PDA

View Full Version : Mana Screw - any plan to avoid it?



Pages : [1] 2

saropatzi
06-04-2013, 12:56 AM
Hi guys. I love your idea (i'm a dungeon crawler backer), but coming from WOW TCG, i really tought TCG had solved the mana screw problem in a lot of different ways. (Also other competitors like Order & Chaos Duels, have found their way around).

Sorry for my criticism, but it seems we are 20 years back in time in the TCG game design.
Maybe i'm talking too early but looking at the stream i can see that it is a problem.
http://it.twitch.tv/hextcg/b/404773267

I don't know if you have a way to solve this, but despite all the customization it seems to me that this is a major issue. Mana screw, simply is not fun at all. Also, everyone i talked about the game pointed at Mana screw as the main flaw.

It would be a really good idea if you can find a way to mitigate this. As it is right now it's the only doubt i have about the game. I'm also interested about the reason of your choice.

Thanks in advance to anyone that is going to answer.

jaxsonbateman
06-04-2013, 01:00 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if the deck had too few lands, to see it hit mana screw twice (assuming that's the stream with the RW humans deck).

The semi-solution to mana screw is charge powers. Because late resources still give charge, they're less useless than late lands in MTG. In any case, Magic has probably the worst 'issues' with mana screw/flood, yet it's one of the most popular card games and has been that way for decades. In the end, it's not that big an issue.

Besides that, as any Magic player knows, card draw and filtering majorly offset your chances of getting flooded or screwed.

ForgedSol
06-04-2013, 01:08 AM
And while mana screw will be the same when compared to Magic, color screw will happen less in Hex thanks to threshold being separate from mana costs.

saropatzi
06-04-2013, 01:15 AM
I think Cryptozoic is too far in the game development to rethink this, but given the fact that the choice was available at start, i wonder why they decided for lands.

From a deck building point of view, the absence of lands give you a space of other 20 cards in the deck, avoid mana screw/flood and is generally less irritating. Regarding Magic... it is 20 years old, and it is dominant among card games, but i believe that a new game has the opportunity and the duty to be better than its ancestor.

Having played with both MTG and WoW tcg i'd say that this was the main point in favor of WoW, so i don't understand why Crypto decided otherwise. Anyway everyone i tried to move into Hex pointed out this fact (resource management) as the main problem.

jaxsonbateman
06-04-2013, 01:30 AM
Having played Magic for years now, it's annoying when it happens, but it's not gamebreaking, and it's certainly mostly avoidable if it really frustrates you. While I'm not a developer, I imagine it's because the random element helps increase the skill required in deckbuilding, and makes games more exciting and unknown. Essentially, the less randomness you put into a TCG, the more you move it into a chess-style game, where it's all strategy and no luck.

Mr.Funsocks
06-04-2013, 01:30 AM
I don't know the WoW TCG resource system, but they did discuss it, and basically said it has its own drawbacks, where games ended on about the same turn every time. You have to have resources, and no system is perfect, but really MtG's system is great if you build your deck right (little extra land and some draw cards/nonland mana sources). Initially that was a problem, but all the sets now have ways around it.

wallofomens
06-04-2013, 01:38 AM
They talked briefly in yesterday's(today's for some people) stream about why they chose MtG's resource style instead of WoWTCG's. Basically, it is friendlier to newer players, who don't want to play their creatures/abilities as resources and also works better in a digital environment.

TheWrathofShane
06-04-2013, 01:50 AM
25 lands, 60 card deck, healthy number of 1-2 drops.

theophanya
06-04-2013, 02:16 AM
Love HEX in every way, but mana screw is something I just can't get over :( Despite the charges and the threshold it is still very much present and it makes for a frustrating experience when you can't have a regular supply of resources, which equals a solid game plan. The explanation that the present system accommodates for newbie players is absurd - 1) mana/land/resource/quests it is a very easy concept to grasp (come on and have a bit of faith in us) and 2) HEX is aiming at a quite competitive scene - constant tournaments, lots of formats and so on...

I know some would say "Look at MTG - it's going strong", but that is not an excuse to keep a game frustrating, just because an already frustrating game is successful. HEX is all about the digital realm, the revolutionizing of the TCG genre and everything, but it sticks to an old and imperfect mechanic.
I know that you can build your decks to compensate for mana screw at least to an extent, but why do you have to restrict deckbuilding so much?

