Support NeoGAF

[Giant Panda]

Everyone thinks this upfront, but I think games like Hearthstone have shown pretty decisively how bad it would be to take it out of Magic.

I've played a bit of Hearthstone, and I don't think the getting a gem or whatever they were was a problem. The over-simplicity of it was what mostly made me get bored of it.

At this point the ways this would modify game balance would be so extreme we're kind of not talking about the same game anymore.

Yeah, I was speaking about a hypothetical card game. I was replying to someone who quoted Maro saying that getting rid of lands made games too repetitive. I was saying that in this hypothetical game, my proposal would be a better way to add variance back in IMO.

 

[Ashodin]

I love RNG in hearthstone. One of the best reasons to play imo

 

[charlequin]

I'm new to card games so I might be missing something, but I'm surprised people would want more variance in a card game.

Obviously an individual player, in an individual game, wants as little variance as possible, but from a game design standpoint variance does two really useful things: it produces unexpected situations (requiring players to reason out the best lines of play from scratch) and it provides real costs over time to deckbuilding choices (with the land system, every demanding ramp or 12-card-aggro or 4-color-goodstuff deck is making an active risk-vs-reward choice, instead of being something that either just works or just doesn't.)

Basically, in order for strategic games with no variance to be interesting, they have to have a level of depth in the individual interactions that can sustain play -- which is pretty much why this category consists of chess and go, and nothing else. Magic can't make starting with the exact same situation that deep and interesting, so it has to rely on different play scenarios to be interesting, which is exactly what variance provides.

To look at this from the other side, Hearthstone doesn't have a land system at all, so it's got far less variance in that sense -- and so they've had to institute significantly more randomness on the cards themselves, and signifiantly lower the number of each card you can play compared to Magic, just to provide enough variance for the game to be enjoyable.

 

[charlequin]

The fact that 25% of games aren't actually competitive games is worse than entrenched players believe it is.

What standard would you apply to determine which games fall into this category? I'm pretty interested in this as a metric to examine but I want to hear what your definition would be before I try to come up with my own.

Yeah, I was speaking about a hypothetical card game. I was replying to someone who quoted Maro saying that getting rid of lands made games too repetitive. I was saying that in this hypothetical game, my proposal would be a better way to add variance back in IMO.

Oh. Yeah, at that point you are reinventing the Hearthstone strategy: make the deck itself more variable to make up for it. I agree that this is almost certainly necessary at some level for a game like this.

(To be clear, when I cite Hearthstone as evidence this would be bad for Magic, I don't mean that Hearthstone is a bad game, just that it makes it clear exactly how far you'd have to distort Magic to actually make it work without the land system.)

 

[CoconutTank]

If this is in addition to the turn one land drop then the answer is "extremely so," so I'll assume this is in place of the land drop. I'll also assume it's basic land, because if it isn't the answer is "extremely so" again.

If it is basically playing one basic from your deck on turn one... that's a good question. The biggest thing is that this mechanic actually would have pretty different effects on different types of decks. The biggest beneficiaries would probably be ultra-low curve aggro decks (which can dramatically reduce their total land count if they get a free land turn one) and hacky 3+ color decks (which can massively improve their color fixing if they can plug a color hole with a land of their choice on turn one.)

Definitely basic lands only, and definitely have the land you play take the place of the normal 1 land drop per turn. This isn't meant to be a turn 1 Explore, just a way to deal with easing out mana fixing and RNG. But yeah definitely certain archetypes will benefit more than others.

I have to admit, I haven't played many other TCGs/deck-building games. The only games that would be remotely similar to M:TG would be Netrunner and Dominion.

Netrunner's resource system prevents one from being completely out, but admittedly curving out is still a thing; being unable to draw the cards you need for credit, card or click efficiency will still ruin you eventually. I think I like being able to spend actions to get and bank resources, but I doubt I could make ideas that translate well to M:TG.

Drawing into a bad hand can still be ruinous in Dominion, but I guess the resource system in that game is different enough such that it's not as much of a concern (and the way Dominion plays doesn't translate well to M:TG anyway).

 

[Ashodin]

Making magic more like HS would make MANY pro players leave.

 

["God's Beard!"]

Clearly the answer is partial mulligans in Standard.

 

[El Topo]

It's never going to be Hearthstone. It's never going to be chess. It's never going to be poker. How about they focus on what separates Magic from other games and makes it special?

