Doubling Cube instead of Mulligans
General forum
Posted on Nov. 26, 2022, 12:12 a.m. by estoner
I have been thinking about how to fix the MTG comp rules for a while. My first idea of mixing in Wastes with each player's manabase was interesting but does not work because of the way it negatively interacts with the pre-existing cardpool and mechanics. Instead, I believe we should eliminate mulligans and give the draw player the doubling cube from backgammon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backgammon#Doubling_cube
"To speed up match play and to provide an added dimension for strategy, a doubling cube is usually used. The doubling cube is not a die to be rolled, but rather a marker, with the numbers 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, and 64 inscribed on its sides to denote the current stake. At the start of each game, the doubling cube is placed on the midpoint of the bar with the number 64 showing; the cube is then said to be "centered, on 1". When the cube is still centered, either player may start their turn by proposing that the game be played for twice the current stakes. Their opponent must either accept ("take") the doubled stakes or resign ("drop") the game immediately.
Whenever a player accepts doubled stakes, the cube is placed on their side of the board with the corresponding power of two facing upward, to indicate that the right to redouble, which is to offer to continue doubling the stakes, belongs exclusively to that player. If the opponent drops the doubled stakes, they lose the game at the current value of the doubling cube. For instance, if the cube showed the number 2 and a player wanted to redouble the stakes to put it at 4, the opponent choosing to drop the redouble would lose two, or twice the original stake."
Now the doubling cube is usually used in gambling, but you could replace the "stake" with the number of games in a match. It would be trivial to calculate each player's virtual bankroll carried over between FNM or tournament rounds instead of caring about their win/loss record. This theoretically reduces paperwork and prevents collusion, forced draws, and metagaming into Top 8. I think this is a lot of fun and puts an interesting twist on Magic because now a good player with a bad deck can still win a match by catching his opponent on a bad opening hand and offering a double, or even doubling on a bluff with nothing but lands. Let me know what you think and if you have playtested this interesting variant!
Dead_Blue_ says... #2
estoner stop arguing with people, acknowledge what they have to say then move on. No need to continually debate, it just makes you look bad.
Furthermore the backlash you’ve experienced in this thread serves as a prime example of how problematic implementation of said system would be, if WOTC ever chose to adopt it.
November 28, 2022 12:46 p.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #3
“Yorion objectively makes shuffling take longer”
This is false. The difference between 60 cards and 80 cards is negligible. Increasing your deck size by 1/3 is not hindering in terms of shuffling.
You do realize that the most popular format, commander, has more cards in their deck than Yorion decks?
And I’ve literally never heard somebody complain about shuffling their commander deck.
November 28, 2022 3:18 p.m.
So, I am going to stop mocking this guy. It is just too easy now.
Lets look at this idea. One of my hobbies, is I archive card games. I have played and have basic working knowledge of a lot of card games as a result.
The default win structure for the past 30 years has been 1 game = 1 game. There are a few exceptions but those ideas fell out of favour in the early 00s as they created more headaches than they were worth. Like...lets say you have this cube and as you are taking this manuel action, I concede. Now what?
Secondly, it fucks with the tournament pairing. For all magics flaws, you can map out a tournament fairly well with pen, paper and the right formula. Now this comes along and fucked if I know that formula.
Next up, this is just a thing for tournament magic. The smallest and least played type. Why would commander, casual etc include this. So this isnt a general mulligan solution. This in turn adds an extra barrier to folks joining tournament magic as they would need to learn this.
In terms of actually fixing mulligans this doesn't stop the number of non-games. The current system is not perfect, because Magic is actually a really clumsily designed game in a lot of ways, but it does mean more people can play a game.
In terms of folding as an idea. Folding in poker is one round, you have others at the table and even if you fold it is still a game. Information is gained. The table progresses in ways that aren't just wins. In your idea it massively increases the idea of a non game to be a mechanic. There not being a game shouldnt be a mechanic you should have.
Finally, I did a bit of digging. The line about playing till crusade got banned is defo a far right dog whistle. So keep that in mind when engaging with this guy.
