Making MTG more consistent

SJM · Joined: 17 Apr 2009 Posts: 144

I see where you're coming from, but luck is a part of Magic and always will be.

From your perspective, the game is fundamentally flawed. So don't play it.

There are other games that correct some of these perceived flaws ("Epic" is it? I hear they have a less luck based recourse scheme).

Bottom line, Magic isn't changing that drastically after so many years.

I hate to lose to flood or screw as much as anyone else, but it's the price of admission to playing the game.

CloaknDagger · Joined: 13 Jul 2009 Posts: 20

I like the idea that WoW's cardgame had. If Magic used it, whenever you flipped a card face down it could only be a land based on the color of the cards: For instance if you dropped an esper charm, you would announce it as a plains, island, or swamp.

That the lands aren't just all free city of brasses, and we wouldn't have to play with land AT ALL. We could all just have really nice draws, and it would come down to deck construction and personally skill far more than who hit the land gaps/floods the fewest.

SoloRenegade · Joined: 07 Oct 2009 Posts: 29

I would like to test this with some of you, especially nay sayers. I got a busy schedule but would anybody be willing to try this and help me test its viability? My ultimate goal would be to propose this as a new T2 mini format for m-L. If it proves effective, maybe even send a serious letter to WoTC. I doubt they'll do a major change, but they may make new rules etc.. We've seen them do big things to the game lately.

Edowardo · Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 15

while ml might make a new other format out of it i doubt wizards would even finish the letter. i agree with whats been said, it just sounds like decks will be made that abuse this free land system. magic wasn't built around the idea of always getting perfect hands.

Oop · Joined: 15 Dec 2008 Posts: 16

This would completely ruin the heart of skill in magic... the whole reason it takes skill to play this game is keeping the right hands and using your limited resources (cards you drew) to play correctly around every possible card they drew...

This is not chess, you have to use your resources properly and this format would completely ruin the heart of magic... I agree I hate losing to scrubs from luck... (rather lucky than good is a saying that is thrown around my store a lot) but you cant take that out of the game because it makes the game irrelevant... keeping good hands is a large part of the skill in this game... and if you cant see that you obviously werent as good as you thought you were.

SoloRenegade · Joined: 07 Oct 2009 Posts: 29

The luck factor is still there, but it's been toned down to what I see as a more reasonable level. I've always felt this game to be toooooo luck base at high level play. Once again I have no intention to remove all the luck though since it would break the game.

Perhaps keep my same rules but tweek certain aspects like how many lands get RFG'd. The point of these is not to be used all the time, but to be an alternative when your handed something completely unusable. Really what's the point of a game where your on a 4-5 hand draw and you got no land? You have to draw land off the top or you will lose to any coherent deck.

Perhaps:

3 land trade in for a draw
2 RFG lands at start, must be basic from deck and you must reveal a card that uses that color mana in it's cc.

I still stand by a strong start hand.

Trotsky1 · Joined: 12 Apr 2005 Posts: 1458

I bet all these people talking about the luck factor and how its to big and how they always play perfectly are making a shit ton of mistakes and just not seeing them.

From building the deck, mulligan decisions, playing etc. If you had really never made any errors like that you would be on the pro tour or making a couple of Grand on modo a year simple as.

If your not doing that hate to break it to you, your know where near as good as you think you are and still have alot of other things to eliminate befor you start putting all your game losses down to bad luck.

SoloRenegade · Joined: 07 Oct 2009 Posts: 29

While the game does require skill to play i feel it's often mistaken as to what the skill is. Playing your deck well is not that hard. Most moves are obvious with any practice with the deck and meta testing. It does take skill and some psychology but thats actually a small portion of the skill.

The real skill in magic?

Studying meta shifts and building the best deck to statistically have the advantage on those MU for THAT specific tournament. Jund and Vamp may be the top deck, but if the meta shifts to fight it playing a counter or playing jund itself suddenly will be a bad idea. It's keeping up with the number crunching thats actually magics true skill.

Playing the game without making many mistakes is actually not hard when i compare it to other types of games. Even if mistakes are made, they wont always screw you because the huge luck factor swing. As well you have the luck factor of simply what deck you fight as well. Ever picked a good anti-meta deck and then got dealt the one rogue silver bullet deck?

