but I doubt that you would be short Mana as often as you complain about getting Mana screwed.
Alternately you could drop the two Tavern Swindler's and you'd be down to a cmc of 54 divided by 22 divide by 7 times 41 plus 5... equals 19.37, round down.
You still maintain 7 turn 2 drops (all bodies), haven't lost any removal, and reduced your chances of being Mana Screwed by 7.5%.
You could even afford to maybe lose one of the lands to bring you to an even 40 with the inclusion of the Keyrune as a Mana source.
If you can do simple math, guestimate, or even have a calculator (most smart phones have them) on hand you can fix your problem with that formula.
Yeah, I don't think that's the formula. Certainly a formula stating that you should play 19 lands in a 40 card deck featuring primarily 1 and 2 drops is suspect. But keep looking for your formula, I'm sure there is one out there. As for mana flood vs mana short, playing 17 lands in most decks, dumping 0, 1, 6 and 7 card hands, keeping almost all 2, 3 and 4 land hands and about half of 5 land hands means I am seeing no-muligan, mana floods over twice as often as no-muligan, mana shorts. However, I am also a lot less likely to win mana short games, so I suppose there is that to consider.
But seriously, 19 lands for most limited decks is much too much. I don't think your formula is correct. Does someone out there have a correct formula for Mr Hammer?
Alright, by My forumla you should have been running approximately 19 lands in this deck to not get completely screwed.Formula as follows:You have 24 cards @ a combined 58cmc. That works out to an opening hand requiring 2.416 land. Divide that by th
I've taken to running 18 land decks in some cases, simply because I seem to end up short more often than not. Really depends on the deck though. There is a huge variance between 16, 17 and 18 land hands. It's kind of crazy how the math works out, the few times I've seen someone crunch the numbers.
I've taken to running 18 land decks in some cases, simply because I seem to end up short more often than not. Really depends on the deck though. There is a huge variance between 16, 17 and 18 land hands. It's kind of crazy how the math works out,
If you want equal resource availability then why don't you just play chess.
You don't need to make a thread every day about how you get resource screwed all the time.
If you want equal resource availability then why don't you just play chess. You don't need to make a thread every day about how you get resource screwed all the time.
This seems like the place to post a question that just hit me.
How much luck do people feel like is in the game right now and how much luck do they think should be involved?
A lot, some, very little and More, less, or leave it the way it is, are probably the easiest answers since I'm not sure how difficult trying to factor in hard numbers would be. It also can swing from set to set I feel like.
This seems like the place to post a question that just hit me.How much luck do people feel like is in the game right now and how much luck do they think should be involved?A lot, some, very little and More, less, or leave it the way it is, are probab
So I was trying to come up with this on my own, and I wasn't sure of the best way to go about this. What is the formula for determining how often a player would win in the absence of mana issues, based on their observed record in games where they had no mana issues, the liklihood mana issues are hit and the general record for players who hit mana issues. Or is there a formula that uses variables different from these?
What I'm trying to get at is, let's say a given player wins 80% of their games when they have no mana issues. You can't say that they would win 80% of their games if mana issues were taken out, because some of those wins came in games where their opponent lost due to mana issues when they would not have won otherwise. I'd like a formula to figure out what the adjustment should be.
So y = r cubed over 3. And if you determine the rate of change in this curve correctly, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
So y = r cubed over 3. And if you determine the rate of change in this curve correctly, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
This seems like the place to post a question that just hit me.
How much luck do people feel like is in the game right now and how much luck do they think should be involved?
A lot, some, very little and More, less, or leave it the way it is, are probably the easiest answers since I'm not sure how difficult trying to factor in hard numbers would be. It also can swing from set to set I feel like.
I loose repetable to my friend. I can use his deck, or my deck. We switch decks and I still loose. I am well aware that I am new to magic, and don't mind learning. I will catch myself and think, wow I forgot to attack with my flyer, would that 1 point of damage made a diffrance? Or Should I use my counter now or later. Those are the skill questions you learn. It has nothing to do with Mana, only to when to play what and in what order.
I loose repetable to my friend. I can use his deck, or my deck. We switch decks and I still loose. I am well aware that I am new to magic, and don't mind learning. I will catch myself and think, wow I forgot to attack with my flyer, would that 1 poin
This seems like the place to post a question that just hit me.
How much luck do people feel like is in the game right now and how much luck do they think should be involved?
A lot, some, very little and More, less, or leave it the way it is, are probably the easiest answers since I'm not sure how difficult trying to factor in hard numbers would be. It also can swing from set to set I feel like.