November 29, 2022 2:38 a.m.
plakjekaas says... #5
Daveslab2022 You never have?
I have introduced quite a few 60-card format players to commander, and "oh, shuffling this many cards will take some getting used to" is usually the first thing said after handing them a deck.
The other way too, commander players trying a 60 card format, or even better, a prerelease 40 card deck, usually easy something about how much easier a deck that small can be held while shuffling.
Wizards has kinda promised to never bring the actual fetchlands to Standard again, and they're banned in Pioneer too, just because Modern tournaments are not that fun to watch, since most decks actually have to shuffle every turn. In 50 minute matches, that's an easy way to pad your playtime to a draw or 1-0 victory if you're playing a slow and grindy deck, and every time you shuffle, the game has to pause until you're done.
You might not be bothered by it, but people do complain about shuffling their deck. It's time spent not actually playing, after all.
November 29, 2022 2:42 a.m.
sergiodelrio says... #6
You must understand that what you're trying to 'fix' in this post and the previous one, are features of the game, not bugs.
November 29, 2022 7:14 a.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #7
A brand new commander player saying it will take some time getting used to shuffling is not the same thing as an established commander player actively complaining and wishing their deck was smaller.
I have pretty small hands. But I have no issues shuffling any legally sized decks.
And also I can show you literally hundreds of examples of modern games being played just fine. In fact, modern is currently the most popular 60 card format in paper… It was Standard before COVID, but most people play Standard on Arena now, and Modern in paper.
You also said that modern decks shuffle every turn, which is also objectively false. Some may shuffle 2-3 times in the first 4-5 turns.
According to mtgtop8.com, the most popular deck in Modern is UR Aggro, which on average plays 7 fetch lands out of their 19 lands. So approximately 1/3 of their land drops require fetching. Much less than your argument of “every turn.”
November 29, 2022 11:25 a.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #8
Also, 99% of the time the game doesn’t pause, and most people don’t want to draw a game.
If I have a fetch on turn 1, I’m going to pass turn and while you’re making your first move I’ll crack my fetch and shuffle up. The only time this is different is when I have interaction on turn 1, which is becoming less and less likely.
Lightning Bolt and Path to Exile used to be the premium removal spells in modern. Now it’s Unholy Heat and Prismatic Ending, the former requiring an amount of setup so not usually cast on turn 1 unless it’s a Ragavan on the opposing side, and the latter is a sorcery speed spell.
November 29, 2022 11:29 a.m.
plakjekaas says... #9
And half the top 10 played lands in Modern, according to mtgGoldfish, shuffle someone's deck. Endurance is the 4th played creature of the format and shuffles a deck. Stoneforge Mystic, Primeval Titan, Indomitable Creativity, Urza's Saga, fetches are not the only way to shuffle your deck. Also, Lightning Bolt is still the most commonly played spell and the top card of the format overall. Spell Pierce is third. Unholy Heat typically doesnt need setup if it answers a turn 1 play. Turn 1 interaction is not that improbable. One deck doesn't make a format.
You said you "literally never" heard anyone complain about shuffling a commander deck. When called out, it's suddenly restricted to an established player actively complaining. So I assume you understand hyperbole as a figure of speech. Seeing how I didn't even use the word literally, I'd imagine you understand that my objectively false statement can still be used to paint a picture to strengthen the point that a lot of shuffling does slow the game down, even if you do it on an opponent's turn. If I'm fetching in response to a Lava Spike versus Burn, the time it takes to resolve the spell and pass the turn is a lot less than the time it takes a typical player to shuffle their deck.
The only redeeming quality of the format is that games usually end before turn 5 nowadays, so that even in the less probable case of actually shuffling your deck every turn, you still have time to finish all needed games.
December 1, 2022 5:34 p.m.
Related to deck size and shuffling, I play:
- Modern
- Legacy
- EDH
- Battlecruiser EDH with special banlist
- cEDH
- Pioneer
I play Modern and Pioneer weekly, Legacy monthly, and EDH three times a week. cEDH comes up maybe once every few weeks, and BEDHwSPB even less. I complain about shuffling my EDH deck every game lol, it sucks. I played a Yorion deck in Modern and Pioneer for a while, and I dropped the companion after three weeks because of how much more awkward the shuffling is. 33% is a huge difference.
