I solved mana screw and created a handicap system for MTG
General forum
Posted on Oct. 2, 2022, 8:56 p.m. by estoner
Original idea, discarded: "Both players randomly mix in the same number of Wastes to their lands and put the combined pile in a zone called the Manabase. In the draw step, a player could choose between drawing from his library or from his own Manabase. Then instead of being screwed by having no lands at all, you would only be screwed off certain colors.
As an optional handicap system for casual play, the stronger player could be forced to have more Wastes in his manabase. A player's ELO would dictate how many Wastes are added to their manabase. A newcomer would be a zero Wastes player, while a pro may have a Ten Wastes handicap. Professionals would have to maindeck generic artifacts to counterbalance the fact that they may never even draw colored mana."
Newest update: What about making matches best 3/5 and removing mulligans? Instead, before the game, players can look at their opening hands and the person going second can either check, (match continues as normal), double down (game would count as two games in the match), fold (concede but continue with the set), or all-in (losing that game loses the match). The person on the play would have to agree to the same stakes dictated by the player on the draw or forfeit the round. There is probably a better way to codify exactly how this would work, but you get the idea.
Edit 2, putting lands back in deck and removing Wastes idea: Both players have to keep opening 7, but draw player starts with the doubling cube and during the game can double the stakes then turn player has to accept odds or concede the game then receives the cube himself. The all-in/call/fold poker stuff is too complex, it's easier to just use the cube and 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, and 64 like in backgammon.
wallisface says... #2
Just adding to the “they’re probably a troll” thesis, their only posted deck is one of Pioneer, yet the window they claimed to play the game in (7th ed till when the racist cards got banned) seems to make that format one of the least-likely ones they’d play (it’s still possible, but feels very out-of-place, imo).
I suggest a mod close this thread because whoever the OP is, this thread us going nowhere-quick in anycase
October 4, 2022 3:35 p.m.
wallisface - TappedOut does not make it a habit to lock threads without substantial cause - and an OP who is steadfast in their opinions, even if that steadfastness might be the result of trolling, is not sufficient cause to lock a thread.
October 4, 2022 3:49 p.m.
wallisface says... #4
Caerwyn yeah fair enough, my bad.
It’ll be interesting in anycase to see if this thread ends up going anywhere.
October 4, 2022 3:55 p.m.
I do actually believe that the comp rules could be improved. Manabase debasement with weaker lands instead of land screw/flood is interesting design space, regardless.
Nobody would play poker if they had to memorize an entire 266-page document. Have you ever read the MTG comp rules? Look at this. https://media.wizards.com/2022/downloads/MagicCompRules%2020220908.pdf
111.10d: A Walker token is a 2/2 black Zombie creature token named Walker
Wow, thanks for that life pro tip. How much of this is actually necessary to make a functional card game? You can't think of ANY change that would make the game better?
October 4, 2022 3:58 p.m.
I have read the Comprehensive Rules. The rules, while lengthy, are exceptionally written. Every single rule has its place, and each and every question you might have about the game’s mechanics can be answered by reading the card and the rules. Now, a layperson might not read the rules correctly, or might not see the purpose of particular rules, but that does not mean they are not necessary - it just means the person is interpreting the rules wrong or ignorant about their function. Frankly, I think it is ridiculous to expect a short set of rules to govern 24,839 different cards, 155 keyword abilities, five phases, eleven distinct steps, seven layers with five sublayers, etc.
As for your one example, that rule is necessary for a very small subsection of cards to function - it defines what a “Walker Token” is, so the cards can read “Create a waker token” instead of the much longer “Create a 2/2 black Zombie creature token named Walker.”
October 4, 2022 4:14 p.m.
DeinoStinkus says... #7
I have also read the Comp Rules, though that was shortly after Ikoria so I am not fully current. In either case, though, you don't have to memorize every single rule in Magic in order to know how to play. Magic is very good at reinforcing the rules through the use of reminder text, plus spaces like this and LGSes exist for curious players to learn the basics. For casual play, most of the time the rules about sublayers and such aren't incredibly important.
But just as a professional poker player has to memorize and be able to calculate on a whim incredible numbers of possible hands, a professional Magic player should be familiar with the Comp Rules.