The way it is. I've been playing Magic for years, I would have left the game after a couple months if I did not enjoy a game with the quantities of luck and strategy it possessed. Plus if I don't want to get mana screwed, there are formats I can play like EDH and Momir Basic where such a thing is unlikely. A week ago I drafted the most kickbutt Bant deck ever, but game one had to mulligan nolanders down to four cards and then game two had to mulligan down to three cards (these two hands also ended up having no land). In the second game I actually almost squeezed out a victory. I aknowledge that things like this will happen every 1/largenumber of games though. It's a little disapointing that I didn't actually get to play my deck, but that's due to the tournament structure (8-4). It's not like I didn't still enjoy drafting my deck either, and there are always future drafts to look forward to. In the long run the statistics will work out to my favor, a fluke is a fluke, and nothing to get all rustled about.
The way it is. I've been playing Magic for years, I would have left the game after a couple months if I did not enjoy a game with the quantities of luck and strategy it possessed. Plus if I don't want to get mana screwed, there are formats I can play
This seems like the place to post a question that just hit me.
How much luck do people feel like is in the game right now and how much luck do they think should be involved?
A lot, some, very little and More, less, or leave it the way it is, are probably the easiest answers since I'm not sure how difficult trying to factor in hard numbers would be. It also can swing from set to set I feel like.
I feel that the amount of luck in constructed is about right. In limited I feel there is already enough variability in drafting and playing what typically amounts to a singleton deck, I feel there should be less luck in limited play itself.
I feel that the amount of luck in constructed is about right. In limited I feel there is already enough variability in drafting and playing what typically amounts to a singleton deck, I feel there should be less luck in limited play itself.
If you want equal resource availability then why don't you just play chess.
You don't need to make a thread every day about how you get resource screwed all the time.
Why do you keep mentioning Chess? Why not Go, Checkers, Chinese Checkers? I don't think these issues are specific to me. I think everyone would be better off if everyone started with a playable 7 card hand and got a resonable mix of lands and spells from that point forward. I'm not advocating this happens just for me
Why do you keep mentioning Chess? Why not Go, Checkers, Chinese Checkers? I don't think these issues are specific to me. I think everyone would be better off if everyone started with a playable 7 card hand and got a resonable mix of lands and spells
lol, you call a guy a member of the WBBC and he deals you back a Jim Jones shot. Old school ftw.
Also, I bet you're frustrated when you play rummy. Man, i need a straight, or 3 of a kind? This hand has none of those!
To be serious, luck is a by design part of MTG. Its not going to be removed. Why do you think there's a 4 card limit in constructed magic? To maintain randomization.
lol, you call a guy a member of the WBBC and he deals you back a Jim Jones shot. Old school ftw.Also, I bet you're frustrated when you play rummy. Man, i need a straight, or 3 of a kind? This hand has none of those! To be serious, luck is a by design
To be serious, luck is a by design part of MTG. Its not going to be removed.
No one is advocating removing luck from Magic, and even if the mana system were redesigned to eliminate mana issues, it wouldn't do that. All I am advocating is to remove the extreme situations where the outcome of the game is decided entirely by mana issues. The games where a player keeps a 2 land hand and never draws another land before the game ends. The games where a player muligans a 1 lander into a 0 lander into an 'I lose no matter what' lander. The games where one player starts off with a 4 land hand and then proceeds to draw nothing but lands for the next 6 draws.
Every limited Magic game is going to involve some element of luck because you are playing 1 or 2 copies of most non-basic lands in your deck. You don't need to add additional randomness on top of that. Even when I win based on mana issues I don't enjoy it. In the finals of a recent tournament I had Rakdos Cackler -> Rakdos Shred-freak -> Rakdos Shred-freak as my first 3 turns. Due to mana issues my opponent had no plays for his first 4 turns. It didn't feel like an epic win, it just felt stupid. It felt like a non-game, like we might as well have tossed a coin or rolled a die to determine whether we played a game at all or just went straight to game 2.
No one is advocating removing luck from Magic, and even if the mana system were redesigned to eliminate mana issues, it wouldn't do that. All I am advocating is to remove the extreme situations where the outcome of the game is decided entirely by man
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Ive removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal a
To be serious, luck is a by design part of MTG. Its not going to be removed.
No one is advocating removing luck from Magic, and even if the mana system were redesigned to eliminate mana issues, it wouldn't do that. All I am advocating is to remove the extreme situations where the outcome of the game is decided entirely by mana issues. The games where a player keeps a 2 land hand and never draws another land before the game ends. The games where a player muligans a 1 lander into a 0 lander into an 'I lose no matter what' lander. The games where one player starts off with a 4 land hand and then proceeds to draw nothing but lands for the next 6 draws.
