Dom Harvey
Contributor
Before the edit 'Delver' read 'Delv...' and I assumed it was to avoid you quoting it in February to tell us how poorly acquainted you are with her.
General Fixing Mulligans, Improving Games
- Thread starter DreamPaint
- Start date
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
I'm confused. Was that a rhetorical question?
This likely affects the balance of your environment somehow. It's a mechanic that addresses mana flood but not mana screw, and requires mana to take advantage of. I am not sure exactly where that shakes out, but it must do something.
Someone should just try it and tell us
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
I had a land in my utility land once that tapped for
and gave all your land cards in hand cycling . Awesome card that didn't break anything but was very useful for the red deck that snapped it up.
I think that everyone who's tried the new mulligan rule in their cubes is a fan - I honestly can't imagine anyone trying this and saying "man, this sucks, I liked it better when I didn't get to scry 1 after mulling to six". The strongest player in my playgroup has actually said that while this rule is about right for constructed, it actually doesn't go far enough for limited. We all understand how bad colour screw can be when you don't get to run a manabase of primarily dual lands, like in standard, so I was brainstorming ways to take this a bit further.
Ideas:
Ideas:
- 7-6-6-5 (essentially CML's system of a second mull to six)
- Before the Paris mulligan, you get to throw back a hand of 0, 1, 6, or 7 lands once, for free
- One free mull per match
We used to do half-mulligans of 7/6-scry 1/6/5-scry 1/etc with an unwritten rule that you didn't spend too long shuffling and slowing down games, but I think i'll be switching to the new mulligan rules to lower my barrier to entry. There's already enough complexities for new players that another set of mulligan rules just doesn't give ROI.
oh, another thing that probably doesn't come up super often outside cube: if your opponent says you can mull to seven again then it's fine
oh, another thing that probably doesn't come up super often outside cube: if your opponent says you can mull to seven again then it's fine
Guys in my group are generally cool about mulling to 7 once simply in the interest of good games. No one likes winning a game where their opponent mulled to oblivion.
When I test decks, I'm constantly just cheating and turning draws into a forest or whatever I need simply because I'm trying to test the competitiveness of cards, not how great my mana base is. While that clearly is a non-solution for actual games, I've always felt there was just way too much luck involved with mana screw/flood even in cube.
Without making fundamental changes to the game, I see no true solution to the problem though.
When I test decks, I'm constantly just cheating and turning draws into a forest or whatever I need simply because I'm trying to test the competitiveness of cards, not how great my mana base is. While that clearly is a non-solution for actual games, I've always felt there was just way too much luck involved with mana screw/flood even in cube.
Without making fundamental changes to the game, I see no true solution to the problem though.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Truth be told, while mana screwing and flooding sucks, variance is what makes the game so great! Magic would have never held our attention for so long if the core of its gameplay wouldn't have provided a means for ever changing gameplay. I approve of the mulligan change, but at the same time I think the underlying design feature that causes mana screw and flooding does more good for the game than bad
I've heard that argument. In fact, I think Wizard's wrote an article on that very thing. But IMO, there's a lot of kool-aid drinking going on there.
To me, the best games of Magic are the ones where you are each playing the best version of your deck. And that doesn't involve flood/screw. It just doesn't. I'm perfectly fine with variance and luck. In fact, if this game had no variance it would be borderline unplayable due to all the balance issues that have been created by a 15,000 unique card pool.
Magic absolutely has more appeal because the better player/deck can lose to a weaker player/deck. But you'd have that even without games decided by flood/screw simply because of the random nature of drawing cards. It would just happen a little less and include less feel-bad.
Who here feels good about winning a game decided by screw? Yeah. I killed you and you were stuck on 2 lands and couldn't play anything in your hand. I feel like a failure as cube designer every time one of those games happens in my meta.
To me, the best games of Magic are the ones where you are each playing the best version of your deck. And that doesn't involve flood/screw. It just doesn't. I'm perfectly fine with variance and luck. In fact, if this game had no variance it would be borderline unplayable due to all the balance issues that have been created by a 15,000 unique card pool.
Magic absolutely has more appeal because the better player/deck can lose to a weaker player/deck. But you'd have that even without games decided by flood/screw simply because of the random nature of drawing cards. It would just happen a little less and include less feel-bad.
