Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The mathematics of Magic: the Gathering (1999)

kibble.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 106 posts

Re: The mathematics of Magic: the Gathering (1999)

#41

Post by brandnewlow »

mbunch wrote: post #36
brandnewlow wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's secretly a feature, not a bug. Due to mana screw, even the best players lose 30-40% of the time.

It is my least favorite part of the game (really the only part of it that I dislike), but you're right. I don't know if it was quite what Richard Garfield had in mind, but at this point it's 100% an intentional part of the design philosophy.

I think it was unintentional but has played a crucial part in the game's appeal. When you get mana screwed, you feel the same emotional devastation as seeing the house win big in Blackjack. I think that low feeling drives players to try again and again.

Re: The mathematics of Magic: the Gathering (1999)

#42

Post by stephengillie »

BookmarkSaver wrote: post #39
stephengillie wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This game mechanic (mana burn) was removed when the rules were refactored across the past 20 years. Mana (edit:) simply disappears at the end of each stage.

He's not talking about mana burn, that was never really a problem except for extremely niche combo decks. He's talking about when you draw lands/mana producers for 5 turns in a row after starting with a heavy mana hand. That is "mana flooding".

Oh, that's either an issue of an unbalanced deck, or insufficient randomization.

My best decks started with the "rule of 1/3", and added/trimmed 1-2 lands to optimize. The "rule of 1/3" is that 1/3 of the deck should be lands, for best land draw. So a 60 card deck would start with 20 lands, and maybe swap 1-2 forests for elves in an elf deck.

And from a recent card randomizing thread, it takes 7 "riffles" to fully randomize a deck.

Re: The mathematics of Magic: the Gathering (1999)

#43

Post by uxp100 »

shiado wrote: post #14

I played Magic briefly as a teen and the thing that bothered me the most was how mana worked and the tendency to either get mana flooded or mana screwed. I even played a custom format with friends where you separated your deck and your mana into two decks and drew one from each every turn. It made the game much more enjoyable and consistent.

The more I play magic, the more I like the mana system, actually. It's very frustrating occasionally, but it usually is a message to me that I need to change my deckbuilding, add more filtering, card advantage, etc.

Re: The mathematics of Magic: the Gathering (1999)

#44

Post by brandnewlow »

Fargren wrote: post #7
claudiulodro wrote: post #2

How is the MTG scene these days? I spent my childhood through high school obsessively playing the game, reading these sorts of breakdowns, and spending all my money. Then life got in the way and I haven't played in about 10 years. I remember Friday Night Magic used to be a wholesome way to spend a Friday evening, and you got a lot of entertainment for the $5 entry fee.

MTG Arena, a new online version of the game, is in closed beta and I like it quite a lot. If you want to see how Magic is like nowadays, joining when it goes into open beta may be a good idea.

What do you like about it?

Re: The mathematics of Magic: the Gathering (1999)

#45

Post by tibbon »

claudiulodro wrote: post #2

How is the MTG scene these days? I spent my childhood through high school obsessively playing the game, reading these sorts of breakdowns, and spending all my money. Then life got in the way and I haven't played in about 10 years. I remember Friday Night Magic used to be a wholesome way to spend a Friday evening, and you got a lot of entertainment for the $5 entry fee.

Pretty good. I played around 4th/Ice Age through Mirage when I was in grade school.

There's some neat new things. There's the Commander format, which is neat. I've got no idea what semi-pro/pro playing looks like these days, but they've managed to keep it fun and interesting. I've only played a dozen games in the past 2 years with friends decks, but I like where they've gone.

Mana burn is gone!

Re: The mathematics of Magic: the Gathering (1999)

#46

Post by deadmetheny »

freeone3000 wrote: post #15
apocolyps6 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Power creep is real. If you remember the days when Savannah Lions was highly efficient, you're in for quite a shock. Creatures have steadily grown in power while non-creature spells have fallen in power quite a bit. The designers of the game concluded that making the game more creature-centric lead to more interesting gameplay decisions. Power level overall has been trending downwards if anything.