Anyway, all I'm saying is HEX's resource system can be better and I'd be the happiest player if it gets remedied.

Fireblast
06-04-2013, 02:19 AM
HEX system is perfect, it's never gonna change
Learn to deckbuild to not be screwed :)

~

jaxsonbateman
06-04-2013, 02:30 AM
Except not every player gets frustrated with the whole concept of potential mana screw/flood. They might get frustrated when it actually happens - I think it's natural that most players would - but certainly not everyone thinks about the system and goes "you know what? The way they've set it up frustrates me". I know I don't, but then, I know I have pretty solid deck building skills which is one of the ways to avoid it.

I know it was one thing I noticed in the stream with the inspire humans, but seeing as it happened twice, I'd be really curious to see if the deck was a pre-con or not (I don't think it was), and how many resources were in the deck and what ratio they had. It could have just been bad luck, for sure, but it could have also been questionable deckbuilding. I'm also pretty sure there were at least 4 5 drops, if there were any more than that then there may have been some questionable deckbuilding choices in there - of course, assuming that the constructed format ends up being similar to Magic where the highest cards you tend to want in your deck cost around 6 at most.

Fireblast
06-04-2013, 02:37 AM
People complaining about mana screw seem to forget that you have more "active" cards than your opponent.
As long as you can play low drops, Murder-like, counterspells, you can be fine with 2 manas for a while until your opponent goes to 0 card and you start drawing resources.

~

theophanya
06-04-2013, 02:38 AM
HEX system is perfect, it's never gonna change
Learn to deckbuild to not be screwed :)

~

Deckbuilding for manascrew is 1) restrictive and 2) only relieves it, does not remedy it. I've played all Duels of the Plainswalkers editions and ALL decks are mana screw prone although I believe they have been built by pretty knowledgeable deckbuilders.

jaxsonbateman
06-04-2013, 02:41 AM
Most of the Duels decks are fairly garbage at worst, and servicable at best. I could probably make a better decklist after drinking copious amounts of bourbon and face-desking a few times.

ForgedSol
06-04-2013, 02:41 AM
Love HEX in every way, but mana screw is something I just can't get over :( Despite the charges and the threshold it is still very much present and it makes for a frustrating experience when you can't have a regular supply of resources, which equals a solid game plan. The explanation that the present system accommodates for newbie players is absurd - 1) mana/land/resource/quests it is a very easy concept to grasp (come on and have a bit of faith in us) and 2) HEX is aiming at a quite competitive scene - constant tournaments, lots of formats and so on...

I know some would say "Look at MTG - it's going strong", but that is not an excuse to keep a game frustrating, just because an already frustrating game is successful. HEX is all about the digital realm, the revolutionizing of the TCG genre and everything, but it sticks to an old and imperfect mechanic.
I know that you can build your decks to compensate for mana screw at least to an extent, but why do you have to restrict deckbuilding so much?

Anyway, all I'm saying is HEX's resource system can be better and I'd be the happiest player if it gets remedied.

It's not about ease of understanding the wowtcg system, it's about how they feel using it. You have this awesome card, and you want to play it, and it instead it "just" gets turned into a dumb resource. It saps some fun from the cards when you have to "waste" cards like that. (I'm not saying it's actually wasted, but that's how it can feel, especially for new players.) The wowtcg system is more for people who like to min/max stuff, whereas the mtg system accommodates a wider audience. The more casual players can have more fun with the mtg system, and min/maxers will min/max any system put in front of them.

(If you know mtg terminology, the wowtcg system is more Spike friendly and drives more Timmy players away. This article (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr220b) explains the terms, which are different categories of player types.)

theophanya
06-04-2013, 02:47 AM
That would make me a min/maxer :) Well, I guess you can't have the best of all worlds.

jaxsonbateman
06-04-2013, 02:52 AM
You're not the only min/maxer. I just min/max using the MTG/Hex system, and I'm fine with that.

yovalord
06-04-2013, 02:53 AM
Without reading everything, said in this post. The reason they chose the "Land" system (with a slight twist being thresholds and charges), is because they want the game accessible and familier to everybody. While being mana screwed is the biggest flaw to MTG, the second you choose a new resource system, all the MTG community deems the game unfit. People complain about one thing but at the same time cannot handle change.