So yeah, I am a long term, established, semi-competitive player, and I bitch about deck size making shuffling harder multiple times a week.
Related to the Cube thing, I think that ultimately this guy is trying to make Magic better. If this works for his playgroup, power to them, and honestly I would love to see them do a small tournament on MTGO (32 players, manual pairings, practice queue) as a way to say "I told you so".
Yeah, I think its a huge headache with tons of extra overhead that makes gameplay worse, just like everyone else. It works for Marvel Snap because games are six turns, decks are twelve cards, it uses a points based ranking system, and a game takes two minutes max. None of those things can be said about Magic, so I think it would be awful, but I would still watch a tournament with it implemented.
Brief aside for plakjekaas: Endurance doesn't shuffle your deck, it shuffles your graveyard onto the bottom of your deck. I've been with and against it for so long, and I still instinctively go to shuffle my graveyard into my library every time.
December 2, 2022 12:20 a.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #11
Commander is the most popular format (besides kitchen table/casual) in MTG. If shuffling 100 card decks was at all an issue, this would simply not be the case.
Brawl and Tiny Leaders are similar but with 60, and 50 card decks respectively. Those did not gain any traction whatsoever.
So, sorry, Epidilius, but your anecdotal evidence is about as useful as mine was.
December 2, 2022 2 a.m.
I mean, you brought up a point of debate, "Shuffling extra cards is negligible". It was responded to, and you ignored the response by saying "Its only an issue for newbies". So, again, this was rebutted, and your response is to bring up something irrelevant and then say "Yeah, well, your argument doesn't make sense because MY argument doesn't make sense!".
I guess this is just a long way of saying "I'm confused by literally everything you just said".
Also, if you consider nearly doubling your deck size to be a negligible improvement, I'm curious what you think when stores have sales. Do you insist on paying full price?
December 2, 2022 3:31 a.m.
That's very interesting, Molly, but have you ever actually tried playing Magic: the Gathering with a doubling cube?
December 2, 2022 10:47 a.m.
On a serious note, I do actually think that excessive shuffling is a game design flaw except on the rare occasions where it matters like cracking a fetch after a Brainstorm
December 2, 2022 10:59 a.m.
estoner - You have already been warned against dismissing others’ opinions with “yeah, but have you actually tried this?” posts considering you yourself have also not tested this under the same rigours you demand of others. This is especially true when you respond to someone who clearly put a lot of effort into their post by dismissing it, then following up your dismissal with a post indicating you did not even bother to take their time “seriously”.
TappedOut is a place for conversation, not echo chambers, and hypocritical posts like the above very much look like you want the latter, not the former. Die try to actually and constructively engage with folks on your thread - blatant hypocrisy does tend to tilt the scale toward an assumption you are trolling.
December 2, 2022 11:03 a.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #16
Epidilius “You brought up a point of debate”
Actually, I was responding to estoner when he said that shuffling larger decks is somehow inhibiting to the play experience. This is just objectively false due to the fact that commander is without a doubt the most popular official format. If shuffling 100 cards was an issue, then nobody would play commander…
“ and you ignored the response by saying "Its only an issue for newbies".”
In which reply did I say this? I don’t recall. The closest I came to saying something like this was at the beginning of comment #7 on page 2. But it’s not quite what I said… maybe re read my comment and re-assess.
“is to bring up something irrelevant”
At what point did I bring up something irrelevant? I’ve only been discussing shuffling and deck size since comment #7, you must be confused?
“ Yeah, well, your argument doesn't make sense because MY argument doesn't make sense!".”
I didn’t say your argument didn’t make sense, I said it didn’t hold any weight due to be anecdotal evidence.
I rebutted your useless anecdote with facts, such as commander is the most popular format. This is a fact. You cannot deny this. This is not an anecdote.