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

Currently trying out sultai sword in modern, quite fun. I prefer a more controllish build and prefer leyline to relic in sideboard just trying to find room for snapcasters. Sideboard has 3 LotV and 1 Ashiok.

[QUOTE="God's Beard!";202826543]Clearly the answer is partial mulligans in Standard.[/QUOTE]

I hated partial mulligan in EDH, Leyline of Anticipation better discard 6 cards and steamroll from there. Makes combo so much better and creature based only allows for better curving out.

 

[OceanBlue]

Just to be clear, I'm not saying variance is bad. I'm saying that the current land system in Magic puts players in situations where they can't play the game, and I don't think that's interesting variance.

Basically, in order for strategic games with no variance to be interesting, they have to have a level of depth in the individual interactions that can sustain play -- which is pretty much why this category consists of chess and go, and nothing else. Magic can't make starting with the exact same situation that deep and interesting, so it has to rely on different play scenarios to be interesting, which is exactly what variance provides.

To look at this from the other side, Hearthstone doesn't have a land system at all, so it's got far less variance in that sense -- and so they've had to institute significantly more randomness on the cards themselves, and signifiantly lower the number of each card you can play compared to Magic, just to provide enough variance for the game to be enjoyable.

I don't understand the sudden leap to Go or Chess. There are plenty of games between Magic and Go in terms of variance, like MOBAs.

You don't start from the same situation in Magic not because of lands, but because you draw 7 cards out of a 60 card deck. I'm also not convinced that Hearthstone's randomness is a direct consequence of its resource system or that the game would be less enjoyable if they had less variance on their cards.

 

[OnPoint]

Bought up the remaining Talismans I didn't have. When are they going to finish THAT cycle?

Spoiler

Never, that's when

 

[OceanBlue]

What standard would you apply to determine which games fall into this category? I'm pretty interested in this as a metric to examine but I want to hear what your definition would be before I try to come up with my own.

I'm not sure what his metric is, but if I'm doing my math right, in a match with two 26 land decks there's an 17% chance that one of the players sees 3 or less lands in 13 cards.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

I'm not sure what his metric is, but if I'm doing my math right, in a match with two 26 land decks there's an 17% chance that one of the players sees 3 or less lands in 13 cards.

what about card draw though and decks that want to only see 3 lands?

 

[The Technomancer]

Just to be clear, I'm not saying variance is bad. I'm saying that the current land system in Magic puts players in situations where they can't play the game, and I don't think that's interesting variance.

I don't understand the sudden leap to Go or Chess. There are plenty of games between Magic and Go in terms of variance, like MOBAs.

You don't start from the same situation in Magic not because of lands, but because you draw 7 cards out of a 60 card deck. I'm also not convinced that Hearthstone's randomness is a direct consequence of its resource system or that the game would be less enjoyable if they had less variance on their cards.

I can't say that the land system doesn't have its flaws. Part of why CCGs are great in general is how diverse they are with their resource management actually, Netrunner isn't Dominion isn't Magic isn't Pokemon. But Hearthstone's randomness is definitely a consequence of the reliability of its mana. One way or another the fastest thing that kills a card game is consistency: the easier it is for the best deck to have the exact same T1-T2-T3 plays game after game the faster people get either angry or bored

(I'm actually surprised YuGiOh is as much of a thing as it still is. My outside knowledge of that game makes it look like the game has evolved into a handful of combo decks trying to do their thing and the designers actively design for this result)

 

[Joe Molotov]

I had two horses in play at the same time in draft (Ghoulsteed and Stallion of Ashmouth). I don't know why, but this made me happy.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

I can't say that the land system doesn't have its flaws. Part of why CCGs are great in general is how diverse they are with their resource management actually, Netrunner isn't Dominion isn't Magic isn't Pokemon. But Hearthstone's randomness is definitely a consequence of the reliability of its mana. One way or another the fastest thing that kills a card game is consistency: the easier it is for the best deck to have the exact same T1-T2-T3 plays game after game the faster people get either angry or bored

(I'm actually surprised YuGiOh is as much of a thing as it still is. My outside knowledge of that game makes it look like the game has evolved into a handful of combo decks trying to do their thing and the designers actively design for this result)

usually in hearthstone an archetype becomes problematic when it's too good at curving out, facehunter was like that and secret paladin was the same with barely any rng involved.. Direct consequence of the resources.