I agree with Caerwyn that the Comp Rules are actually quite an elegant creation, working in tandem to keep the game orderly. Most of them are common-sense and easy enough for people to understand, but they are filled in enough that practically nothing falls through the gaps, and that a rules judge can arbitrate on practically every possible combination of cards and effects.
October 4, 2022 4:43 p.m.
It's worth remembering that Chess didn't always have its current ruleset, either. Note that initially, the board setup was not symmetrical, but that was changed to make the game more balanced.
Starcraft is an example of the perfect competitive game. Note that both players start with essentially the same resources (a base and some workers) and the map is always perfectly mirrored so that the natural expansion is an equal distance from each player's starting position, minerals are fairly distributed, etc. Magic does not do this. Why?
Would the game be better if both players always started with the same ratio of lands and non-lands, or each player always began with the same number of cards? From personal experience, when one player kept immediately and the other mulled to five, the game feels stupid, even when it's in my favor.
Fighting games don't start the round with one player's back against the wall. That's idiotic and makes no sense. We're just so used to Magic's bizarre design conventions that we don't think about this sort of thing.
Maybe Magic mulligans should be more like draw poker and both players always start with the same amount of cards, or maybe some variation of a manabase deck with some Wastes mixed in could fix the screw/flood problem.
Magic's rules were literally made up as they went along. At the beginning there wasn't even a four-of card limit. So there's always the possibility that there is a superior ruleset we haven't considered yet
October 4, 2022 5:19 p.m.
Yep. Trolling. The fact that you STILL cannot grasp the difference between substantive, foundational rules--like what you want to change--and ancillary rules that are products of individual formats is well and truly disappointing.
Take the four-card rule--it is not even a rule in some formats. And, if you use common sense, you can see the reason it was not in the game initially is the same reason it is not in Draft and Limited--Garfield did not anticipate a need for it because he did not predict the secondary market. Common sense would explain and distinguish from your own proposal all your examples of rules changes--if you bothered to apply it.
October 4, 2022 5:39 p.m. Edited.
The four-of rule isn't in limited because you could end up with a pool that cannot constitute a legal deck. It has nothing to do with the secondary market
October 4, 2022 5:46 p.m.
trying to fix problems that have existed in a children's card game for over 30 years makes you a troll
October 4, 2022 7:31 p.m.
wallisface says... #12
Ok, here’s my last attempt at conversation on this thread, with some examples of why this wouldn’t work - specific to the Modern format.
From what i’ve gathered so far you want your concept to change the following in magic:
-
make currently strong cards less-played, and currently unseen cards more-played.
-
reduce peoples ability to play high-pip-count cards
-
reduce peoples ability to play 4-colour piles
-
reduce the chances of mana screw/flood.
Now, your suggested plan actually does none of this, as illustrated here:
On the topic of reducing play rate of powerful cards, that’s just not going to happen. Most of the strongest Modern cards only cost a single mana (sometimes 2) anyway. Some of the most powerful creatures, Ledger Shredder, Dragon's Rage Channeler, and Ragavan, Nimble Pilferer become a LOT stronger with your concept, as DRC/Shredder can filter away Wastes so your land-draws are actually worthwhile, while Ragavan can just fix your mana with Treasures. Cards like these would become incredibly powerful and cause other cards to see even less-play than they currently do. Added to this, your concept encourages unfair tactics (because split decks are a LOT easier to abuse), so stuff like turn-2 combo will become super-rife in the metagame (further reducing the play rate of less-powerful, “fair” cards).
On the topic of reducing the number of pips that can be played on cards, how useful is this? Yes, you will make a bunch of fringe cards like Phyrexian Obliterator unplayable, but that card sees no play anyway. Murktide Regent is still as easy to cast as-ever, with the help of those creatures mentioned in my last paragraph.
On the topic of reducing the playability of 4-colour piles, I also don’t see your concept helping. Because any non-waste land needs to provide high-value, I can see peoples landbase devolving to nothing but fetches and triomes. In that scenario, it may end up being the case that decks end up incidentally running more colours than they normally would have. And, in any case, Wrenn and Six exists to still ensure Omnath’ll come into play.