Every limited Magic game is going to involve some element of luck because you are playing 1 or 2 copies of most non-basic lands in your deck. You don't need to add additional randomness on top of that. Even when I win based on mana issues I don't enjoy it. In the finals of a recent tournament I had Rakdos Cackler -> Rakdos Shred-freak -> Rakdos Shred-freak as my first 3 turns. Due to mana issues my opponent had no plays for his first 4 turns. It didn't feel like an epic win, it just felt stupid. It felt like a non-game, like we might as well have tossed a coin or rolled a die to determine whether we played a game at all or just went straight to game 2.
I bet you don't play UNO because the color fixing isn't good enough in that.
No one is advocating removing luck from Magic, and even if the mana system were redesigned to eliminate mana issues, it wouldn't do that. All I am advocating is to remove the extreme situations where the outcome of the game is decided entirely by man
Has this really degenerated to the point where we are discussing which non-Magic card games I do and don't like? Sigh.
My favorite non-Magic card game is a Russian card game called Durak, which translates roughly to 'Foolish Man' in English. My second favorite is Texas Hold-Em Poker and my third favorite is Cribbage.
As for the previously mentioned card games I like Rummy and dislike Uno. I also challenge anyone who enjoys Uno to play Durak and not like it more.
Has this really degenerated to the point where we are discussing which non-Magic card games I do and don't like? Sigh.My favorite non-Magic card game is a Russian card game called Durak, which translates roughly to 'Foolish Man' in English. My second
To be serious, luck is a by design part of MTG. Its not going to be removed.
No one is advocating removing luck from Magic, and even if the mana system were redesigned to eliminate mana issues, it wouldn't do that. All I am advocating is to remove the extreme situations where the outcome of the game is decided entirely by mana issues. The games where a player keeps a 2 land hand and never draws another land before the game ends. The games where a player muligans a 1 lander into a 0 lander into an 'I lose no matter what' lander. The games where one player starts off with a 4 land hand and then proceeds to draw nothing but lands for the next 6 draws.
Every limited Magic game is going to involve some element of luck because you are playing 1 or 2 copies of most non-basic lands in your deck. You don't need to add additional randomness on top of that. Even when I win based on mana issues I don't enjoy it. In the finals of a recent tournament I had Rakdos Cackler -> Rakdos Shred-freak -> Rakdos Shred-freak as my first 3 turns. Due to mana issues my opponent had no plays for his first 4 turns. It didn't feel like an epic win, it just felt stupid. It felt like a non-game, like we might as well have tossed a coin or rolled a die to determine whether we played a game at all or just went straight to game 2.
I recommend modifying your deck construction and/or shuffling your cards differently. Though I doubt that the second one will differ your results more than the first. I've never had a string of games where I've been hosed by mana. Either flooded or screwed. Running My formula (stated earlier), I can bank on averages of every other card being either a mana or a spell.
You might just have to accept the fact that $hit happens and move on. Everybody else deals with it.
Now.. if you wanted to work on a mechanic that would say... combine the "morph" ability with Mana on a permanent or spell. You might be onto something for a set release.
No one is advocating removing luck from Magic, and even if the mana system were redesigned to eliminate mana issues, it wouldn't do that. All I am advocating is to remove the extreme situations where the outcome of the game is decided entirely by man
I recommend modifying your deck construction and/or shuffling your cards differently. Though I doubt that the second one will differ your results more than the first. I've never had a string of games where I've been hosed by mana. Either flooded or screwed. Running My formula (stated earlier), I can bank on averages of every other card being either a mana or a spell.
This is online Magic, so there is no shuffling that I can influence directly. I agree that if you are running 20 lands in a 40 card deck you should almost never run into a situation where you are mana short, but you will also run into mana flood nearly every other game. Unless you have a lot of good sinks for that mana I can't see you winning many matches with this method. Have you tried just playing 17 lands?
This is online Magic, so there is no shuffling that I can influence directly. I agree that if you are running 20 lands in a 40 card deck you should almost never run into a situation where you are mana short, but you will also run into mana flood near
Some people just legit have issues with drawing too much land or not enough land... I watched a friend of mine build an edh deck with 19 lands in it and play 2 game without missing his first 3 or 4 land drops and played the game like any normal deck
Then he tried it with the typical number of lands(like 35 or so) and ended up with like a 75-25 ratio of lands-spells... can't explain it but it just happens
Some people just legit have issues with drawing too much land or not enough land... I watched a friend of mine build an edh deck with 19 lands in it and play 2 game without missing his first 3 or 4 land drops and played the game like any normal deckT
So, you are subjecting yourself to an electronic RNG, and complaining about an algorithm screwing you over?
Have you thought of talking to the coders of said program to find out if their code is properly done?
So, you are subjecting yourself to an electronic RNG, and complaining about an algorithm screwing you over?Have you thought of talking to the coders of said program to find out if their code is properly done?