You saying that you personally don’t like shuffling your commander deck does not matter in the face of these facts.
I also think it’s stupidly hilarious that you mention that I’m “bring up something irrelevant” but then say this:
“Also, if you consider nearly doubling your deck size to be a negligible improvement, I'm curious what you think when stores have sales. Do you insist on paying full price?“
You could not get more irrelevant than discussing a goddamn store sale in an mtg discussion. Lmao.
December 2, 2022 11:20 a.m.
To be fair, my opening post was as polite as possible, and I refrained from replying to incendiary remarks like "roller derby." I suspect some here are just contrarians who wish to disagree with everything I say, even benign statements like "larger decks are harder to shuffle," which I would think is not a very controversial statement.
I am quite serious that I would be interested in playtesting this doubling cube variant or even just watching others try it.
Entire books have been written about the doubling cube, and it's very surprising to me that so few MTG players are familiar with it. It's possibly the most elegantly designed game mechanic ever, possibly better than the d20 system.
December 2, 2022 11:30 a.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #18
Fine, I will contend that “larger decks are harder to shufffle”
But is it really relevant when the initial part wasn’t hard at all?
That’s like saying 2+2 is harder to figure out than 1+1. While it is true, the initial problem of 1+1 even a kindergartener could figure out.
So, sure, it may be “harder,” but it’s still not hard.
This is proven by the fact that commander is the most popular format. Idk how many times I have to say that, lol.
Also, the doubling cube is the most elegantly designed game mechanic?
That’s an opinion. You didn’t even back it up with faces or logic, you just made an opinionated statement that most people here have already stated they do not agree with.
If you like that mechanic so much, go browse some backgammon forums.
December 2, 2022 12:08 p.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #19
You also haven’t answered a question I’ve asked 3 times now.
Why do you feel that it would benefit magic for a doubling cube to exist? Based on your ideas, you would eliminate mulligans.
So here’s a scenario. I open a hand of 0 lands. I have to mulligan. Oh, but there are none. So now i have to concede. Great! So I just lost game 1 of round 1 of a tournament, simply because I didn’t draw a land.
Could you explain how this is a good thing?
December 2, 2022 12:15 p.m.
I was a casino writer and did features about TCGs, TTRPGs, video games, slots, sports betting, so I have a lot of exposure to all sorts of games, even ones I don't like. When I see a good idea, naturally I want to houserule it into my own. For example, I have a boxed copy of the original Traveller RPG. If I were invited to play the new D&D 5th Edition Spelljammer with friends, I would suggest that the DM look at my books and see if he wants to borrow any rules. Game design is not a sprint, it's a marathon. The worst-case-scenario is that the DM doesn't like them and we don't use them. The best-case scenario is that not only do we have more fun with the game, but we can use our feedback to further improve the rules for others.
And I'm glad you asked. Because it's not "game 1 of round 1," it's just one point. Meanwhile, matches could be literally best of 5 or even much higher, depending on time constraints. So you brick on game one and your opponent goes t1 Mountain, Monastery Swiftspear, and you miss a land drop, and he doubles on upkeep and you concede. You don't lose two points, you only lose the one game. Remember, the stakes only increase if you accept the double.
In the next game, you have a nice mana curve and access to all of your colors. Maybe there is some back-and-forth and both players double, passing the cube back to each other. Now this subsequent game could perhaps end up counting as four or eight points.
Look at what this mechanic does: it makes the BETTER games count MORE than a stomp does. If you are completely annihilating someone, of course they aren't going to accept a double. But if it's a close game and you're in a combat race situation and realize you can't win because they have lifelink or you can't block flying or something, you still have an out: you can double as a bluff. Remember, your opponent can't see your hand. Suddenly there are entire layers of additional strategy that make up for the linear gameplay created by FIRE design.
The possibilities are literally endless, as long as they're a multiple of two.
December 2, 2022 12:30 p.m.
A doubling cube also incidentally buffs underpowered cards like Telepathy and Peek and fixes the problem of Stax going to time. Instead of casting Armageddon and your opponent forcing you to attack for ten turns with your 2/1, now you cast Armageddon and your 2/1 and you offer a double with the doubling cube, so your opponent scoops immediately to prevent losing more points.