On the topic of reducing mana screw - drawing non-useful mana is the same as not drawing it at all. You’ve already seen from my previous math that a 50% split of good-lands and Wastes is completely non-viable. Id you have 25% Wastes (so, 1 Wastes per 3 good-lands) then you get close to the sane decent draw-odds you’d have in a regular game. BUT, if we’re making this change just to end up with roughly the same odds of a bad opening hand, what’s the point? And, adding to this, once you have a Wastes-percentage configuration that works, there’s nothing stopping decks undermining the restrictions you’re trying to put in place by abusing that system.
You also can’t just keep saying that you’d ”ban all those cards” in response to every one pointed out to you that would break this concept - at some point you need to take ownership that the idea is just bad.
So in short, this concept:
-
Doesn’t work.
-
Won’t get close to achieving what you want it to.
-
Based off feedback here, isn’t going to get any traction in the real world.
October 4, 2022 10:21 p.m.
wallisface says... #13
There are also much easier ways to achieve your goals. If you want a format where pip-count is more of a deckbuilding concern, and multicolour decks are harder to pilot, then just have a format where all nonbasic lands are banned. There will probably already be a ton of people keen for this idea, that have a bunch of good magic cards but don't want to shell out $500+ for lands.
Then, if you're wanting a way to prevent mana screw/flood, you can just introduce a house-rule of "Once per turn, instead of playing your land for turn, you may pay and exile a card from hand. If you do, you may either draw a card, or create a Wastes token".
Now, neither of these concepts are perfect, and they're bound to have their own litany of abuses and/or edge-cases. But I guarantee that both of these will sound a LOT more appealing to players, will be vastly simpler to manage, and will overall lead to a more enjoyable experience than your current proposal.
October 4, 2022 11:52 p.m.
The game was designed backwards. You're supposed to start with a functional ruleset and then make cards that conform to those rules, not start with a half-assed ruleset and then jerry-rig it by printing looting effects and Serum Powder and mulligans to try to make up for the fact that the default game is just Hearthstone with booster packs that cost $999.
The problem is we're starting with a bad game and then trying to fix it by printing cards that mitigate variance instead of starting with a good game and then adding variance through the cards.
The default rules for Magic: the Gathering are stupid. You could probably replace them with good rules, and then you would say that the game is no longer Magic: the Gathering. Yeah, that's the point.
Imagine that mana screw and flood don't exist, and both players start the game with an equal number of cards and mulligans. Maybe whenever one player mulligans, the opponent also gets a free mulligan. Maybe each player always starts with the same ratio of lands to nonlands. Maybe the game starts with each player having an Abundance in play. Maybe players can each begin the game with a basic land of their choice.
It doesn't matter if each player starts the match with a Sundering Titan and a cup of Earl Grey on the battlefield, AS LONG AS IT'S THE SAME FOR BOTH PLAYERS.
We can sort out the details later. The point is, you need to begin the game with a level playing field. This is not even a lesson in game design, it IS game design. A competitive game that begins with an asymmetrical gamestate is not a competitive game. MTG is axiomatically not competitive, and it's barely a game.
The core input assumptions are wrong. We can fix then fix the second- and third- order consequences like Ledger Shredder becoming OP or discovering that Grapeshot can be a victory condition if you use the copies to target your opponent later.
So how do we make the comp rules fit on an index card and solve mana screw/flood at the same time? Debasing each player's manabase with weaker lands but always giving a player a land from that pile if he wants one is one such idea. I'm open to suggestions.
As a side note, the ENTIRE RULES for Baccarat fit on ONE CARD. https://www.vegas-aces.com/assets/images/charts/resources-charts-baccarat-rules.jpg
Meanwhile, the rules text of Fable of the Mirror-Breaker Flip doesn't even fit on one side of ITS OWN CARD.
Somebody goofed, and it's not me
October 5, 2022 12:17 a.m. Edited.
wallisface says... #15
estoner Then make your own game, instead of trying to suggest sweeping changes to this one? What you're suggesting is it's own form of "jerry-rigging". If you want a game that better suits how you want to play, then make that game, from scratch. Trying to make weird and out-of-place changes to magic will get you nowhere, and contradicts every complaint you have about other peoples thoughts here.