It is very very hard to define what is mana short or mana flood. For example, you have been waiting to get one more land for 4-5 turns to play those 5 drops cards in your hand and you lose. You may think it is caused by so-called mana short. But instead, if there isn't any 5 or more drops cards in your hand and you win, do you still think you meet a mana short?
Mana short or mana flood is unable to be controlled by us. What we could determine is how to build a deck, when to play a card or an ability, how to attack or block, when to play a trick, those are why MTG attract me so much.
It is very very hard to define what is mana short or mana flood. For example, you have been waiting to get one more land for 4-5 turns to play those 5 drops cards in your hand and you lose. You may think it is caused by so-called mana short. But inst
They don't rely on too many bombs, you should have a decent shot at drafting them. The last one that contained 2 Dreadbore s would have been just as good had I gotten 2 Auger Spree s instead. Well then, how about my valiant attempts to ensure DLCRs are rated properly?
They don't rely on too many bombs, you should have a decent shot at drafting them. The last one that contained 2 Dreadbore s would have been just as good had I gotten 2 Auger Spree
I'll concede that your DLCR posts are often helpful, as well as some of your insights on community drafts (I have not been following those lately). The mana posts really throws it off though.
I'll concede that your DLCR posts are often helpful, as well as some of your insights on community drafts (I have not been following those lately). The mana posts really throws it off though.
Well I do have an idea for a mana/muligan related post that I think could be considerably helpful, but it needs some hard data regarding situational win percentatges that I won't be able to collect and that I don't think exist on the internet. But if I can find the data or figure out how to collect it I'll not only be able to tell you how screwed you are at the point you hit these issues and how often they come up (which has been the focus of my mana/muligan posts so far) but will also be able to tell you mathematically the best muliganning decisions and deck composition to not lose to these issues.
But for now, here's a good paragraph illustrating the problems with the current mulliganing system, the articles that try to teach you how to become better at when to muligan and why most players over-muligan at a point they become proficent at the other aspects of Magic:
"But, the conclusion those writers invariably draw is that, if you diagnose one of these problems, you should send your cards back and try again.
…AND THAT IS MORONIC.
Again, and again, and always again, when I’ve read such an article, I waited for an analysis of your chances TO ACTUALLY IMPROVE YOUR HAND BY RANDOMLY REDRAWING IT WITH ONE CARD LESS.
See, if you play a lot on MTGO, you learn something really important about six-card hands: They SUCK. Big time. (And it’s NOT the shuffler.) Oh, and even in the unlikely case that they don’t, you are still at least down one card.
Mulligan proponents usually (rightfully) warn you against putting too much faith in your next few draw steps. However, for some reason, they exude at the same time unwavering faith in getting satisfactory six-card hands! Why is that?
I’m going to tell you: The reasons for this are deeply ingrained in human behavior patterns. For one thing, we humans hate to be helpless. Also, we like to appear smart.
If you look too hard for things you could have done to prevent a loss, you might lose sight of a simple important truth: Sometimes, you just can’t win. No matter what you do. There is a large element of chance in Magic, and sometimes fate just stacks the cards against you. To really be able to judge your playing skills and your playing decisions correctly, you need to acknowledge both skill and luck and identify the parts those two factors play in the game.
The thing is that many good players, when they look at an opening hand they KNOW has problems which may cause them to lose the game, are averse to accepting that fact and putting their hope in their next draw steps and the possibility that their opponent might also be holding a sketchy hand. They have succesfully trained themselves to take responsibility for the outcomes of their games, and they are actively looking for factors they can influence with their decisions. Thus, they mulligan, because this is usually the only active option which is open to them. It just feels better to do something than to admit that one is helpless."
Well I do have an idea for a mana/muligan related post that I think could be considerably helpful, but it needs some hard data regarding situational win percentatges that I won't be able to collect and that I don't think exist on the internet. But if
For example, you have been waiting to get one more land for 4-5 turns to play those 5 drops cards in your hand and you lose. You may think it is caused by so-called mana short. But instead, if there isn't any 5 or more drops cards in your hand and you win, do you still think you meet a mana short?
This is interesting, so two different scenarios:
1. You have three five-drops in hand and are on four land. You don't draw another land for the rest of the game and lose five turns later.
2. You have three and four drops in hand and are on four land. You don't draw another land for the rest of the game and you win five turns later.
I'm guessing bobus, and a lot of people for that matter, would chalk up the loss in scenario one to mana screw and say there was nothing they could do, but wouldn't even have a second thought about mana screw in scenario two.
This is interesting, so two different scenarios:1. You have three five-drops in hand and are on four land. You don't draw another land for the rest of the game and lose five turns later.2. You have three and four drops in hand and are on four land. Y
For example, you have been waiting to get one more land for 4-5 turns to play those 5 drops cards in your hand and you lose. You may think it is caused by so-called mana short. But instead, if there isn't any 5 or more drops cards in your hand and you win, do you still think you meet a mana short?