 

[GamerKingFaiz]

Do you guys ever think about the origin of a card that you trade for or buy from a seller.

Like what kinda story it has behind it. For instance, an original dual land. What kinda decks has it been in. How many previous owners has used it to cast spells. When was it first packed.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

Do you guys ever think about the origin of a card that you trade for or buy from a seller.

Like what kinda story it has behind it. For instance, an original dual land. What kinda decks has it been in. How many previous owners has used it to cast spells. When was it first packed.

yuck all that dried sweat.

 

[GamerKingFaiz]

yuck all that dried sweat.

Another question to wonder about is how often was a card used in a sleeve.

 

[charlequin]

Just to be clear, I'm not saying variance is bad. I'm saying that the current land system in Magic puts players in situations where they can't play the game, and I don't think that's interesting variance.

My basic position on this is that a) I'm not convinced that the frequency of this is as high as people say when decks are designed around the possibility and b) that's why I'm in favor of things that can reduce the likelihood of complete shutouts without reducing the possibility of stalling out or just having suboptimal draws.

I'm also not convinced that Hearthstone's randomness is a direct consequence of its resource system or that the game would be less enjoyable if they had less variance on their cards.

I mean, I'm not sure what would convince you. It was a purposeful design choice by their team and it was pretty much driven by close examination of previous waves of paper TCGs, many of which specifically set out to "solve" Magic's land problem and in the process made themselves boringly low-variance.

(lol I'm getting nothing but Hearthstone ads on this thread now)

usually in hearthstone an archetype becomes problematic when it's too good at curving out, facehunter was like that and secret paladin was the same with barely any rng involved.. Direct consequence of the resources.

Yep, this is a good point. I dabble on and off with Hearthstone to a degree that I can't name relevant archetypes offhand, but this is basically what I'm talking about: there isn't enough variance elsewhere that a heavily redundant deck with little/no RNG can be healthy.

 

[Yeef]

I'm also not convinced that Hearthstone's randomness is a direct consequence of its resource system or that the game would be less enjoyable if they had less variance on their cards.

Games like Duelmasters, Kaijudo and the VS. System have tried doing away with the Magic land system in favor of the consistency of being able to play any card as a land. In all 3 cases, it made games a lot more predictable, which, in turn, made the games far less interesting.

There are added psychological benefits to the current land system in Magic as well. It's possible for a worse player to beat a better player every once in awhile due to mana screw/flood, which makes things a little more exciting for less experienced players. There's also a special sense of satisfaction when you get mana screwed and still manage to eke out a win.

 

[manipulate]

Isn't an issue that better players don't win enough in Magic?

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

I think it's an issue that there isn't any room for better players. GPs are ~2k people, PTs are 200+.
There isn't any competition just for the creme of the crop.

 

[Yeef]

I think it's an issue that there isn't any room for better players. GPs are ~2k people, PTs are 200+.
There isn't any competition just for the creme of the crop.

Worlds.

 

[Infinite Stars]

In terms of Mana Flood, I think cards like Duskwatch Recruiter, the Scry Temples,etc are Wizards attempt to mitigate that front. It's not been super successful, but it's definitely been noted by Wizards that these help make better games in general.

The issue comes from the Mana screw, which I think Wizards could help to mitigate through.. Some method. With the low amount of basic lands run in some formats(Modern/Legacy, Standard depending on the block), an Evolving Wilds Token at a certain level of Mulligan wouldn't be terrible, though I'm imagining some oversight would cause it to suck.

 

[WanderingWind]

I honestly don't think flood/screw is a problem. It'll affect everybody occasionally, but if it keeps happening, that's not on the game. If you watch enough MTGO videos, you'll see numerous people bitch about flood/screw when neither things is happening. Recently, Hoogland was streaming and his opponent sent him something like "GG, I got flooded out." He had less mana that Hoogland and was playing a similar archetype. I use that as an example, but it's pretty prevalent and if you've played for any amount of time, you've likely seen it.

Magic players HATE losing and will concoct any reason why they lost. Flood/screw is an easy scapegoat. If you're often being flooded, play less lands or an archetype in which that's nearly impossible. If you're often being screwed, play more lands (but 24 lands is fine for control because I wanna jam all these other sweet cards!) or play filtering/card draw/ramp effects.

The game is built on variance, but it's also built on an entire history of effects to mitigate that variance. Randomness will always happen, but if it seems like it's happening more to you than others, that ain't the game. That's you.