October 5, 2022 12:21 a.m.
To be fair, EDH is also a weird and out-of-place change to Magic, and all it did was accidentally make Zur the Enchanter slightly too good. It's not inconceivable that minor alterations to the Magic ruleset could vastly improve gameplay
October 5, 2022 12:28 a.m.
wallisface says... #17
That's not what I said, and it also both goes back on your previous statement, and contributes nothing to what's currently being discussed. You must understand that changing your position with every sentence makes it impossible for anyone to have a coherent conversation on the topic?
October 5, 2022 12:31 a.m.
So what did everyone think to Edgerunners? Good right?
October 5, 2022 3:24 a.m.
DeinoStinkus says... #19
It's not a minor alteration to gameplay, though. Have you listened to anything we've been saying? This drastically alters every facet of MTG gameplay.
October 5, 2022 8:36 a.m.
Changing from batches to the stack was probably a bigger change than whatever I'm proposing here. I'm just brainstorming ways we can solve mana screw/flood by debasing each player's manabase with worse cards so MTG works more like a table game. There are probably other areas of the rules that could be improved, as well. The current mulligan system is too generous, for example. But by fixing mana screw/flood, we may not even need mulligans at all. You see what I mean? You have to fix the rules first, not the cards
October 5, 2022 10:51 a.m. Edited.
Daveslab2022 says... #21
This thread is such a clusterf*ck.
Dude, estoner
You keep saying things like
“ The existence of Generic Mana is a mistake”
Dude this isn’t true. Generic mana has intentionally been part of the game since day 1. Do you really think Serra Angel was not printed as intended and that the was a typo?? Like what do you mean it was a mistake?
Then in comment #8 you said
“ The color screw just increased skill in mulligan decisions and sequencing.”
But you didn’t explain how. You just said it. Anybody can say anything, but that doesn’t make it true. Did you know that magic was actually intended to be played by your pets? Not by humans? Yeah! Richard Garfield was sad that your cat was sitting at home all day with nothing to do, so he designed MTG for them. Then humans stole it!!
See what I mean? Anybody can say any ridiculous thing they want but until you provide evidence and logical reasoning for your claims, they don’t actually hold any weight.
Next you said
“The game is at its best when there is a sharp distinction between colors and usually at its weakest when everyone is running five-color goodstuff.”
And this is literally just an opinion. You said that KTK was your favorite and most well-designed set. But KTK was a bunch of 3 color cards! The entire intent of the block was to push 3 color decks. Why is it your favorite set and the most well designed if it does the opposite of where you think the game thrives???
In th exact same comment you said this
“ Like I said, I'm not sure how this would work with mulligans or starting hands. ”
But a few comments before you said it made mulligan decisions increased in skill. ….. but you don’t even know how you want mulligans to function in thsi scenario, so how can then be more interesting??? Lol
You also said
“I noticed in playtesting that I was making more important decisions than in regular Magic.”
But AGAIN failed to back it up with facts or evidence or logic. You just made a statement and expected everybody to just believe you. Remember, your a stranger on the internet. You have to actually try to convince people that your ideas are good. We’re not your little brother who idolizes you because you’re bigger than us.
Another statement you made was
“Color screw is extremely important for balance, but with the current rules, it never comes up.“
Literally anybody that has ever played a deck with more than one color will tell you this is not true.
If I have a Brimaz, King of Oreskos in my hand, and I true 1 plains, and 2 Forest, I can’t exactly cast my spell now can I?
I’m going to continue to respond to some of the other comments you made, but this reply was getting massive.
You can @ and then my name to tag me in your reply, please :)
October 5, 2022 11 a.m. Edited.
DeinoStinkus says... #22
"Richard Garfield was sad that your cat was sitting at home all day with nothing to do, so he designed MTG for them. Then humans stole it!!"
Daveslab2022 well, obviously this is true. His name is Richard Garfield, after all ;)
October 5, 2022 11:02 a.m.
My apologies, I'll elaborate. Artifacts should cost any kind of mana but be weak while colored spells are more powerful but harder to cast. The design space of most artifacts is negated by the existence of most spells that are colored but splashable.