December 2, 2022 12:49 p.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #22
I’m sorry but once again that just doesn’t make sense in the context of MTG. You can’t just shoe-horn your favorite mechanic into other games and expect it to fit.
Mulligans do what you are suggesting, but better.
In your system, the number of non-games are massive. People mulligan way more often than you might think.
In the system we currently use, a 6, 5 or occasionally even a 4 card hand can win. So instead of just automatically losing after the first turn, the game can actually be played.
You do realize that under your system, you are actually shuffling more often?? If I have to concede the game because I don’t have a lands, then BOTH PLAYERS have to reshuffle. If I were to mulligan, only I have to shuffle up again. But you didn’t think about that, did you?
Your plan is clearly just a first draft, and not even one you’ve given much thought.
December 2, 2022 1:06 p.m.
Almost nobody doubles early in Backgammon because you need to be winning for it to make sense to raise the stakes. If the board is empty and both players have the same number of cards, why would I want to use the cube? I mean, you could bluff, but then your opponent could simply accept the double and punish you. Meanwhile, if someone is missing land drops, it's probably better to save everyone time and that player the humiliation by giving them an ingame incentive to scoop instead of forcing them to try to topdeck a nonsensically unlikely series of cards to get them out of it.
December 2, 2022 1:21 p.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #24
Dude you’re stretching lmao
“forcing them to try to topdeck a nonsensically unlikely series of cards to get them out of it.”
This is just objectively false. People mulligan and win in magic all the time. Mulliganing a bad hand increases your chance of winning that game. You don’t need “nonsensically unlikely” draws. Every game of mtg has a certain amount of luck built into the game. But reducing this much just proves you’re not a veteran to the game.
December 2, 2022 2:16 p.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #25
Let me put it this way:
If you asked a bunch of tournament level players what their favorite/most memorable professional mtg match is/was, 90% of them will instantly mention this timeless classic:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CmB0nlpz_2Y
This is game 4 of a BO5 match in the semifinals of a major tournament. The person who wins the game was on a mulligan to four, and both players were playing the Dragonstorm combo decks. The losing player cast Ignite Memories with 5 copies. The winning player BARELY scrapes by with the exact perfect reveals from the ignite memories to survive the turn, and win the game on their following turn.
Magic is a game of luck and variance just as much as it is skill. The fact that this insanely lucky win is almost unanimously regarded as the best/most memorable moment in professional MTG is a testament to this.
December 2, 2022 2:22 p.m.
I am aware of that clip, yes. Look, if WOTC is ending pro play and LGSes are closing, the only reasonable alternative would be playing Magic with a stake system like street chess or poker home games instead of trying to win your way into an invite-only online MPL event so you can play Arena for less than minimum wage. That's just reality.
Meanwhile, people always accuse me of not being a "veteran," as though I'm lying about playing this game since 7th Ed. I literally have my promo Thorn Elemental somewhere; I will post a picture if I find it. But who cares? What does that have to do with the idea of a scoring system and doubling cube? I have published gambling articles before, do you want me to PM them to you? lmao
December 2, 2022 2:31 p.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #27
“The only reasonable alternative”
Dude once again this is just not a true statement. The current system works, and has for 3 decades. Your quip about playing mtg arena for less than minimum wage is just nonsense, and not relevant.
December 2, 2022 2:41 p.m.
I think that even playing intro packs or duel decks with these doubling cube rules is a lot of fun, but like I said I don't have anybody to test with IRL so I just play on MTGO
I'm not aware of any way to implement a doubling cube in MTGO without the honor system and some really complicated bookkeeping
December 5, 2022 11:30 a.m.
Doubling would also open up interesting design space in that you could have mechanics that depend on how many points ahead/behind you are in the match, or cards that increase the stakes when cast, stuff like that. Maybe an Abyssal Persecutor that says if you win you only get one point but if you lose you lose two or something
December 5, 2022 11:32 a.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #31
Okay. You keep working on your doubling cube idea.