 

[SigmasonicX]

I wonder if a better solution would be to make the post-mulligan scry be based on how many fewer cards you have than the starting had size. So if you mull to 5, you scry 2, etc.

 

[manipulate]

I honestly don't think flood/screw is a problem. It'll affect everybody occasionally, but if it keeps happening, that's not on the game. If you watch enough MTGO videos, you'll see numerous people bitch about flood/screw when neither things is happening. Recently, Hoogland was streaming and his opponent sent him something like "GG, I got flooded out." He had less mana that Hoogland and was playing a similar archetype. I use that as an example, but it's pretty prevalent and if you've played for any amount of time, you've likely seen it.

Magic players HATE losing and will concoct any reason why they lost. Flood/screw is an easy scapegoat. If you're often being flooded, play less lands or an archetype in which that's nearly impossible. If you're often being screwed, play more lands (but 24 lands is fine for control because I wanna jam all these other sweet cards!) or play filtering/card draw/ramp effects.

The game is built on variance, but it's also built on an entire history of effects to mitigate that variance. Randomness will always happen, but if it seems like it's happening more to you than others, that ain't the game. That's you.

That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, a lot. The variance is huge and it means a lot of games are non-games, and that is just devastatingly bad. I honestly think there's a strong strain of downplaying this aspect in the playerbase, a lot of people promote this view that it can largely be addressed by using a conservative manabase. But let's be real you can make all the right deckbuilding choices and make good mulligans and still get stomped 20% of the time or whatever for no good reason.

 

[WanderingWind]

That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, a lot. The variance is huge and it means a lot of games are non-games, and that is just devastatingly bad. I honestly think there's a strong strain of downplaying this aspect in the playerbase, a lot of people promote this view that it can largely be addressed by using a conservative manabase. But let's be real you can make all the right deckbuilding choices and make good mulligans and still get stomped 20% of the time or whatever for no good reason.

Again, if it's happening to you a lot, you need to focus a bit more on building a better deck. You should not be getting stomped 20 percent (1 out of every 5 games you play) of the time because of flood/screw. If this is the position you find yourself in, then address the problem. It's downplayed by the player base because, on the whole, the player base learns how to the game works and adjusts their strategies around it. There is nothing "real" about your assertions.

 

[manipulate]

Again, if it's happening to you a lot, you need to focus a bit more on building a better deck. You should not be getting stomped 20 percent (1 out of every 5 games you play) of the time because of flood/screw. If this is the position you find yourself in, then address the problem. It's downplayed by the player base because, on the whole, the player base learns how to the game works and adjusts their strategies around it. There is nothing "real" about your assertions.

What are the winrates of the best players? If everything is as addressable as you suggest, presumably they should extremely high (>90%)?

 

[kirblar]

Again, if it's happening to you a lot, you need to focus a bit more on building a better deck. You should not be getting stomped 20 percent (1 out of every 5 games you play) of the time because of flood/screw. If this is the position you find yourself in, then address the problem. It's downplayed by the player base because, on the whole, the player base learns how to the game works and adjusts their strategies around it. There is nothing "real" about your assertions.

The best players cap out around a 70% win rate.

That 20% nongame thing is real. When you're winning more than that 70% rate, it's usually because you're either cheating, or because you've found something exploitable in the metagame. (See: Owen and Rally)

One of the reasons experienced players hate aggro limited formats and love slow ones is because fast onse fuck you over more often for not drawing out on curve.

This is also why Wizards likes them, because the idiot gets to win.

 

[WanderingWind]

What are the winrates of the best players? If everything is as addressable as you suggest, presumably they should extremely high (>90%)?

Why on earth would you assume that? That's a number that you invented for the purposes of supporting an argument, but which has no real basis in reality.

The Denver Broncos were the best team in the NFL last year. They had a win percentage of 75%. A fantastic batter in major league baseball is hitting only 3-4 balls every time they're up to bat. A 4 out of ten average over a lifetime is Hall of Fame worthy. This is where people get it mixed up, because they're lost in the inherent ego of the game. You are not goldfishing against your lessers. You are playing another human being with their own desire to win.

A 70 percent winrate against the field a pro has to go through in any given event is fantastic. They have to play more than a dozen matches, each with 3 games a piece in a game with built-in checks and balances. Red is weak to enchantments and counters, but is quick to kill, etc, etc.