Look at unplayable chaff Brainstone. In the current ruleset, you would never play a card that is just an overcosted jank version of a U instant. If the game used color screw as negative variance instead of manascrew, suddenly a control deck could run one or two as insurance in case they were drawing badly.
Cards that require heavy devotion SHOULD be more powerful. Look at Necropotence. I think all cards that take three or more pips should be pushed just as much as high CMC cards are, because then you have to balance ramp against your color access, making power levels a graph with both an X and Y axis instead of just an exponential curve that goes parabolic at 7, where any spell instantly wins the game.
I was testing variants of the manabase rules in paper. Obviously I couldn't play as both players AND record at the same time. I was just commenting on my observations.
Wastes is the best-designed card in the game. By incorporating it in the structure of the game as the default land, suddenly even drawing a basic Island feels like a relief. If I can just play fetches and 4x Trop, 4x U-sea, 4x Volcanic, why do we even have colors at all?
Choosing between land and nonland on draw when you have a 5-drop in hand you lack the colors for and you're losing on board is interesting. Do you gamble on hitting the the correct colored mana source from your manabase or just take a spell from your library you know you can cast?
Regarding Khans of Tarkir, you have to remember that most 3+ color lands either come in tapped or ping you like City of Brass. Colorless cards being easy to cast but weak while colored spells are sick but hard to cast is interesting, and that's how the game was meant to be played anyway.
Brimaz is a great example. No deck that runs Brimaz would ever be screwed off casting him because YOU WOULD BE PLAYING DUALS ANYWAY. And why would 3+c control want a 1CC potato that dies to Day of Judgment?
I still believe that color screw should replace mana screw and bad artifacts like Armillary Sphere should get another chance
October 5, 2022 11:37 a.m.
DeinoStinkus says... #24
"Unplayable chaff Brainstone"
Emry, Lurker of the Loch, Sharuum the Hegemon, Zur the Enchanter, mid-power affinity decks... it's not going to be winning any tournaments anytime soon but it is certainly not unplayable.
October 5, 2022 11:39 a.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #25
Dude you have quite literally just buried your head in the sand and refuse to even acknowledge other peoples refutations of your idea.
90% of the things you have stated have either been downright incorrect, or it’s an opinion. And you are entitled to your opinion, but you can’t just say “I think this would be better” without giving a coherent reason why.
The fact is, your proposal is wack. It changes the fundamentals of deck building, mulliganing, and game design.
You’d have to ban a TON of cards, or errata them into oblivion.
If you want to do that for your personal playgroup, go for it. But magic as a whole would not be a good place for this design. At all. Plain and simple - it’s bad. It’s not how R&D have ever considered the game to function.
October 5, 2022 12:20 p.m.
Mulligans are just a band-aid solution for idiotic rules.
If we're playing 40k and my Space Marine shoots at your Ork and misses, should I get to roll again because I feel bad?
Who cares about banning some cards if we can fix the RULES of the GAME?
And of course it's my opinion, should I call Barack Obama and ask him what he thinks?
October 5, 2022 12:48 p.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #27
idiotic rules
Once again, this is an OPINION. And one that nobody agrees with.
Magic has been around for 30 years. On august 5th 2023, magic will celebrate its 30th anniversary.
Do you think that a game could function for 30 years if the rules didn’t make any sense?
Just because you don’t like them doesn’t mean anything. Go play Force of Will. That’s the TCG for you.
October 5, 2022 12:50 p.m.
On august 5th 2023
Assuming it's still around by then, yes
October 5, 2022 12:54 p.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #29
Let’s be serious, since you don’t have any real metrics for your idea to actually go by.
How would we determine how many lands and spells you can put in a deck? Can I just put 10 spells in my spell deck and 50 lands in my land deck? Then I ALWAYS draw the lands I want because a couple of wastes aren’t going to dilute the deck enough, and I ALWAYS draw the spell I want because there’s only 10 to choose from. Now I win 100% of the games I play because I’m a degenerate combo deck that can win on turn 1.
Or do we restrict it and say you HAVE to have at least X amount of lands and X amount of spells?