KnowingCrow
06-04-2013, 02:54 AM
Deckbuilding for manascrew is 1) restrictive and 2) only relieves it, does not remedy it. I've played all Duels of the Plainswalkers editions and ALL decks are mana screw prone although I believe they have been built by pretty knowledgeable deckbuilders.
No, they really have not. Duels of the Planeswalker decks are exceptionally prone to mana screw. Competitive decks tend to reduce the probability of mana screw through some of the following various means: Cantrips, land fetches, low curve, card drawing, and playing a large number of land. Duels of the Planeswalkers are very short on these sorts of effects, and many of the decks run far too few lands with no ability to increase the land count.

ForgedSol
06-04-2013, 03:02 AM
I agree with theophanya that deckbuilding only takes you so far. There *will* be mana screw with the most optimized deck. But the mtg system is still friendlier to newer players because it only makes them feel bad sometimes and not every turn.

saropatzi
06-04-2013, 03:04 AM
That's interesting. I'm going to look at the stream (and complain a little more :P).
I tought that the reason could be that mana is more "understandable" for new players and magic players (they are more than WoW players), but everyone who had the chance to try an alternate resource system would not like to go back to lands.

Anyhow, my only concern and hope is that they can find some way to avoid/minimize mana screw/flood. From my point of view Mana Screw, (more than mana flood) gives you the horrible sensation to be unable to play and that's the exact opposite of fun.

nrflorencio
06-04-2013, 03:15 AM
That's interesting. I'm going to look at the stream (and complain a little more :P).
I tought that the reason could be that mana is more "understandable" for new players and magic players (they are more than WoW players), but everyone who had the chance to try an alternate resource system would not like to go back to lands.

Anyhow, my only concern and hope is that they can find some way to avoid/minimize mana screw/flood. From my point of view Mana Screw, (more than mana flood) gives you the horrible sensation to be unable to play and that's the exact opposite of fun.

Exactly my opinion. But be careful, it seems people are very toutchy when it comes to this subject.
There are several ways to reduce the problem of mana screw, but it seems nothing will be done about it... Thats my main concern.

nrflorencio
06-04-2013, 03:25 AM
The thing im starting to realize is people WANT the game to have mana screw... That or they are severely allergic to any kind of change.

In fact, solving mana screw in a digital TCG is easy like hell. The game could calculate the percentage of lands in your deck, separate them (behind the scenes) from your other cards and play them according to the percentage. For a more clear explanation:

Your deck has 40 spells and 20 lands. The game separates your lands from other spells into 2 decks. since the number of lands is 33% it will play one card from the land deck every 3 turns. Now if you make a deck with 30 lands and 30 spells, it will do the same but this time play one land every 2 turns.
This is just a basic system, tweakable in any way since its all behind the scenes in this digital world

People say this takes away from the game umpredictability... Guess theyre right. But makes the game much more skill based and less luck based.

KnowingCrow
06-04-2013, 03:31 AM
Reducing the luck doesn't proportionally increase the skill of the game. You are asking for a card game shuffler to not shuffle randomly, and be highly exploitable and min-max-able.

One could easily argue that the potential of mana-screw increases skill, as it requires you to consider it while constructing your deck, and build around it by including effects in your deck to make it more consistent.

jaxsonbateman
06-04-2013, 03:34 AM
It's not about wanting the game to have mana screw, or being allergic to change. It's about being fine with things the way they are. If they changed it to a different, decent system, I can't imagine many people would be upset with it. The thing that I've been trying to get across is, a lot of those people also wouldn't be upset if things stayed the way they were.

nrflorencio
06-04-2013, 03:43 AM
Dont take me wrong, mana screw is not the end of the world.
But for me a COMPETITIVE game can not have a chance to simply collapse on its own in crucial moments. Losing the final of a tournament because of mana screw when you have by far the best deck in the competition... just not right (yes, it ALMOST happened to me... maybe thats why im so adamant about resolving this issue...)

theophanya
06-04-2013, 04:04 AM
Dont take me wrong, mana screw is not the end of the world.
But for me a COMPETITIVE game can not have a chance to simply collapse on its own in crucial moments. Losing the final of a tournament because of mana screw when you have by far the best deck in the competition... just not right (yes, it ALMOST happened to me... maybe thats why im so adamant about resolving this issue...)