The best players cap out around a 70% win rate.

That 20% nongame thing is real. When you're winning more than that 70% rate, it's usually because you're either cheating, or because you've found something exploitable in the metagame. (See: Owen and Rally)

One of the reasons experienced players hate aggro limited formats and love slow ones is because fast onse fuck you over more often for not drawing out on curve.

This is also why Wizards likes them, because the idiot gets to win.

And yet, we continue to see the best players in the top 8 time and time again. There is even a Hall of Fame that rewards the best players. It's a two-person game (shush EDHeroes, we ain't talking to you right now). If LSV plays Reid Duke, one of them has to lose.

 

[kirblar]

Yes, because the best players have a 70% winrate which is not common. You dont understand what im saying. The best players win a ton, but they also bomb out a ton too. Just like in poker.

This is why, like poker, you need a large pool of pros to focus on.

 

[WanderingWind]

Yes, because the best players have a 70% winrate which is not common. You dont understand what im saying. The best players win a ton, but they also bomb out a ton too. Just like in poker.

This is why, like poker, you need a large pool of pros to focus on.

I understand perfectly. But you both are trying to tie pro player winrate with mana flood/screw and you're doing so by throwing out unsupported and uncorrelated percentages. If you have proof that 1 out of every 5 games at the pro - hell, even semi-pro - level is lost due to flood/screw, by all means, post the proof and I'll admit I'm mistaken. I'm not disagreeing that the pros lose often, nor am I disagreeing that you need a large pool of pros (something that already exists, btw).

What I think we need to really show this is to have an official minor and major league. All the grinders and whatnot are in the minors until X wins or however we want to separate them. Then they get bumped up to the majors, where the folks like Duke and LSV play against a pool of like minded individuals. If they lose XYZ, they drop down to the minors (like from what Bill Burr tells me is how the Premiere league operates idk).

 

[manipulate]

Why on earth would you assume that? That's a number that you invented for the purposes of supporting an argument, but which has no real basis in reality.

The Denver Broncos were the best team in the NFL last year. They had a win percentage of 75%. A fantastic batter in major league baseball is hitting only 3-4 balls every time they're up to bat. A 4 out of ten average over a lifetime is Hall of Fame worthy. This is where people get it mixed up, because they're lost in the inherent ego of the game. You are not goldfishing against your lessers. You are playing another human being with their own desire to win.

A 70 percent winrate against the field a pro has to go through in any given event is fantastic. They have to play more than a dozen matches, each with 3 games a piece in a game with built-in checks and balances. Red is weak to enchantments and counters, but is quick to kill, etc, etc.



And yet, we continue to see the best players in the top 8 time and time again. There is even a Hall of Fame that rewards the best players. It's a two-person game (shush EDHeroes, we ain't talking to you right now). If LSV plays Reid Duke, one of them has to lose.

I absolutely picked it out arbitrarily, and that was to draw attention to how dismissive you're being of the randomness. If everything is as addressable as you were suggesting, then very high consistent win rates should be completely plausible.

I'd have thought a comparison with other competitive games would be more appropriate than athletic sports but okay mate

Spoiler

although you legit have some balls to use that comparison after claiming that I'm disingenuously using things to support my argument, c'mon brah

. I'm not American so I don't know about American sports but surely a baseball hitter is a terrible analogy? Pitcher vs batter is not even symmetrical lol.

I also object to you claiming that people only complain about this because they're salty. I mean, that's naturally a big source, but as someone with limited time, playing games that are non-games is actually really bad even if you win. It's just such an enormous waste of time, and there are many competitive games where this basically doesn't happen at all.

 

[Daedardus]

Is it normal that some holograms are oddly shaped? I have a MM15 Cryptic Command and the hologram is not an oval, but rather assymetric and smaller at the left side. All the other card parameters check out so I don't think it's fake. But in official tournaments, can this be seen as a damaged/fake card?

 

[Santiako]

GP Tokyo has 3400 players. Goddamn that's a lot of players.

 

[Transhuman]

[QUOTE="God's Beard!";202826543]Clearly the answer is partial mulligans in Standard.[/QUOTE]

Or you get to scry for every Mulligan you take.

 

[ironmang]

Anybody at GP NYC (NJ)?

