Making MTG more consistent

SoloRenegade · Joined: 07 Oct 2009 Posts: 29

It's been a LONG time since I've played this game competitively. The main reason was because hit the wall where the only way to be better was to take the time to keep up with exact meta shifts and design decks around statistics of Match up potential vs popularity of match up vs all around deck efficiency. And no matter how much I wanted to go farther one factor kept me from taking the plunge...magics luck factor.

Now there is NO WAY to remove it. It's part of the game, but I always wanted to make a new format designed to have decks be more consistent and do away with mulligans and land fucks and the many factors that lead to unavoidable losses.

This is a ROUGH idea...but bare with me and help me fine tune it.

Basically my format would play exactly like normal magic but there are no mulligans, starting hand is different, and you have trade ins with cards.

Just 3 simple rules, but these will help make decks more consistent. Landflood and land fuck go down significantly and your opening hand has a good chance of being usable. Point out any flaws or add to it. BTW I have standard in mind with these decks, so t1 abuse is not being considered.

Kuberr · Joined: 25 Oct 2006 Posts: 24

The flaw in your design is you take the perfect hand and perfect draws for granted, wheras they shoudn't be.

Manascrew, flow, not drawing the right stuff... is an intricate part of the game. You're NOT unlucky when it happens, you're LUCKY when it doesn't happen to you.

I understand you want every game to go smooth, but what you're playing is another game in my opinion.

Imagine monopoly and you change rolling the die to rolling the dice three times and pick the number you like best, oh and you start with double the amount of money. BORING :/ ?

Reasons I like manaproblems is:

-Every deck loses sometimes. No matchup is unbeatable.
-Nobody's ego grows out of proportion, which would be a huge problem on magic-league
-You have a reason why you lost rather than everybody blaming it on your skill Smile

Jorbes · Joined: 14 Feb 2006 Posts: 309 Location: Netherland

The game would turn into a dice roll contest.

Whoever goes first has a too great advantage, because not getting to draw a card no longer is a factor. You can build decks specific for these rules, making turn 3-4 wins pretty easy I guess.

I am willing to try this some day though, just to prove why it's not such a great idea.

jonproject · Joined: 22 Dec 2007 Posts: 250

Mana problems happen sometimes; get over it. If you don't want to get over it, stop playing. If you don't want to stop playing, then start accepting losses as an inevitable thing.

Valens · Joined: 04 Nov 2009 Posts: 1

The idea to minimize the effect of mana screw and flood isn't crazy.

Games that have one player get stuck on two or flood to five straight topdecked lands happen more often than I would like. These games are boring and feel like a waste of time. I'm sure the op's proposal is open to abuse and would lead to people designing decks that are tuned to aggressive strategies over designs that are meant to be more consistent. Any solution would be pretty tricky, but I do like the sentiment.

CloaknDagger · Joined: 13 Jul 2009 Posts: 20

There is another card game that solves this problem the most perfect way possible: World of Warcraft.

There is no land in the game. It's all spells, and you lay down any spell from your hand to be a land. Image if you could do this in Magic? Imagine if you had no lands, just 60 spells in your deck, and when you needed a land, you put a spell face down on the table. There is your land. You would never get mana screwed. You would never get mana flooded. You would always have a good game on both sides.

WHY CAN'T MAGIC DO THIS?

Duodax · Joined: 29 Jan 2006 Posts: 161

FIVE COLORS?!
Topic: Limited should grant a free mulligan.

jonproject · Joined: 22 Dec 2007 Posts: 250

Hank333 · Joined: 23 Oct 2006 Posts: 304 Location: San Antoni

Speaking of Monopoly... i think the rules of a traditional game are super boring... i like to spice it up with turbo monopoly... passing out between 1/3-1/2(depending on # on players)of the propertys before the game begins really speeds things up and get the game moving. I also start out cash at 1000. Also i don't like free parking to start out with any cash, but cash spent on the board(card fee's and taxes ect) goes to free parking. I think this makes monopoly way cooler. Thoughts?

Shooter · Joined: 11 Mar 2005 Posts: 107

jonproject · Joined: 22 Dec 2007 Posts: 250

Jacois · Joined: 05 Sep 2004 Posts: 674

How about each player starts with zero cards in hand, that way BOTH players will ALWAYS get "mana screwed" which will eliminate the luck.

SoloRenegade · Joined: 07 Oct 2009 Posts: 29

I am aware aggro decks will get a buff but think of control. Control can reliably dig for answers as well. I would like to test this. These rules seem like they would be a good start and after some trial and error i could cover abuse.

Basically the game would run like you both got 2 great hands. You cant abuse the 2 land trade in too much because you require 2 lands to even do it for one card and once per your turn.

I like the WoW idea...but in magic with card wording it wouldn't work. Certain cards would be more powerful and others weaker. Had the game been designed that way though...

jonproject: I HAVE in fact quit the game because of this and I currently play 100% SKILL games such as fighters and shooters (Did Soul Calibur 4 at EVO 09). I play it on MWS as a hobby on occasion when a new set releases. It wasn't so much as that there is an existing luck factor but the fact that the luck factor is TOO big of an issue. Most of my losses in the past were due to bad draws. It was rare to have it be my deck was bad (post testing) or I did something wrong. To play the game well is not terribly hard, most choices are obvious since your given limited options. The thing that makes this game better is when you have more access to options. Cards like charms and planeswalkers are great because you have decisions. You don't just autoplay the card for 1 purpose. In my new rules you can load your hand with more options by thinning out land and making mana more accessable, thus focusing on having more spells to pick rather than what you can conveniently play due to mana cost/color limitation or only having so many non land spells. You also have to think if you're going to skip the draw or do a 2 land trade in

jonproject · Joined: 22 Dec 2007 Posts: 250

SoulRenegade: I understand where you're coming from, but the game is never going to get rid of the luck factor. I'm pretty sure MaRo has touched on the luck and land screw subject before and how he enjoys the random factors it gives to the game. It allows the biggest noob on the planet the chance to beat a pro. You could make an unsanctioned, casual format where you use some kind of aforementioned system, but it would be rather bland and full of quick kills that take advantage of it. The game is fine the way it is, and as I have said before (and dislike having to put bluntly), if you don't like the luck factor involved, then maybe Magic isn't the game for you.

And a WoW system wouldn't work because there's no color specific cost requirements in that system; the resources played face down would all produce colorless mana in Magic.

SoloRenegade · Joined: 07 Oct 2009 Posts: 29

Depends on what kind of game you want. Some people just want a fun card game they can skillfully deal with whatever theyre dealt while others want it to be more skill based and have reliable deck strategies come to fruitation.

I've always hated doing everything right, having the better deck, and then losing to a player with a bad deck that made mistakes...because of the luck factor. Which supports your magic isnt for me...but if there was a format like mine, it would be for me and other players would certainly appreciate it. In fact it would be better for tournaments (once tested and modified).