Exactly! Having the randomness of deckbuilds and card draw is random enough for a game I think. The rest borders on gambling (which I'm definitely not here to do).

jai151
06-04-2013, 04:06 AM
Having played both systems, I can't stand the "toss a card to gain mana" style. It makes mana curve nearly irrelevant when you know you will be able to drop a five cost turn 5 every time. The only worse system is just giving you a mana each turn.

Arbiter
06-04-2013, 05:00 AM
Dont take me wrong, mana screw is not the end of the world.
But for me a COMPETITIVE game can not have a chance to simply collapse on its own in crucial moments. Losing the final of a tournament because of mana screw when you have by far the best deck in the competition... just not right (yes, it ALMOST happened to me... maybe thats why im so adamant about resolving this issue...)

If the best DECK wins the tournament it is a bad thing. All things being equal the best PLAYER winning the tournament is the goal. Decks that effectively play themselves are just as bad as random bad luck.

Fireblast
06-04-2013, 05:36 AM
Dont take me wrong, mana screw is not the end of the world.
But for me a COMPETITIVE game can not have a chance to simply collapse on its own in crucial moments. Losing the final of a tournament because of mana screw when you have by far the best deck in the competition... just not right (yes, it ALMOST happened to me... maybe thats why im so adamant about resolving this issue...)

When you say ALMOST you mean that you won nonetheless or that you've got mana screwed during round 1 of a FNM?

~

Fireblast
06-04-2013, 05:38 AM
To stay on topic, every other system has flaws (explained 100000 times in other topics/livestreams/interviews).
This is part of the game, you deal with it

~

nrflorencio
06-04-2013, 05:48 AM
If the best DECK wins the tournament it is a bad thing. All things being equal the best PLAYER winning the tournament is the goal. Decks that effectively play themselves are just as bad as random bad luck.

Err... The fact that it is the best deck is because the player builds it like that. Im my case i remember it was a brilliant twist to a living death (not even sure the spell was called like that after all this time, but think so) deck.
Building the deck is a part of the skill involved in the game. After that the cards you get are random enough.

I have no problem with losing cause i play the wrong card, or cause i simply didnt get the right cards for the situation.

What most people seem to fail to understand is that mana screw IS NOT FUN. One thing is losing cause your deck is not good enough, or you drawed the wrong cards for the moment, or you simply made a mistake, or your oponnent made a brilliant move. Other is the feeling of impotence when at turn 8 you have 2 manas and theres only so much you can do with 1-2 drops...

Edit: Fireblast, i won nonetheless... But in circunstances that told here you would think i was just making things up... And problably say that luck got me bad cards then luck gave me the victory so its all good...

Verdant
06-04-2013, 05:54 AM
I have no problem with losing cause i play the wrong card, or cause i simply didnt get the right cards for the situation.
So you don't consider mana screw as 'not getting the right cards', right?

jaxsonbateman
06-04-2013, 06:00 AM
The best deck winning a tournament isn't a bad thing. The best player in the world who plays the wrong deck for the meta (perhaps they are legitimately the best player and they didn't make a bad choice, but misread clues as to what other people would be playing, or something, though the best player in the world would probably have a fantastic read on metas... but I digress...) should lose, for not playing the right deck to beat the other decks.

There are three elements that go into a player winning a competitive tournament.
1. Deck selection
2. Player skill
3. Luck

Deck selection is arguably the most important, as you can be the best deck pilot around, but if your deck statistically loses to the other decks in the tournament more often than it wins, that's a bad choice and it's going to be very hard to overcome that with skill alone.

Skill is important for knowing when to play cards and when to hold them back, target selection, what you have to disrupt of the opponent's and all that. Skill and deck selection also cross over when it comes to deckbuilding - even the top types of decks differ in a few card choices, even if the rest are similar, and deckcrafting skill can really shine here.

Finally, luck does play a part. Of course there's mana screw and flood, but there's also what cards you draw. Sometimes you'll draw exactly the right cards for the situations you face, and you'll dominate, even against a deck that usually has the upper hand over yours. Sometimes you'll have 10 outs against a wincon your opponent has played, and turn after turn you'll fail to draw them. Luck means that even if you know everything about the players and the decks, you still can't be sure of the outcome.

But ultimately, when it comes to those 3 things, deck selection should have the most weight behind it when it comes to why someone wins a tournament. It's not often the case that a player makes a poor deck choice yet still wins. Though all 3 count - a player can make a good, but not the best deck choice, and still win due to their skill pushing their overall 'power level' up.