Well that just restricts deckbuilding. Which you said the opposite. You said in comment #6 that “ deckbuilding's skill ceiling becomes infinite.”
That literally doesn’t make any amount of sense.
October 5, 2022 12:55 p.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #30
assuming it’s still around by then
You think a game that is more popular than it has been in 3 decades is going to die in less than a year??? Lmao okay.
Somebody shut this thread down, troll detected.
October 5, 2022 12:56 p.m.
DeinoStinkus says... #31
You're projecting your hatred of the game onto all of us. We don't hate the game. Sure, a few of us may have qualms about certain design directions that the game is going, but none of those are with something so intrinsic as the way mana is handled within the game.
Speaking as someone who has created a TCG revolving around having a consistently increasing amount of energy to spend each turn, it DOES warp the gameplay, quite dramatically in fact, and it's not an effect I think would suit MTG.
Daveslab2022, Caerwyn has said that since estoner has not said anything against site policy that there is no current reason to shut down this thread. That could change, but I plan on departing the thread soon anyway as it's clear that this conversation is going nowhere (honestly it hasn't been going anywhere since the beginning, since estoner likely made this account just to stir up controversy on the site and never had any intention of having an honest and open conversation).
October 5, 2022 12:59 p.m.
If I didn't like the game, I wouldn't be trying to fix it. It's easy to become myopic after playing only MTG for a long time. Did you know Duel Masters and Yu-Gi-Oh! don't even have mulligans?
And Yu-Gi-Oh! doesn't even have lands to begin with, so mana screw/flood is impossible. You can obviously draw too many or too few hand traps, but at least on a brick you can still take game actions.
How would we determine how many lands and spells you can put in a deck? Can I just put 10 spells in my spell deck and 50 lands in my land deck?
Exactly, we can't let people play an unlimited number of lands because they could outnumber the Wastes we're debasing their manabase with. I assumed 24 was a decent number, not counting the Wastes which are shuffled in afterwards. In Shandalar, it's worth noting that if your deck had fewer cards than the minimum, the game would shuffle in random basics to get you up to the correct deck size. This is not really unprecedented.
Or do we restrict it and say you HAVE to have at least X amount of lands and X amount of spells?
The manabase would be separate from your library. I don't think you would need to cap the number of cards in a library as long as you can still shuffle unassisted. Certain companions may become wonky with these changes, so that is a potential problem. But Lurrus and Lutri have been problems in other formats before, never mind the entire Companion mechanic being errataed, so it's not unimaginable that changes may have to be made.
Likewise, Collected Company and Aether Vial may become OP. But why are we warping the RULES of the GAME on behalf of some cards that aren't even legal in all formats? We should fix the problems with the ruleset first and then worry about card design later.
October 5, 2022 1:38 p.m. Edited.
Daveslab2022 says... #33
Dude
we should fix the problems with the rule set first
There is no problem with the rule set. You are literally trying to solve a non issue. It’s like you’re trying to figure out why 2+2=5 without realizing that it’s really 4.
You are on an entirely different wavelength than everybody else.
If you don’t like the deck building system in MTG, don’t play. There’s nothing inherently wrong with the system.
October 5, 2022 4:48 p.m.
SteelSentry says... #34
I don't say this to be rude, but just play Hearthstone, lmao. or Runeterra, or Gwent, or Artifact. The game was built on the mana system, and the mana system has driven card design for around 20 years once they figured out how to make more or less balanced card design.
Also, seeing as I was literally watching a YGO streamer earlier today who opened a hand with garnets, monsters he couldn't summon, and a Pot of Desires that he ended up banishing every copy of the card he needed with, you can absolutely draw brick hands. Normal summoning an Ash Blossom is so inconsequential it's the same as not taking a game action.
October 6, 2022 3:54 a.m.
I've played both Hearthstone and Gwent. In Yu-Gi-Oh, I hit Platinum 5 and KOG in Master Duel and Duel Links multiple times. A good Yu-Gi-Oh player can win a game by activating one hand trap at the right time. If you Ash a Trade-In, even if the game doesn't literally end, you already won.