/thread
December 5, 2022 12:31 p.m.
Indeed, I will keep thinking about this. And Molly, I just won an old border Scalding Tarn in a league, let me know if you want to buy it from me
https://i.imgur.com/kc4hdcX.jpg
December 7, 2022 1:15 p.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #33
Buddy just because you grind a ton of games doesn’t make your idea any better…
December 7, 2022 4:51 p.m.
WotC tried adding cards that upped the stakes, then banned them in every format ever.
December 7, 2022 4:54 p.m.
Ante was a mistake, but a points-based system with buy-ins like poker and the doubling system makes much more sense to me than the way tournaments are run now where people draw on purpose to rig Top 8
December 7, 2022 5:10 p.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #36
You do realize that it’s not possible to “rig top 8” and hasn’t been since wizards shut down organized play in 2020?? Over 3 years now this has been an impossibility. The last time wizards did an event, The Magic World Championships, they did it in person, but it was online. No paper magic was played.
This makes it literally impossible to “rig top 8” (which from here on out I will be calling by its official name: ID’ing or intentionally drawing). In both MTGO and MTGA round timers are individual, not collective. So drawing is not possible anymore. If you run out of time you lose.
You also cannot try to convince your opponent to concede to you, as that would be collusion and you’d be DQ’d. This was true before the pandemic when paper magic existed.
You may think that your idea is better, but you’ve still failed to convince even a single person on this forum.
December 7, 2022 5:53 p.m.
Mulligans should just be called "folding" and the rules implemented like in the original post. Magic is a card game and should be building upon the player's pre-existing knowledge. If a player opens a bad hand, do you think he wants to play out a mull-to-four or just concede and make it up in future rounds by doubling on a good hand instead?
December 8, 2022 9:04 a.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #38
The problem with your solution is there is a chance you have no opportunity to double down on future hands. If you draw two bad hands in a row (which according to how many times you bitch about mulling to four, you know can happen often!), then you just don’t get to play magic. At all.
That sounds really fun, doesn’t it? To pay money to sit down and just have to fold and lose?
December 8, 2022 3:24 p.m.
People play tight in poker all of the time. Just increase the points per match (best X of Y) and implement the doubling cube. The same problem would come up if you were playing poker for blinds that are too large for each player's starting stack and then the game becomes an all-in coin flip.
And as for drawing bad hands, your opponent has an equal chance to brick as you do. Just wait until you're on the draw and double when your hand is strong.
Logically speaking, if best of one is bad, which Arena players assure me it is, then the opposite must be good: playing to more than just best 2/3. And with a cube, you can play multiple games of that set at once.
If you take a mulligan, what is your opponent doing in that time? Nothing. Even logistically the rules are moronic. Why not just make it a fold (technically it's not a fold, the draw player is offering a double on his upkeep and the first player is refusing, but you get the idea) and have both players draw a new hand?
December 8, 2022 4:58 p.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #40
Now you’re just repeating the same stuff over and over again that several people here have already used evidence and logic to refute.
You want people ti automatically lose if they draw a hand they would normally mulligan.
That is the argument you’re making, and no offense, but it’s dumb as hell.
If you like the idea, feel free to run with it. But it’s been almost two weeks and you haven’t changed a single persons mind.
December 8, 2022 6:19 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #41
"If a player opens a bad hand, do you think he wants to play out a mull-to-four or just concede and make it up in future rounds by doubling on a good hand instead?"
Personally, I would rather play the mull to four. Everyone I have asked that I know IRL what they think about this has said they prefer mulligans to your proposed system. Everyone on this thread has said they prefer mulligans as well. So I'd feel confident saying that 90-95% of people would rather play it out.
A mull to four presupposes 3 bad hands in a row. This means that for a doubling cube to give even match odds to this you would have to be playing B.O. 11 and to be better odds it would be B.O. 13. To keep 50 minute rounds, even with just equal match odds, games would need to average 4:32 including boarding and shuffling so that people who are pretty evenly matched and risk averse can play their 11 games.