This is interesting, so two different scenarios:
1. You have three five-drops in hand and are on four land. You don't draw another land for the rest of the game and lose five turns later.
2. You have three and four drops in hand and are on four land. You don't draw another land for the rest of the game and you win five turns later.
I'm guessing bobus, and a lot of people for that matter, would chalk up the loss in scenario one to mana screw and say there was nothing they could do, but wouldn't even have a second thought about mana screw in scenario two.
Yes, which is why I objectively define mana short as missing one of your first three land drops. The scenario in 1) does qualify as 'mana screw' in a certain sense, but the reason I picked the definition that I did is that most limited decks will be handicap if they miss their first 3 land drops, but some will be able to miss their fourth and higher and still be able to function (as long as they get those lands eventually)
The scenario I gave where I had 4 lands in my starting land, and drew 10 spells and ended up with a hand comprised of only my 5+ drops certainly felt like mana screw, but it doesn't meet the objective definition. The only reason I brought it up was because of how exceeding unlikely the draws leading to that situation were.
This is interesting, so two different scenarios:1. You have three five-drops in hand and are on four land. You don't draw another land for the rest of the game and lose five turns later.2. You have three and four drops in hand and are on four land. Y
No internet for a few days and we're still talking about this?
Seriously. If you're told dozens of times across numerous months from different groups of people to stop talking about it, no matter what argument you introduce or re-introduce, you're no longer being rational.
I'm serious. The amount of time devoted on this forum to mana-screw/flood/mulligan is bordering on trolling. Mulligan is a mechanic that should not and will not be addressed by WotC, and the constant complaining about it here is distracting from actual discourse about limited games/cards/strategies.
No internet for a few days and we're still talking about this?Seriously. If you're told dozens of times across numerous months from different groups of people to stop talking about it, no matter what argument you introduce or re-introduce, you're no
Well I do have an idea for a mana/muligan related post that I think could be considerably helpful, but it needs some hard data regarding situational win percentatges that I won't be able to collect and that I don't think exist on the internet. But if I can find the data or figure out how to collect it I'll not only be able to tell you how screwed you are at the point you hit these issues and how often they come up (which has been the focus of my mana/muligan posts so far) but will also be able to tell you mathematically the best muliganning decisions and deck composition to not lose to these issues.
But for now, here's a good paragraph illustrating the problems with the current mulliganing system, the articles that try to teach you how to become better at when to muligan and why most players over-muligan at a point they become proficent at the other aspects of Magic:
"But, the conclusion those writers invariably draw is that, if you diagnose one of these problems, you should send your cards back and try again.
…AND THAT IS MORONIC.
Again, and again, and always again, when I’ve read such an article, I waited for an analysis of your chances TO ACTUALLY IMPROVE YOUR HAND BY RANDOMLY REDRAWING IT WITH ONE CARD LESS.
See, if you play a lot on MTGO, you learn something really important about six-card hands: They SUCK. Big time. (And it’s NOT the shuffler.) Oh, and even in the unlikely case that they don’t, you are still at least down one card.
Mulligan proponents usually (rightfully) warn you against putting too much faith in your next few draw steps. However, for some reason, they exude at the same time unwavering faith in getting satisfactory six-card hands! Why is that?
I’m going to tell you: The reasons for this are deeply ingrained in human behavior patterns. For one thing, we humans hate to be helpless. Also, we like to appear smart.
If you look too hard for things you could have done to prevent a loss, you might lose sight of a simple important truth: Sometimes, you just can’t win. No matter what you do. There is a large element of chance in Magic, and sometimes fate just stacks the cards against you. To really be able to judge your playing skills and your playing decisions correctly, you need to acknowledge both skill and luck and identify the parts those two factors play in the game.
The thing is that many good players, when they look at an opening hand they KNOW has problems which may cause them to lose the game, are averse to accepting that fact and putting their hope in their next draw steps and the possibility that their opponent might also be holding a sketchy hand. They have succesfully trained themselves to take responsibility for the outcomes of their games, and they are actively looking for factors they can influence with their decisions. Thus, they mulligan, because this is usually the only active option which is open to them. It just feels better to do something than to admit that one is helpless."
This is a perfect example of why you don't have as much credibility around here as you probably should/could.
This is a perfect example of why you don't have as much credibility around here as you probably should/could.
If you're told dozens of times across numerous months from different groups of people to stop talking about it, no matter what argument you introduce or re-introduce, you're no longer being rational.
I'm serious. The amount of time devoted on this forum to mana-screw/flood/mulligan is bordering on trolling.