One thing people don't notice is that in Yu-Gi-Oh! it's possible for BOTH players to brick, and because there are no mulligans, the matches become very interesting. I've seen games where players won by setting an Effect Veiler as a wall or normal summoning a Skull Meister to swing for lethal.
Hearthstone's mana system is bad because it's linear and always guarantees one crystal a turn, and all crystals are identical. You have Overload, but that's not very common. Every match feels the same.
Is there a card game that takes your land/mana/energy and debases it by adding weaker cards like Wastes so that you still build your deck, but it's just watered down? Off the top of my head, I can't think of one. It's certainly worth playtesting, if nothing else.
It seems like a good compromise between Hearthstone always guaranteeing your land drop every turn and Magic where you can literally play manaless dredge.
And I would be playing Duel Masters over MTG if it had a good PC client. I've played Kaijudo on Tabletop Simulator, but it's really janky and the entire playerbase worldwide was just me and my friend
October 6, 2022 12:08 p.m. Edited.
marco-piatti says... #36
Well Yugi-oh has no problem with balancing systems since the game basically doesn't have any. The only one is the normal summoning by tribute for high level creatures which no one uses in the current gameplay. Every single spell is free basically and every deck is a combo deck with every single card being a tutor or a combo enabler to get to the win con which is always an OP creature.
Honestly i have no issues with people playing yugi oh since anyone should play what they feel like. But i wouldn't take the game as an example for a well conceived overall and balanced game. And i don't start talking about Konami manipulating every 6 month the ban list to change the current meta in order to force people to build new decks (we complain about WotC selling 1K proxies but that is way worse)
October 6, 2022 3:02 p.m.
You're all right that there are too many cards that would have to be errataed and banned for the idea in OP to work, but I still think mulligans are a waste of time. So how about this:
What about making matches best 3/5 and removing mulligans? Instead, before the game, players can look at their opening hands and the person going second can either check, (match continues as normal), double down (game would count as two games in the match), fold (concede but continue with the set), or all-in (losing that game loses the match). The person on the play would have to agree to the same stakes dictated by the player on the draw or forfeit the round. There is probably a better way to codify exactly how this would work, but you get the idea.
Without ante or a similar gambling mechanic, there are certain hands that are unwinnable. Poker doesn't have this problem because you can just fold garbage like 10/2 off instead of having to get to the river and waste everyone's time. I think this might be interesting and also reduces shuffling and downtime. Instead of always choosing to be on the play, now there is also an incentive to be on the draw because you get to control the betting
November 14, 2022 3:16 p.m.
As someone who claims to play poker, I am a bit surprised your new suggestion comes down to “what if we took the least interesting round of betting in poker and added it to Magic?” You are basically suggesting that Magic be transformed into a game where the most important decision is not actually playing Magic, but how you gamble in a situation where you are mostly blind to the relevant information.
Beyond being bad gameplay to anyone except the fool who says “I like Texas Hold Em, but I don’t want to do all that tomfoolery with drawing cards and just want to bet on the two initial cards I draw”, this would be a nightmare in tournaments. It would make scheduling the timing of rounds difficult. It would exacerbate the problem of “my opponent scooped meaning I have to sit here and not play Magic at the Magic event.” It would not work well with how match rankings are set up.
Once again, I think you are trying to “fix” a problem no one else actually sees as a problem, and are doing so in a manner that clearly shows a lack of foresight, understanding of Magic, and understanding of gaming generally.
November 14, 2022 3:54 p.m.
Magic was designed for ante: the game does not function when there is no downside to keeping greedy hands or spending thousands of dollars on all rares. Adding a pseudo-betting system would fix a lot of the problems MTG has with player skill not impacting the outcome, and having certain games in a match count more than others is not only interesting to the players but more engaging for viewers
November 14, 2022 4:01 p.m.
Once again you appeal to Magic’s history to make a point - a history you are ignorant of. For starters, the game was not designed around having ante - ante was always an optional rule both players had to opt into. Second, you anted a card before drawing your starting hand, not before. Insofar as it influenced your decision to keep or mulligan, that was based on “how greedy do I need to be to protect what I have already gambled.” That means you are not evaluating your chances to win - which is what a game should be about - it was you evaluating “how likely is this to cause me to lose my thing.”
November 14, 2022 4:24 p.m. Edited.