It's led to the recent trend of stapling the effect you actually want onto a creature with appropriate-stats-for-effect-level. Crucible of Worlds is a 3 mana effect. As a creature, it should be green. It should therefore cost 2G. A 2G creature is reasonable at 2/3. Therefore, Ramunap Excavator is appropriate. My modern deck plays entirely creatures, and entirely humans. It has duress, thorn of amethyst, nevermore, an…

Do you happen to have a deck list anywhere?

Re: The mathematics of Magic: the Gathering (1999)

#47

Post by gpderetta »

stephengillie wrote: post #22
shiado wrote: post #14

I played Magic briefly as a teen and the thing that bothered me the most was how mana worked and the tendency to either get mana flooded or mana screwed. I even played a custom format with friends where you separated your deck and your mana into two decks and drew one from each every turn. It made the game much more enjoyable and consistent.

This game mechanic (mana burn) was removed when the rules were refactored across the past 20 years. Mana (edit:) simply disappears at the end of each stage.

No, mana still disappear at the end of every stage. What it doesn't do anymore is life loss (i.e. mana burn).

Re: The mathematics of Magic: the Gathering (1999)

#48

Post by ufo »

stephengillie wrote: post #42
BookmarkSaver wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's not talking about mana burn, that was never really a problem except for extremely niche combo decks. He's talking about when you draw lands/mana producers for 5 turns in a row after starting with a heavy mana hand. That is "mana flooding".

Oh, that's either an issue of an unbalanced deck, or insufficient randomization. My best decks started with the "rule of 1/3", and added/trimmed 1-2 lands to optimize. The "rule of 1/3" is that 1/3 of the deck should be lands, for best land draw. So a 60 card deck would start with 20 lands, and maybe swap 1-2 forests for elves in an elf deck. And from a recent card randomizing thread, it takes 7 "riffles" to fully ra…

20 lands is a little low and is only appropriate if you have a very aggressive deck, with very few cards costing 3 or more mana.

Conventional wisdom suggests going for around 40% lands. So 24ish lands for 60 card decks, 17ish for a 40 card deck.

Re: The mathematics of Magic: the Gathering (1999)

#49

Post by brandnewlow »

deadmetheny wrote: post #46
freeone3000 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's led to the recent trend of stapling the effect you actually want onto a creature with appropriate-stats-for-effect-level. Crucible of Worlds is a 3 mana effect. As a creature, it should be green. It should therefore cost 2G. A 2G creature is reasonable at 2/3. Therefore, Ramunap Excavator is appropriate. My modern deck plays entirely creatures, and entirely humans. It has duress, thorn of amethyst, nevermore, an…

Do you happen to have a deck list anywhere?

This article follows the evolution of the deck. The last one sounds close to what OP is running: https://www.mtggoldfish.com/articles/deck-evolutions-modern-...

Re: The mathematics of Magic: the Gathering (1999)

#50

Post by stephengillie »

ufo wrote: post #48
stephengillie wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, that's either an issue of an unbalanced deck, or insufficient randomization. My best decks started with the "rule of 1/3", and added/trimmed 1-2 lands to optimize. The "rule of 1/3" is that 1/3 of the deck should be lands, for best land draw. So a 60 card deck would start with 20 lands, and maybe swap 1-2 forests for elves in an elf deck. And from a recent card randomizing thread, it takes 7 "riffles" to fully ra…

20 lands is a little low and is only appropriate if you have a very aggressive deck, with very few cards costing 3 or more mana. Conventional wisdom suggests going for around 40% lands. So 24ish lands for 60 card decks, 17ish for a 40 card deck.

My "blue bertha" decks were 40% to 45% lands. They were usually 100+ cards and consisted almost exclusively of 6+ casting cost creatures. These were only used for fun, mostly for other players to test their new decks against, never in any competition.

Having more than 35% lands leads to the very mana flooding complained about in the root comment.

Post reply on HN