If you wish for mana issues / muligans not to be discussed the rational approach is for you to stop discussing them.
As for the time devoted to this subject -- ostensibly the purpose of this board is for people to get better at playing limited Magic. Since the majority of limited losses for proficent players occur in games where they either muligan their starting hand or hit mana issues, finding a balanced gameplay mechanic to eliminate mana issues or finding a strategy to avoid mana issues / muligans under the current gameplay mechanics has the best potential for players reading these boards to improve their winning percentages (For players reading these boards who already have game win percentages over 50)
If you wish for mana issues / muligans not to be discussed the rational approach is for you to stop discussing them.As for the time devoted to this subject -- ostensibly the purpose of this board is for people to get better at playing limited Magic.
What I'd find interesting data then, since the thread is trending this direction, is what is the MAXIMUM number of 5+ CMC costs you could theoretically run in a 40 card deck at the three main mana points, 18 land, 17 land and 16 land.
That kind of data would prove invaluable in card selection, knowing you're on pack 3 with X many 5 CMC cards that are runable and knowing you're at the limit so either grabbing a lower cost card you can run or knowing you have to side something out to swap with what you're taking next.
What I'd find interesting data then, since the thread is trending this direction, is what is the MAXIMUM number of 5+ CMC costs you could theoretically run in a 40 card deck at the three main mana points, 18 land, 17 land and 16 land.That kind of dat
If you're told dozens of times across numerous months from different groups of people to stop talking about it, no matter what argument you introduce or re-introduce, you're no longer being rational.
I'm serious. The amount of time devoted on this forum to mana-screw/flood/mulligan is bordering on trolling.
If you wish for mana issues / muligans not to be discussed the rational approach is for you to stop discussing them.
As for the time devoted to this subject -- ostensibly the purpose of this board is for people to get better at limited Magic. Since the majority of limited losses for proficent players occur in games where they either muligan their starting hand or hit mana issues, finding a gameplay mechanic to eliminate mana issues or finding a strategy to avoid mana issues / muligans under the current gameplay mechanics has the best potential to improve the game win rates [for players who already have game win rates over 50%]
You're right. Magic should want the winners to win more and the losers to lose more. It'll help draw new players into the game by making sure they lose over and over again, thereby making the game more profitable. This is a completely rational thought process you've clearly followed to the end. There's also the ingenius way you've developed to convince WotC to change a game dynamic that's been in place for decades; I'm baffled as to why you haven't implemented it yet. Not mention, with the months of compelling arguments you've generated over dozens of posts, I'm surprised MaRo hasn't called you personally so he could slow-clap you on a conference call with the entire MTG development team. I see now that my points about how this mulligan/mana-screw arguments are pointless were, in of themselves, pointless.
If you wish for mana issues / muligans not to be discussed the rational approach is for you to stop discussing them.As for the time devoted to this subject -- ostensibly the purpose of this board is for people to get better at limited Magic. Since th
You're right. Magic should want the winners to win more and the losers to lose more. It'll help draw new players into the game by making sure they lose over and over again, thereby making the game more profitable. This is a completely rational thought process you've clearly followed to the end. There's also the ingenius way you've developed to convince WotC to change a game dynamic that's been in place for decades; I'm baffled as to why you haven't implemented it yet. Not mention, with the months of compelling arguments you've generated over dozens of posts, I'm surprised MaRo hasn't called you personally so he could slow-clap you on a conference call with the entire MTG development team. I see now that my points about how this mulligan/mana-screw arguments are pointless were, in of themselves, pointless.
Congratulations rstnme, you've come a long way in a short amount of time.
New players will certainly enjoy winning and losing based on their skill, which will grow at a faster rate because the fantastic luck wins and terrible luck losses will no longer obscure proper play. Skilled players will keep playing longer as they will receive less arbitrary losses, the type of hard luck losses that have driven many skilled players to swear off playing Magic or online Magic for months at a time.
I'm glad that you've reached this conclusion and look forward to working with you to implement a gameplay mechanic to correct mana issues and limit muligans in the future.
Congratulations rstnme, you've come a long way in a short amount of time.New players will certainly enjoy winning and losing based on their skill, which will grow at a faster rate because the fantastic luck wins and terrible luck losses will no longe
Does anyone really feel "good" about winning a game where your opponent mulls to 5, drops 2 land on turn 2, and misses land drops all the way till you kill him?
There are a few decks that can hold off with 2 land, but they run out of tricks eventually, as 2 CMC can't stack up against 5 CMC cards forever.