Who here feels good about winning a game decided by screw? Yeah. I killed you and you were stuck on 2 lands and couldn't play anything in your hand. I feel like a failure as cube designer every time one of those games happens in my meta.
easy solution: cut everything over 2 mana
don't you play mostly multiplayer? I've never found this anywhere near as daunting there thanks to sporting agreements to 'pick fair fights'. also if you lower your CMC mode to 3 this is mitigated a little - in my OG cube environment you'd probably lose a game a night to screw/flood and maybe another to missing your colours but since dropping my curve to 3 this usually only happens a few times across the whole draft. I know that's not exactly what you're going for with your old-school cube but the modular cube might benefit from a pruning. It's a bit of a radical change but turning the fetch/shock manabase into scrylands might also slow down the aggressor and help the person on the back foot hit their land drops too. I tested a scrylands/painlands manabase before going with fetches/duals and it performed pretty well.
Aoret
Developer
I attribute this difference of opinion to which axis each of you believes is the easier one to tweak to achieve the desired result. (I would guess) most of us would prefer to be able to cast spells with higher cmc and don't mind doing weird shit to mulligan rules. Nothing against the idea of solving it this way, but to me, weird mulligans "feels more like playing magic".
That said, I haven't implemented any of the non-canonized mulligan rules out of fear of abuse by my players. Maybe I should get over that and give it a whirl.
I play with a variety of newish players who benefit from a little extra hand-holding, and that's definitely part of why I'm so aggressive with the paradigm. Mostly a joke though, i still have expensive cards! Every colour gets a six drop and there are even a few sevens. :3
We do play mostly multi-player, but I've long since given up really trying to balance that honestly. It's too random and prone to double teaming. Like last Friday. I lost every multi-player game we did (and was the first eliminated in each and every one because guys are afraid of my combos). But I went 2-1 in 1v1 (and the only match I lost was to a deck that had a T1 aether vial with a fist full of dudes one game and the rubber match where I couldn't buy a swamp to save my life but had a shriekmaw in hand and my opponent at 2 life - had I played it I could have swung for lethal and gone 3-0).
Mana flood/screw doesn't happen consistently anymore as I tend to prioritize fixing very highly but it happens enough to where I'm constantly thinking there has to be a better mouse trap that everyone would buy into. In one of the multi-player games, I had a really sweet starting 7 and I went 4 turns without drawing another land. I was double teamed early and had no chance of winning even making all my land drops, but still.
You really can't stop that scenario from happening sometimes. Yeah, it's part of the game but I'd be very happy if it wasn't. It doesn't add appeal or replay value to the game (IMO anyway). To me, it's just a flaw.
Scry lands are wonderful for midrange/control decks (I'm running 6 of the 10 right now). Tempo/aggro though doesn't really want to lose T1 like that. Truth be told, it is probably passable in my cube, and I've considered going the full 10 scry lands. But I don't think most cubes can afford to replace dual lands with ETB tapped lands like that.
yeah i ran 20/360 in my test along with another 20 painlands (proxied a finished cycle). The density really needs to be there for them to do work in smoothing draws because they need to be in enough opening hands to fix the bad ones.
Aggro decks in my cube usually played them turn two to try to hit the third land drop but that's dependent on the top 8 cards having two land and two one-drops they don't mind casting early. If I really really wanted to fit them to your needs and cube group's playstyle (midrange, no aggro, multiplayer) I'd honestly suggest running the full cycle, maybe even with a partial cycle of the ravnica karoos to rebuy them. They really don't get cast turn one in aggro unless the player has no other choice, in which case they probably want to scry for a land anyway. Theros block aggro decks often ran 4-6 scrylands and lots of the three-colour decks ran all twelve they had available. Sligh decks notably didn't want any but your environment doesn't have those so I'm not sure it's actually a concern.
I think I was wrong about multiplayer before; you have fewer turns than all of your opponents and accordingly much less mana and cards seen. Preventing stumbling is more important, not less, because it's far less likely that everyone else will stumble too. The scrylands are really really solid when you run a bunch, it's honestly just because I jam stuff into the early game that I'm not running a double cycle. They're often my first utility land picks, I'm happy running two or three in an aggro deck and even more anywhere else, and the level of smoothness they brought my environment was remarkable.
I agree that stumbling on mana is an unfortunate consequence of a good system, and that it's ultimately inescapable, but as a designer you can reduce how often it happens and how much it hurts. Scrylands hit the first part, lowering the curve hits the second. I really think you oughtta try jumping straight to doubles and then dialing back if it's too much. I tend to like design-level solutions because they guide my players into building better decks; it's possible you don't have that problem but can it hurt to try? I have really, really liked playing these lands.
Wow. That's a strong endorsement for the scry lands. They are some of my favorite lands on T1 when I'm not trying to be the pressure player. I appreciate the feedback.