But I think I'm starting to ramble, so I'll stop. ^^

nrflorencio
06-04-2013, 06:07 AM
So you don't consider mana screw as 'not getting the right cards', right?

No i dont. Not getting a card between 4-8 i have in a deck and need for that situation, is one thing.
In 8 turns (i.e.) not getting a card between the 20-24 i have in the deck... Thats a completely diferent story...

DeusPhasmatis
06-04-2013, 06:13 AM
Play card draw.

Badgered
06-04-2013, 06:24 AM
Mana (gem?) screw is the only concern I have about this game. As a control player, I usually run 25-27 lands in most of my decks (except for my modern W/B, which tops out at 4 CMC) and I still get mana screwed. The last time I played paper magic as a result was in 2011 when I got mana screwed at states during the season of Jund. 27 freaking lands and I auto-lose. That has nothing to do with my deck building ability and everything to do with dumb luck.

Now, I understand that TCGs have a certain luck element and I'm down with that, but being at the whims of the RNG to even be able to play the damn game is asinine. I sincerely hope that CZE revisits their resource system as not being able to play cards due to bad luck is stupid, and I sincerely doubt that the champion charge abilities are going to justify the potential for flood as well.

The resource system in the WoW TCG is by far my favorite, followed by Duel of the Champions and Scrolls.

Arbiter
06-04-2013, 06:34 AM
I have no problem with losing cause i play the wrong card, or cause i simply didnt get the right cards for the situation.


But, losing because you didn't get enough mana is, by definition, not getting the right cards for the situation.

And that's the thing with card games... random chance is involved, but in well designed games the better player wins. Losing to random chance is never fun, but it is one of the reasons most tournaments play best of three. If you have built your deck properly you should very rarely lose an entire match to not drawing mana.

Look, death without mana is no fun, but if everyone curves out, what you find is that all of a sudden people are dying because they miss curve (one guy gets a 4 drop on turn 4, the other one misses and loses the game due to the tempo loss - usually games that auto increment resources increase the power level a lot more between the various mana costs. If you instead gave a person a resource every 3 cards, you'd find the person that lost would be the one who failed to draw his/her card advantage cards in time.

Changing a system from relying on draws for mana simply changes how RNG will mess you up in the game (they go into it in one of the videos), and if you have played any of those games, you will have had experiences where you just don't draw one of your right options for the right time even though statistically you have built your deck for it.

By making the RNG issue an unlimited resource (and free), rather than cards that are at most 4 of's player's do have more options to mitigate the RNG as much as they can.

Here are some of the things that mitigate poor mana draws:
1) Computer randomisation: in real life, players may not randomise their deck perfectly, and there may be clumps of land unseparated during the shuffle. The computer does not have these physical issues.

2) Matches being best of 3. If you have a 10% chance to lose a game to lack of mana, you only have a 2% chance of losing the whole match to it.

3) Player input: Learning to balance mana (and Hex will have an AI to assist). Getting experience in deck curves, distribution, card draw and alternate ways to get resources. As your decks get better, you lose less to RNG.

4) Charge powers and threshold (rather than needing coloured mana): charge gives you something for drawing too much mana, threshold over oloured mana means you can be a lot more generous with off colour resources.

5) The mulligan. You have to know when to fold them. Knowing when you should mulligan is a key thing. It is there to help when your mana is wrong.

6) Less mana than your opponent is card advantage. If your opponent has 3 more mana than you, that is 3 more cards that do "something" that you have more than him/her. If you can get to use them before the end of the game, you'll likely win.

No one is saying not having enough mana is fun. RNG when you are on the wrong side of it never is. And these forums have lots of these threads. What you have to realise though is that as a card game it will have RNG. At it's core, not having enough (or getting too much) mana is simply another case of getting the wrong card at the wrong time, which will be a part of all card games. The reason to prefer the RNG as resources is that it is a card that is unlimited in your deck so provides the most opportunity for players to overcome it themselves.

And in the end, the decision to do mana this way does affect the design of every card in the game, so it is too late to get any changes in at this stage, the cards and rules would have to be thrown out the window.