The game is statistics outside of the play.

I'd say it's: Deck build: 40%, Luck 30%, play skill 30% (includes knowing your deck and the others)

I'd love to see luck at 10%.

SaTiVa · Joined: 09 Jun 2005 Posts: 257

If magic is SOOO luck based why are the same people doing well at the high level tournies for the most part....

SoloRenegade · Joined: 07 Oct 2009 Posts: 29

The ability to travel, access to cards needed, constant focus to meta trends and once again the cards available to make deck adjustments or run a different deck when needed.

There is skill. My argument is that luck is too big a factor, not that it's all luck. Luck is needed to create dynamic gameplay as things are unexpected, but my goal is to find a middle ground where you have different games because of draws, but your deck is still usable. I feel land fucks are happen far too often, and MWS is not to blame. It's the game mechanics.

I'm aware theres a delicate balance you cant disrupt with the game. The whole point of this is to see what room there is to help this issue without that disruption. These ideas arent solid or tested. I'm here to discuss alternatives. Convincing me the game doesnt have a defining luck factor is just not gonna happen. It's largely regarded the game is 1/3 rd luck which is a LOT imo.

Trotsky1 · Joined: 12 Apr 2005 Posts: 1458

Yep. I can almost gurantee you are making mistakes and not seeing them. As it happens I am studying for a degree in psychology and heres a little bit of psychology for you to consider. There is a theory known as top down processing that states some times we know the answer we are looking for before we find it. For example;

...........................................................
......................Keep off the........................
........................the grass..........................
...........................................................

You probably just read this sign as keep off the grass, thats not what it reads take a look again. That is an example of top down processing, it would not be possible to misread the sign with out already having an idea of what it should say. This in magic is what people call auto pilot when people miss more subtle plays due to already having an idea of what the right play is based on past experince and not fully thinking the play through. From what you have said I am confidant you make lots of this sort of play mistake.

If you really want more skill absed formats play limited specifically booster draft, that is pretty much the most skill intensive format out. Or if you really want a constucted format 100 singleton try making no misplays in that format, if you think you consistantly can your just wrong. If your just playing T2 thats the format everyone starts out playing so has to cater for the noobs, I've just told you the formats which take the most skill so you have no excuse now, (shame they got rid of rochester.)

SoloRenegade · Joined: 07 Oct 2009 Posts: 29

Well your psychology is fine and all but you yourself have failed to read what i was saying as you've only focused on certain context. I'll make this clear in bullet points to avoid this:

*Magic DOES require skill.
*Magic DOES require psychological warfare
*Magic DOES have a luck factor however that hinders the above
*The luck factor is NOT all it is, skill is still more important

My goal is simply to reduce the luck factor to a more reasonable margin. If anything I'm not trying to change the game. I'm working on a SEPARATE format for casual use to play with friends. This thread is to discuss ideas on it, not to debate.

I make mistakes in the game, often out of laziness or when a meta is fresh, but I find I lose a bit more to unlucky circumstance than I do mistakes. Not by a lot. As well I certainly win games but lucky circumstance as well and they feel empty.

So please people stop making this a black/white argument by picking out key points and ignoring the context or other things I'm stating along with it. As well many of you are attacking the idea without considering it or testing it. I have yet to see a single evidence to back any statement. Without supporting details opinions are absolutely useless no matter the source.

Trotsky1 · Joined: 12 Apr 2005 Posts: 1458

I was still making my last post, when you made your last post, hence i had not read it before you replied. Im not concerned with making the game more skill based i much prefer magic to chess.

I think you drastically over estimate the luck factor still and the game does not need changing. Howver if thats what you want to do good luck to you,

Still a post aimed to attract the intrest of similar people intrested in trying out your idea, rather than a post that was always going to craete a debate like this would have been a better idea. Ie a post saying any one who thinks magic is to luck based intrested in trying out this, I am open to ideas.

SugarShark · Joined: 22 Mar 2009 Posts: 246

they took out stone rain so you might as well...

nico · League Staff Joined: 28 Oct 2003 Posts: 897

If memory serves me well there already has been a thread similar to this, and even some people that tried out a format quite similar to this. Seeing that the format is not actually played anymore I think it can be concluded that the format as proposed is not as interesting as you think it is.