I think the disconnect here may be that you enjoy gambling and playing the player. Many, I may even go so far as to say most, people who play Magic the Gathering like playing a strategy game instead of a gambling game. If you want to add a gambling element to how you and your friends play Magic in person, go for it. But don't be surprised that fans of a strategy TCG, by and large, prefer the strategic option to the gambling option.
December 8, 2022 10:07 p.m.
That is a very insightful comment. Thank you.
Ante is a dumb mechanic, but the variety introduced by high-stakes games like when someone anted a powerful or rare card is really exciting. This dynamic was lost completely as the rules were modified over time. Now every game feels identical,
You don't have to actually bet anything, but letting people double down on a good hand or fold a brick seems to follow in those footsteps and increases player agency. My implementation is very rough, but you can see what I'm going for
December 8, 2022 10:50 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #43
I understand that there is no actual stakes and it is all points in your proposed system. It still changes the game dynamic from a strategy game with a luck element into a gambling game. Not to say that there aren't strategic gambling games, and that is what the change would make Magic into. It is just that the game becomes too much about choices made that are about points staked and not game actions for my taste.
I am very much about the choices made in the game and not metagaming with gambling aspects or with politics in multiplayer. Heck I'm a casual enough player that even when I do play competitive constructed formats I don't even metagame by checking the meta of the format beyond looking to see what is viable and looks fun. I like to play what I enjoy and perfect my play patterns no matter if my match-ups are favorable or not. I am too old and have too many responsibilities to be a tournament grinder, so may as well have fun.
December 8, 2022 11:14 p.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #44
How does it increase player agency?? Eliminating mulligans and turning bad hands into auto losses absolutely does the opposite of increasing player agency.
December 9, 2022 12:30 a.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #45
Also, you’re not going to see players automatically fold bad hands immediately.
Instead what you’re going to get is people who will have a 1-2 land hand, be forced to keep, and play through the first few turns, because they might get lucky and draw what they need. As soon as they miss their 2nd or 3rd land drop, the opponent is going to offer the double and then the player will scoop.
So now you’re just making people play 2-3 turns of a game, just to scoop as soon as they don’t draw what they need.
Didn’t you say earlier that mulligans suck because they “force the person to play a game they can only win with nonsensically lucky top decks?” So this system you are implementing guarantees almost every game ends up like this, because neither player can choose to try for a better hand.
Here’s another scenario where your system falls apart: BOTH players have bad hands. Now neither player is going to fold, because the opponent might have a bad hand or they might get lucky top decks.
Now you’re playing a game where both players have to “top deck nonsensically luckily.” And the winner is whoever can cast their spells first. Really exciting gameplay, right??
December 9, 2022 12:35 a.m.
sergiodelrio says... #46
One of the biggest misunderstandings here is that the comparison to Poker et al doesn't hold up to the slightest bit.
All the gambling games you have brought up provide a level playing field for each player. Ppl are drawing cards FROM THE SAME DECK, or at least from decks that have the same cards... all initial factors, including odds of drawing good/bad hands, rolling good/bad dice are mirrored.
That is absolutely untrue for MTG. The odds of 'bricking' in MTG for different decks are not even on the same vector unless both players play the exact same deck.
MTG boils down to a (very complex) game of rock, paper, scissors, and in a lot of games your deck will be favored or not. Gambling games however, usually work with "higher beats lower" in some sort or form, and you can just wait/fold until it's your turn to get the 'higher' from the gambling gods.
You are comparing apples and orange-flavoured soap.
estoner says... #1
I never mentioned my personal performance until people started bringing it up.
And you don't need Greasefang for that deck at all. I board it out in games two and three so a chump opponent mulligans to Rest in Peace or Leyline of the Void thinking he's countering us only to start the game down multiple cards.
Yorion objectively makes shuffling take longer. How could shuffling a larger number of cards take the same amount of time as a smaller number?
Regardless, you are correct that the doubling cube would have to be playtested before any useful conclusions could be made.
November 28, 2022 12:38 p.m.