 

[Firemind]

GP Tokyo has 3400 players. Goddamn that's a lot of players.

how many of those are from china? wish i could go ;-;

edit: seems like yuuya watanabe is still playing magic 9-0

 

[noquarter]

Is it normal that some holograms are oddly shaped? I have a MM15 Cryptic Command and the hologram is not an oval, but rather assymetric and smaller at the left side. All the other card parameters check out so I don't think it's fake. But in official tournaments, can this be seen as a damaged/fake card?

No idea how often they are going to be different, but you will see variance.

As to being at a tournament, unless you can tell the card apart from others when face down in you deck, you should be fine, shouldn't be seen as damaged. If the back is scratched and you put it in sleeves and it matches the others then you should be fine.

Usually creased cards are going to be seen as damaged since you can usually feel the crease through the sleeve. Cards that were torn also would fit this category.

Seen as fake would be the call of the head judge probably. I really doubt anybody would try to say out is game because of that, but who knows.

 

[Santiako]

The last GP in Tokyo had 60 participants lol

(1997, first and last GP in Tokyo until now)

 

[kirblar]

I understand perfectly. But you both are trying to tie pro player winrate with mana flood/screw and you're doing so by throwing out unsupported and uncorrelated percentages. If you have proof that 1 out of every 5 games at the pro - hell, even semi-pro - level is lost due to flood/screw, by all means, post the proof and I'll admit I'm mistaken. I'm not disagreeing that the pros lose often, nor am I disagreeing that you need a large pool of pros (something that already exists, btw).

What I think we need to really show this is to have an official minor and major league. All the grinders and whatnot are in the minors until X wins or however we want to separate them. Then they get bumped up to the majors, where the folks like Duke and LSV play against a pool of like minded individuals. If they lose XYZ, they drop down to the minors (like from what Bill Burr tells me is how the Premiere league operates idk).

...this is already what SCG Grinder vs PT Grinder vs Gold/Plat looks like.

That winrate is directly correlated with flood/screw. If it weren't, they'd be winning a hell of a lot more.

Also, you're doing this shit again where you say I don't know what I'm talking about. I absolutely fucking do. These percentages I'm throwing out are completely accurate- there have been DCI/PWP calculators that pros have run their winrates through. I was in the lower 60s, top pros are in the upper 60s and 70% is the upper bound.

 

[WanderingWind]

...this is already what SCG Grinder vs PT Grinder vs Gold/Plat looks like.

That winrate is directly correlated with flood/screw. If it weren't, they'd be winning a hell of a lot more.

Also, you're doing this shit again where you say I don't know what I'm talking about. I absolutely fucking do. These percentages I'm throwing out are completely accurate- there have been DCI/PWP calculators that pros have run their winrates through. I was in the lower 60s, top pros are in the upper 60s and 70% is the upper bound.

I'm "doing this shit again" where "this shit" is asking for proof beyond your say so, kirblar. Why on god's green earth you take it personally when I disagree with you, or ask for you to provide proof for something you state as a fact, I have no idea. You are not a source onto yourself.

If you look real close, you'll notice I didn't disagree with the statement you're taking umbrage with me supposedly disagreeing with anyway. I'm not arguing that pros do not have a 70 percent win rate. I am disagreeing that this win rate is solely, or even largely, to do with screw/flood variance and not good, old-fashioned competition. You're trying to correlate a 70 percent win average with a factor. All I'm asking is what you're basing that off from.

 

[kirblar]

I'm "doing this shit again" where "this shit" is asking for proof beyond your say so, kirblar. Why on god's green earth you take it personally when I disagree with you, or ask for you to provide proof for something you state as a fact, I have no idea. You are not a source onto yourself.

If you look real close, you'll notice I didn't disagree with the statement you're taking umbrage with me supposedly disagreeing with anyway. I'm not arguing that pros do not have a 70 percent win rate. I am disagreeing that this win rate is solely, or even largely, to do with screw/flood variance and not good, old-fashioned competition. You're trying to correlate a 70 percent win average with a factor. All I'm asking is what you're basing that off from.

I am a source because I know my shit. It can be corroborated by asking anyone else who knows their shit. You're not my professor, and I don't need to annotate my dissertation.

In other games, without variance, high-level players and teams have near-100% winrates. (See Chess, MVP Black in Heroes of the Storm, etc.) Poker/MTG don't work like that, and variance is the big reason why. You cannot win them all.

 

[WanderingWind]

I am a source because I know my shit. It can be corroborated by asking anyone else who knows their shit. You're not my professor, and I don't need to annotate my dissertation.