You may have convinced me to at least go the full cycle (not sure on doubles though hmm...). I'm currently at single fetch, double shock, and then two more full cycles intermixed (all 5 manlands, 6 out to 10 scry focused on the slower guilds, and then a mix of pains/filters for the more mana hungry combinations like WB, WR, and RB). Karoo's are strong but auto lose you the game against LD. I had them in an earlier iteration of my cube, but cards like vindicate and avalanche riders are so brutal against them. I don't know if I can justify giving them a slot (I'm also not running utility land draft right now - guys were not a fan of the additional time it added to drafting unfortunately).
You may have convinced me to at least go the full cycle (not sure on doubles though hmm...). I'm currently at single fetch, double shock, and then two more full cycles intermixed (all 5 manlands, 6 out to 10 scry focused on the slower guilds, and then a mix of pains/filters for the more mana hungry combinations like WB, WR, and RB). Karoo's are strong but auto lose you the game against LD. I had them in an earlier iteration of my cube, but cards like vindicate and avalanche riders are so brutal against them. I don't know if I can justify giving them a slot (I'm also not running utility land draft right now - guys were not a fan of the additional time it added to drafting unfortunately).
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
This is my experience as well. Aggro kinda likes scrylands, because they keep the action going, they just don't like them on t1, but no one is saying you can only play them on that turn.
I'ld say that's a plus, but the biggest upside of variance is that you aren't playing the same game every game. Decks are never 100% in a matchup, because you can't guarantee drawing that important hate piece, and you can't guarantee drawing three of your four best spells each game. And that's A Good Thing. Yes, screw/flood sucks the fun out of a game, and it's no fun winning or losing that way, but it's an effect of the very principles that ensure ever changing games, being able to upset a better player, winning a matchup in which your deck wasn't the favorite, topdecking that one card at the last possible moment, playing a different game with different cards and different choices every game. It simultaneously fosters the worst and the best games, and Magic wouldn't be the same without its variance-inducing core.
That said, reducing the number of nongames is also A Good Thing, which is why I am in favor of the mulligan change. Even with that change, it's not something you are going to entirely prevent, as it's inherent to a system, a system that's otherwise doing all the right things for Magic.
You bring up a really good point, something I especially like about cube - generally speaking, no two games play the same (even with the same decks). But that is more the nature of singleton though (compare to a constructed deck and how consistent that plays even with the same random nature of the draw). Sure, the variance of drawing cards and not seeing your whole deck plays into that, but flood/screw is only part of that equation because no mechanism was built into the game originally to address it.
I'm not convinced you couldn't make a game with the variance of Magic (with respect to business cards you draw) that had a more reliable mana system. I'm also not convinced you can't fix this in the actual game of Magic itself with a rule change or two, although that would likely divide the community and not be worth it for Wizards, hence why they do kool-aid articles about how variance - including mana screw - is so important to the game it shouldn't be messed with (that article isn't by mistake, IMO it's part of the propaganda engine).
I'm really happy to see the rule change for mulligans though. It's a great step in the right direction and an indication that, despite what they might say openly, they also think non-games due to mana issues is actually bogus.
I'm not convinced you couldn't make a game with the variance of Magic (with respect to business cards you draw) that had a more reliable mana system. I'm also not convinced you can't fix this in the actual game of Magic itself with a rule change or two, although that would likely divide the community and not be worth it for Wizards, hence why they do kool-aid articles about how variance - including mana screw - is so important to the game it shouldn't be messed with (that article isn't by mistake, IMO it's part of the propaganda engine).
I'm really happy to see the rule change for mulligans though. It's a great step in the right direction and an indication that, despite what they might say openly, they also think non-games due to mana issues is actually bogus.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Yeah, I do agree saying mana screw is good for the game is BS. I don't think the problem is easily fixed without the whole... texture (?) and identity of Magic changing, and I definitely don't think that's worth it. The best they can do really is have mulligans be less impactful, but they have to be careful there to avoid combo decks wrecking the scene because they can basically always mull for the god hand.
In terms of the mana problem I know at least two other games that are moderately successful that puts much more agency in what land-resources you have access to at any given time. This I feel is one of the tell tales of how old magic actually is. It's really great, but every now and then it's like realizing your playing a video game built on a game engine that was written 10 years ago and really is just patched ontop of.
WOW, I think I know what video game you're talking about.
Seriously though, most everyone I know has played Magic for many years. And they are sort of over the collectible card game thing like they are over MMO's. But they will still play with cards they own (or the cube I build for them), just like some of them will still play WOW from time to time because they know the game and have invested so much time into it.
Trying to get guys on board with a new collectible card game is going to be about as successful for me as getting guys on board with Guild Wars 2 (a game which IMO blows WOW out of the water). If I were 20, this would be a completely different story, but I'm not and neither is anyone I game with.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
I tried a lot of different CCG's, but not of them captured me quite as much as Magic, though WoW TCg was pretty fun as well.