There will no doubt be good sites and advice on mana ratios, decks and deck construction. Make the most of those and tame the mana beast yourself. Don't let it defeat you - it may take the odd game from you but you'll have the tools to keep it at bay if you look for them.

nrflorencio
06-04-2013, 06:36 AM
Play card draw.

And isnt amazing that even when you do, you still get mana screwed sometimes, albeit less often...

theophanya
06-04-2013, 07:42 AM
Mana (gem?) screw is the only concern I have about this game. As a control player, I usually run 25-27 lands in most of my decks (except for my modern W/B, which tops out at 4 CMC) and I still get mana screwed. The last time I played paper magic as a result was in 2011 when I got mana screwed at states during the season of Jund. 27 freaking lands and I auto-lose. That has nothing to do with my deck building ability and everything to do with dumb luck.

Now, I understand that TCGs have a certain luck element and I'm down with that, but being at the whims of the RNG to even be able to play the damn game is asinine. I sincerely hope that CZE revisits their resource system as not being able to play cards due to bad luck is stupid, and I sincerely doubt that the champion charge abilities are going to justify the potential for flood as well.

The resource system in the WoW TCG is by far my favorite, followed by Duel of the Champions and Scrolls.

Well said!

Tyrfang
06-04-2013, 07:47 AM
In terms of game-design, the way I see it...basically, your options are you are either to permit mana screw or curve screw.

You either draw a land at the right time, or you draw a card with the appropriate cost on the right turn.

nrflorencio
06-04-2013, 07:52 AM
In terms of game-design, the way I see it...basically, your options are you are either to permit mana screw or curve screw.

You either draw a land at the right time, or you draw a card with the appropriate cost on the right turn.


No one is asking for perfectly controlled mana income. Im ok with some kind of randomness to it, not all games must have exactly the same mana coming out at exactly the same turn.

Heck, i would be super satisfied with 3 guaranteed mana sources in starting hand and random from there...


What I and most people (i suppose) have problems with is the extremes. The 2 manas in 10 turns games that make even a well build deck unplayable. and that happens... otherwise we wouldnt be having the same discussion every day :)


Edit: as a great example, some real situations that happened to me playing planewalkers:

Draw first hand, one land, mulligan. second hand, zero lands... third hand, one land again... Ill be damned... just stay with 5 cards and no lands and lose fast to play another game...

This happened not once, not twice, not even 3 times. This happened a sufficient number of times for many games to be unplayable.


People seem to think we demand the perfect mana setup... we dont, just a way to prevent this extremes from occuring so often. Randomness is good. but being a digital game is perfectly possible to prevent this game breaking events.

Tyrfang
06-04-2013, 07:55 AM
No one is asking for perfectly controlled mana income. Im ok with some kind of randomness to it, not all games must have exactly the same mana coming out at exactly the same turn.

Heck, i would be super satisfied with 3 guaranteed mana sources in starting hand and random from there...

See the problem there is I can make a deck of 54 cards with playing costs of 1-5 with ~6 resources.
Anything used to defeat the 'randomness' of your deck can be gamed for an advantage, and would mess around with deck construction.

nrflorencio
06-04-2013, 08:06 AM
See the problem there is I can make a deck of 54 cards with playing costs of 1-5 with ~6 resources.
Anything used to defeat the 'randomness' of your deck can be gamed for an advantage, and would mess around with deck construction.

Easily defeated cheat.
Its easy to create an algorythm that checks the percentage of lands in your deck and the more your game deviates from that percentage the best chance of getting a land.

So, i.e., if you have a deck with with 33% lands and you have 15 cards drawed (like 7 in hand and 8 in table) but only 3 lands, your chance of drawing a land is greatly increased.

With the example of your deck the percentage of lands in your deck is 10%... so your chance of drawing a land is minimal.


Im no genious, but being a digital game this kind of alleviating features is possible (and i dare to guess simple)

Turtlewing
06-04-2013, 08:09 AM
See the problem there is I can make a deck of 54 cards with playing costs of 1-5 with ~6 resources.
Anything used to defeat the 'randomness' of your deck can be gamed for an advantage, and would mess around with deck construction.

And what's worse is those special cases aren't very intuitive so new players will tend to get trashed by them and not know why.

Turtlewing
06-04-2013, 08:10 AM
Easily defeated cheat.
Its easy to create an algorythm that checks the percentage of lands in your deck and the more your game deviates from that percentage the best chance of getting a land.