When you calm down, I think you're going to understand how utterly silly this is. No, kirblar, you are not a source. Your opinion carries no special weight. If you state something as a fact, then just simply getting angry and saying "because I fucking say so" because you totally "know your shit" isn't impressive. It's childish. A tantrum, at best.

You're right that you don't need to back up anything you say, but just don't expect anybody to put any more stock in it beyond any other poster's opinion. Leave it as an opinion, disagree or agree as you see fit, and move on. This taking every disagreement personally is getting pretty strange, man.

In other games, without variance, high-level players and teams have near-100% winrates. (See Chess, MVP Black in Heroes of the Storm, etc.) Poker/MTG don't work like that, and variance is the big reason why. You cannot win them all.

Once again, I am not disagreeing that variance is a part of Magic. Variance is factually part of the game's design philosophy starting with its basic foundation - the color pie. I even said that variance is one of the game's greatest strengths. This is not something I'm arguing against.

 

[kirblar]

When you calm down, I think you're going to understand how utterly silly this is. No, kirblar, you are not a source. Your opinion carries no special weight. If you state something as a fact, then just simply getting angry and saying "because I fucking say so" because you totally "know your shit" isn't impressive. It's childish behavior.

You're right that you don't need to back up anything you say, but just don't expect anybody to put any more stock in it beyond any other poster's opinion. Leave it as an opinion, disagree or agree as you see fit, and move on. This taking every disagreement personally is getting pretty strange, man.

It's not every disagreement, it's you repeatedly telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. You've been around long enough to know that I know my shit on this stuff. I'm not pulling two decades of experience with the game and competitive play out of the aether. It's not childish when someone's telling you to "show your work" only when that person disagrees and wants to undermine your argument, and asks for citations for facebook threads with tons of pros posting their winrate stats based on the DCI or PWP calculator programs. I've seen them. There's a very obvious cap.

 

[Hero]

Civil War up in here.

 

[WanderingWind]

It's not every disagreement, it's you repeatedly telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. You've been around long enough to know that I know my shit on this stuff. I'm not pulling two decades of experience with the game and competitive play out of the aether. It's not childish when someone's telling you to "show your work" only when that person disagrees and wants to undermine your argument, and asks for citations for facebook threads with tons of pros posting their winrate stats. I've seen them. There's a very obvious cap.

The fact that I'm not ignoring you when you've taking it to a personal level shows I give stock in your opinion. Just not enough to accept it as factual. You shouldn't expect anybody to do that, man. You really ought to understand why that is. Adults should not be getting upset when others don't accept their word as fact.

And lastly, I do not know how to make this any clearer. I do not disagree that pros have a roughly 70 percent win rate. I am not disagreeing with this. This is not something I am arguing. Can you please at least try to understand that? I would like to move beyond this, but it keeps coming up.

 

[charlequin]

Isn't an issue that better players don't win enough in Magic?

No, there is not remotely any way in which this is an issue. Strong players win very consistently (modulated by effectiveness in deck choice, for constructed formats.) When OP wants to have an event that is almost entirely skill-based, they can do team sealed, a format where performance is so directly correlated to skill that it's actually kind of boring to follow.

That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, a lot. The variance is huge and it means a lot of games are non-games, and that is just devastatingly bad. I honestly think there's a strong strain of downplaying this aspect in the playerbase, a lot of people promote this view that it can largely be addressed by using a conservative manabase. But let's be real you can make all the right deckbuilding choices and make good mulligans and still get stomped 20% of the time or whatever for no good reason.

The problem I have in these discussions is that people make assertions about how many games are "non-games" but we don't get into the math. What constitutes a non-game? My guess is that in competitive events, with proper shuffling and well-tested deck design, it's well under 20% of games that are complete gimmes due to land issues.

What are the winrates of the best players? If everything is as addressable as you suggest, presumably they should extremely high (>90%)?

A game where a top-skilled pro beats a pro the next tier down 90+% of the time requires a completely different infrastructure to be an interesting competitive environment -- among other things, it needs a real team structure strong enough that players follow their favorite teams over time as their membership changes.

And lastly, I do not know how to make this any clearer. I do not disagree that pros have a roughly 70 percent win rate. I am not disagreeing with this. This is not something I am arguing. Can you please at least try to understand that? I would like to move beyond this, but it keeps coming up.

You guys should both chillax a little bit and restate your core theses.