Imagine the hype of a Pro Tour in which a player can unironically say the words "all-in."
As for me being ignorant of Magic's history, I literally own a copy of MTGO on CD ROM. It's almost old enough to drink
November 14, 2022 8:34 p.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #42
What you just said is not relevant. Just because you’ve been playing the game for a long time doesn’t mean you understand everything about it.
The guy who taught me the game has been playing far longer than I have. However he is still stuck in kitchen table magic. He plays Plummet in his green decks because he’s scared of fliers, and STILL hasn’t learned a better way to deal with them.
My point is, just because you’ve been around for awhile does not make you any more of an authority to the game, nor does it mean your opinion holds any weight.
November 17, 2022 9:52 p.m.
I've been thinking about this more. Both players have to keep opening 7, but draw player starts with the doubling cube and during the game can double the stakes then turn player has to accept odds or concede the game then receives the cube himself. The all-in/call/fold poker stuff is too complex, it's easier to just use the cube and 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, and 64 like in backgammon.
November 24, 2022 10:36 a.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #44
Dude nobody is making bets before playing a match of mtg. You’re already basically IN a bet/contest when you sit down to play against somebody. Why do you need to add more stakes? It’s my deck vs. your deck.
And you still haven’t solved the underlying problem of degenerate combo decks and aggro decks being consistent as hell. When you take the lands from the deck and add them as a separate resource you can tap into whenever, then the combo and aggro player will stop when they have enough lands and only draw creatures and spells.
November 25, 2022 10:12 a.m.
You can use a doubling cube without gambling as long as the game you're playing involves multiple rounds and a scoring system, as Magic already does. By eliminating mulligans and giving a doubling cube to the second player, we not only eliminate pregame shuffling but fix the play/draw imbalance. Furthermore, now there is no longer a binary win/loss outcome, but a single game of Magic may involve multiple doublings and consequently degrees of success or failure. Who doesn't want to win 64 games at once?
WOTC can't simultaneously ban Yorion and stop reprinting fetches because shuffling takes too long while the official rules require multiple mulligans that can take like ten minutes to resolve. The actual game of Magic is still decent, but the comp rules themselves are nonsensical.
You could delete 103.5 and all the nonsense about how mulligans work in different formats during different moon phases and just replace the entire section with a summary of how the draw player can double the amount the game they are playing is worth in the match and then gives the cube to his opponent who can then repeat the process.
November 25, 2022 10:44 a.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #46
Dude I’m sorry but that just doesn’t make any sense.
How can you start the thread by saying that you solved mana screw, then switch it up to saying that mulligans shouldn’t exist.
You do realize that the main reasons for mulligans is because you don’t have a good land to spell ratio?? So eliminating them would CAUSE more mana screw/flood because if your opening hand is 0 lands or 7 lands, you can’t do anything about it.
November 25, 2022 5:49 p.m.
Mulligans should not exist, no. It makes more sense just to have a bluffing and folding dynamic with a doubling cube so you don't have to play out pointless games and get on to the next hand instead of having someone try to win with a mono-red deck on a mull to four. It's literally just a waste of time
November 25, 2022 6:43 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #48
Daveslab2022 You called them a troll and called for the thread to be shut down a month and a half ago, please stop feeding the troll.
November 25, 2022 7:24 p.m.
I reposted on this thread after seeing OP admit their first idea had flaws, and reevaluating based on the idea that trolls rarely admit to making errors, even if their admission is combined with another bad idea. I see very little merit to continuing this thread - but OP’s lack of understanding of Magic, Poker, and game theory generally, combined with an abject refusal to listen to anyone else, makes it really hard to give them the benefit of the doubt a second time.
I am not one to lock a thread on suspicion - even well-grounded suspicion - of trolling, but the fact they admitted to not actually playing Magic, and continue to post increasingly outlandish ideas has convinced me beyond even “well-grounded”. I am going to close this up before it spirals out of hand.
DeinoStinkus says... #1
Yeah, I mean, their profile did just kinda appear out of nowhere and this is their first post. The deck they referenced at the beginning is their only deck. It all seems a little fabricated.
October 4, 2022 3:19 p.m.