Does anyone really feel "good" about winning a game where your opponent mulls to 5, drops 2 land on turn 2, and misses land drops all the way till you kill him?There are a few decks that can hold off with 2 land, but they run out of tricks eventually
You're right. Magic should want the winners to win more and the losers to lose more. It'll help draw new players into the game by making sure they lose over and over again, thereby making the game more profitable. This is a completely rational thought process you've clearly followed to the end. There's also the ingenius way you've developed to convince WotC to change a game dynamic that's been in place for decades; I'm baffled as to why you haven't implemented it yet. Not mention, with the months of compelling arguments you've generated over dozens of posts, I'm surprised MaRo hasn't called you personally so he could slow-clap you on a conference call with the entire MTG development team. I see now that my points about how this mulligan/mana-screw arguments are pointless were, in of themselves, pointless.
Congratulations rstnme, you've come a long way in a short amount of time.
New players will certainly enjoy winning and losing based on their skill, which will grow at a faster rate because the fantastic luck wins and terrible luck losses will no longer obscure proper play. Skilled players will keep playing longer as they will receive less arbitrary losses, the type of hard luck losses that have driven many skilled players to swear off playing Magic or online Magic for months at a time.
I'm glad that you've reached this conclusion and look forward to working with you to implement a gameplay mechanic to correct mana issues and limit muligans in the future.
lol, seriously though, I think we should limit the mulligan theories to a single thread. Reading about it across multiple threads is annoying.
You should also find out what the algorithm is MTGO uses to shuffle. Maybe it just hates you, ya know?
Congratulations rstnme, you've come a long way in a short amount of time.New players will certainly enjoy winning and losing based on their skill, which will grow at a faster rate because the fantastic luck wins and terrible luck losses will no longe
Your problem Bobus is that you'e sitting there on your high horse thinking you're the king of drafting. Tons of people have offered insight on what you're suggesting but all opposing views are instantly discredited by you. Mostly because you're a cry baby and want everything to go your way and you made up some math garbage to "prove" that you're right. You keep telling people "if you don't like it stop talking about it" but the problem is that all you do is spam the entire forum with your nonsense. Your "i'm good at magic" threads don't help anybody, especially new players. You're not teaching anybody the secrets of being "pro business". You're using this forum as your personal magic live journal and nobody gives a ****. Go start a blog where you can record all of your thoughts so nobody has to sift through the garbage to find real post.
Your problem Bobus is that you'e sitting there on your high horse thinking you're the king of drafting. Tons of people have offered insight on what you're suggesting but all opposing views are instantly discredited by you. Mostly because you're a cry
The thing is, your threads are off-topic. This forum isn't about mana screw rates or mulls or whatever, it's about helping players become better at limited. Your threads just don't do that. I'm sorry, but it's just the truth.
Ok, bob, let's have a talk.The thing is, your threads are off-topic. This forum isn't about mana screw rates or mulls or whatever, it's about helping players become better at limited. Your threads just don't do that. I'm sorry, but it's just the t
None of SB's threads ever seem to make me any better at drafting or playing sealed...
Not even the 3-0 deck threads list?
I like these as I like seeing what other people have drafted, how people have interacted in games (any notable plays, etc.), and how people have prioritized what they've drafted for their deck construction.
It doesn't specifically have to be 3-0 deck lists, but if that's what you like to post, that's fine. I'd prefer to also read about how the games went, unusual missed or realized plays, and perhaps even hard choices while picking.
That article on considering your chances to actually get a better hand via mulliganing is interesting, and a helpful tip, perhaps some insight towards the limited environment would be even more helpful. But the threads on mana screw and the fact that there are times in Magic where luck bites you aren't helpful here. They are part of the game.
It's one thing if you were talking about optimal CMC/color distributions, or just optimal land distributions to help increase your probabilities against the odds -- again flavored towards the limited environment. But raw examples of mana screw losses, or the prevalence of perceived poor luck that everyone experiences don't really help. Unless your putting out there information on how to increase your odds through optimal deck construction within the bounds of the current rules, I don't really think theses on how the current rules allow for for luck to be a factor are well-received here.
Not even the 3-0 deck threads list?[/quote]I like these as I like seeing what other people have drafted, how people have interacted in games (any notable plays, etc.), and how people have prioritized what they've drafted for their deck construction.I
I'd like to take one last stab at coming up with a formula.
When it comes right down to it, I'd mainly like to know how everyone would move away from the center if mana issue and muligan games were eliminated. So for all players that are currently winning x% of the games where they hit neither mana issues nor muligan, where would they end up if mana issue/muligan games no longer counted against the official record. Or alternatively, all players that are winning y% of their games overall, what percentage of games are they winning in games where neither player hit mana issues or muligans. I am concerned about average win rates, mana issue rates and muligan rates, not specific games situations. I'd primarily like to know how much the mana issue/muligan games dillute the overall game win percentages, by allowing weak players to win games against stronger ones they could not have won if neither player was handicap by mana issues or muligans. Mana issue / muligan games between strong players and weak ones are inherantly asymetric, because the games the strong player wins via mana issues they were more likely to win anyway if the mana issues / muligans did not occur.