So, i.e., if you have a deck with with 33% lands and you have 15 cards drawed (like 7 in hand and 8 in table) but only 3 lands, your chance of drawing a land is greatly increased.

With the example of your deck the percentage of lands in your deck is 10%... so your chance of drawing a land is minimal.


Im no genious, but being a digital game this kind of alleviating features is possible (and i dare to guess simple)

I believe that algorithm is called "shuffle the deck"

nrflorencio
06-04-2013, 08:23 AM
I believe that algorithm is called "shuffle the deck"

Rofl, not even close.

What i mean is its easy to create an algorithm that changes the order of the cards in your deck as the game goes by, efectively INCREASING the chance of getting a land as more turns go by without getting one.
If you have 20 lands in your 60 card deck your chance to get a land is 33%, but lets say, if the game detects you have 10 cards drawn and only 2 lands, that chance could increase to 40%.


Edit: And dont come with the notion that the chance of getting a land is bigger ~by itself as the turns go by without you getting one... Im well aware of probability. Thats not what im talking about.

jai151
06-04-2013, 08:28 AM
Rofl, not even close.

What i mean is its easy to create an algorithm that changes the order of the cards in your deck as the game goes by, efectively INCREASING the chance of getting a land as more turns go by without getting one.
If you have 20 lands in your 60 card deck your chance to get a land is 33%, but lets say, if the game detects you have 10 cards drawn and only 2 lands, that chance could increase to 40%.


Edit: And dont come with the notion that the chance of getting a land is bigger ~by itself as the turns go by without you getting one... Im well aware of probability. Thats not what im talking about.

Any algorithm beyond truly random leads to gaming the system, and any that messes with your library completely defeats any cards which order your library.

Tyrfang
06-04-2013, 08:30 AM
Rofl, not even close.

What i mean is its easy to create an algorithm that changes the order of the cards in your deck as the game goes by, efectively INCREASING the chance of getting a land as more turns go by without getting one.
If you have 20 lands in your 60 card deck your chance to get a land is 33%, but lets say, if the game detects you have 10 cards drawn and only 2 lands, that chance could increase to 40%.

If you can think of a system that can't be gamed, but is still easily implemented and intuitive, by all means make the suggestion to CZE.

I don't see how the one you presented is intuitive. At any one point you have no idea what the chance of drawing another resource card from your deck is. Conversely, if I have, say, if 15/45 of my cards remaining are lands, I know I have about ~1/3 chance of getting one.

nrflorencio
06-04-2013, 08:31 AM
Any algorithm beyond truly random leads to gaming the system, and any that messes with your library completely defeats any cards which order your library.


There are a thousand and one ways to solve the mana screw problem in a digital world. If that one is not good enough then others will surely do. The problem exists when an imperfect system from a physical game world is accepted without need to.

Hatts
06-04-2013, 08:34 AM
I believe that algorithm is called "shuffle the deck"


Rofl, not even close.

What i mean is its easy to create an algorithm that changes the order of the cards in your deck as the game goes by, efectively INCREASING the chance of getting a land as more turns go by without getting one.
If you have 20 lands in your 60 card deck your chance to get a land is 33%, but lets say, if the game detects you have 10 cards drawn and only 2 lands, that chance could increase to 40%.

I believe that algorithm is better known as stacking the deck ;)

nrflorencio
06-04-2013, 08:36 AM
Whatever... for some reason it seems half the community defends a shitty system. Hex could be better than this. Guess it wont.

Badmoonz
06-04-2013, 08:38 AM
Their plan to avoid is the charge power that each champion/mercenary gets. This encourages decks to run a few more resources than a player would in Magic, which then also reduces the odds of being short a resource early. It's not perfect, but there a lot of reasons why this system is good. This system is often criticized as being Magic's biggest flaw, but it's actually one of it's strengths.

zakedodead
06-04-2013, 08:56 AM
Whatever... for some reason it seems half the community defends a shitty system. Hex could be better than this. Guess it wont.
I'm betting you play with 4 colors and 18 lands and no nonland mana.

jai151
06-04-2013, 08:59 AM
Whatever... for some reason it seems half the community defends a shitty system. Hex could be better than this. Guess it wont.

I know, right? I mean I just can't understand why so many people want WoW:TCG's system. :cool:

nrflorencio
06-04-2013, 09:01 AM
I'm betting you play with 4 colors and 18 lands and no nonland mana.