I'd like to take one last stab at coming up with a formula. When it comes right down to it, I'd mainly like to know how everyone would move away from the center if mana issue and muligan games were eliminated. So for all players that are currently wi
The thing is, your threads are off-topic. This forum isn't about mana screw rates or mulls or whatever, it's about helping players become better at limited. Your threads just don't do that. I'm sorry, but it's just the truth.
Discussions of mana screw rates and muligans help players become better players at limited primarily because of the last part of the paragraph I quoted:
"If you look too hard for things you could have done to prevent a loss, you might lose sight of a simple important truth: Sometimes, you just can’t win. No matter what you do. There is a large element of chance in Magic, and sometimes fate just stacks the cards against you. To really be able to judge your playing skills and your playing decisions correctly, you need to acknowledge both skill and luck and identify the parts those two factors play in the game.
The thing is that many good players, when they look at an opening hand they KNOW has problems which may cause them to lose the game, are averse to accepting that fact and putting their hope in their next draw steps and the possibility that their opponent might also be holding a sketchy hand. They have succesfully trained themselves to take responsibility for the outcomes of their games, and they are actively looking for factors they can influence with their decisions. Thus, they mulligan, because this is usually the only active option which is open to them. It just feels better to do something than to admit that one is helpless."
Players tend to follow an arc where they start off under-muliganing, but then end up over-muliganing due to these reasons. An understanding of the percentage of games that are unwinnable due to mana issues and/or muligans will help experienced players make better muliganning decisions. At the very least hard statistics showing the dramatic cost of muliganing, even to 6 cards will help experienced players muligan less.
Discussions of mana screw rates and muligans help players become better players at limited primarily because of the last part of the paragraph I quoted:"If you look too hard for things you could have done to prevent a loss, you might lose sight of a
See, this is the part that is confusing to me. You've seen a system that fixed this very issue, something that has an easy analog in magic, and yet you don't want to fix Magic using the same system. Why is that?
There is a reason why Magic is alive and Versus system is not - it's because good player almost always won in the Versus system, which caused a circlejerk of finest players until the game eventually died.
Mana issues causing random losses is a healthy thing for this game to carry on. It brings win-loss ratios closer to 50% across the board - which hurts the good players in the short run, but benefits them in the long run. It keeps bad players playing the game, which is exactly how you're able to draft RTR to begin with instead of apparently never even having heard of Vs.
The math is simple - bringing win-loss ratios closer to %50, Wizards is kept in business. This is how you're able to play and cash in the events you do.
This is all there is to it, the reason why this issue is still relevant in Magic, and why numerous TCGs who had a different system failed horribly. This is the last time I'm responding to your mana issues posts and next time I see one, I'll have to block you, because I come here for discussion, not to read your posts explaining how you'd be PVDDR if only you didn't flood that one game.
There is a reason why Magic is alive and Versus system is not - it's because good player almost always won in the Versus system, which caused a circlejerk of finest players until the game eventually died.Mana issues causing random losses is a healthy
See, this is the part that is confusing to me. You've seen a system that fixed this very issue, something that has an easy analog in magic, and yet you don't want to fix Magic using the same system. Why is that?
There is a reason why Magic is alive and Versus system is not - it's because good player almost always won in the Versus system, which caused a circlejerk of finest players until the game eventually died.
Thanks for that info. I stopped paying attention right before it and theSpoils game died. I remember that being a problem with it, but I wasn't sure if it was the biggest.
Bob, you brought up Ante a while back, and quoted Garfield saying mana screw was to help worse players win ante. (Source?) Worse players need wins to keep them interested, even without ante. That's a big point A. Point B is that complaining about mana screw is really old. We've all heard it before. Overall, if you build your decks properly, you should get mana screwed at the same rate as anyone else. Mana screw should have no more impact on your overall record than the best players. It doesn't hate you, and it won't stop your rise to the top.
There is a reason why Magic is alive and Versus system is not - it's because good player almost always won in the Versus system, which caused a circlejerk of finest players until the game eventually died.[/quote]Thanks for that info. I stopped paying
Mana Screw is a learning experience. Learn from what happened. Be it needing to construct a better limited deck or learning how to out play your opponent on lesser resources (who here hasn't bluffed a counterspell in their hand to slow their opponent or make them rethink). Stop whining about it, please. It happens to everyone.
Mana Screw is a learning experience. Learn from what happened. Be it needing to construct a better limited deck or learning how to out play your opponent on lesser resources (who here hasn't bluffed a counterspell in their hand to slow their oppone