If i did i would understand being mana screwed. But it happening in a perfectly curved mono color deck... Unacceptable

zakedodead
06-04-2013, 09:01 AM
I mean goddamn 20 lands (a low number generally) is a 33% chance of every card drawn being a land, and you draw 7 cards to start with. Also have you never heard the word mulligan?

houjix
06-04-2013, 09:01 AM
Whatever... for some reason it seems half the community defends a shitty system. Hex could be better than this. Guess it wont.

Maybe the solutions presented are just bad. A different system would have been great. Too late for that now. Altering "random" is even worse as you are taking away the great equalizer between good and bad players. Good players will take advantage of any altering of "random", bad players will still be bad. Frankly a system that isn't truly random makes me less likley to play knowing it can be taken advantage of.

nrflorencio
06-04-2013, 09:04 AM
I mean goddamn 20 lands (a low number generally) is a 33% chance of every card drawn being a land, and you draw 7 cards to start with. Also have you never heard the word mulligan?

Check post 42 in this thread.

jai151
06-04-2013, 09:07 AM
Check post 42 in this thread.

The basic flaw in that post is the example used being Duels, which has notoriously bad deck optimization.

nrflorencio
06-04-2013, 09:07 AM
Anyway.
99% of the forum users here are backers already... Your brain wont allow you to see a problem even if it lowers your trousers and .... in the ...

It is a waste of my time. And more importantly, a waste of a game with extreme potential...

jaxsonbateman
06-04-2013, 09:08 AM
I feel like people are acting like mana screw never happens, or isn't frustrating when it does, or that shuffling/mulliganing stops it entirely. That's not true. You can still get screwed (and frustrated when it happens) and flooded.

I still don't think it's so frustrating or such a big problem that the system needs to be scrapped, but if it were, depending on what they changed it to, I also don't think it'd be the end of the world. Yes, I'm a fence sitter, but essentially I don't think the mana system employed is as bad or as good as some people are making it out to be. It's simply fine. On that note, I also don't think WoW's system is perfect - it changes the game dramatically, and significantly reduces randomness.

nrflorencio
06-04-2013, 09:09 AM
The basic flaw in that post is the example used being Duels, which has notoriously bad deck optimization.


Of course, cause if the deck was perfectly optimized the one land i got on the first draw, and zero lands on second draw, and 1 land in third draw would all be fine.

The arguments you are presenting are starting to border on trolling...

jaxsonbateman
06-04-2013, 09:10 AM
Anyway.
99% of the forum users here are backers already... Your brain wont allow you to see a problem even if it lowers your trousers and .... in the ...

It is a waste of my time. And more importantly, a waste of a game with extreme potential...
Not everyone views it as a problem. ;-) I'm one of the few people that will openly say that the system can frustrate from time to time, and mana screw can cause you to lose an otherwise favourable match up. However, I don't think that's a problem or issue that needs to be changed. I said earlier in the thread that if it were changed I'd probably be fine with it - and I also said that if it weren't changed I'd be fine with it.

Fortunately, or unfortunately, not everyone shares views and opinions.

zakedodead
06-04-2013, 09:12 AM
No one is asking for perfectly controlled mana income. Im ok with some kind of randomness to it, not all games must have exactly the same mana coming out at exactly the same turn.

Heck, i would be super satisfied with 3 guaranteed mana sources in starting hand and random from there...
Oh god my sides, MAYBE you could get away with 1 guaranteed land, but if they system was anything like magic that's just asking for trouble/exploits

What I and most people (i suppose) have problems with is the extremes. The 2 manas in 10 turns games that make even a well build deck unplayable. and that happens... otherwise we wouldnt be having the same discussion every day :)
Define "well build deck

Edit: as a great example, some real situations that happened to me playing planewalkers:

Draw first hand, one land, mulligan. second hand, zero lands... third hand, one land again... Ill be damned... just stay with 5 cards and no lands and lose fast to play another game...
I want to see a decklist at this point

This happened not once, not twice, not even 3 times. This happened a sufficient number of times for many games to be unplayable.
seriously what the hell man either you got the most bullshit luck ever and are well within the minority of cases or you just can't build a deck.

People seem to think we demand the perfect mana setup... we dont, just a way to prevent this extremes from occuring so often. Randomness is good. but being a digital game is perfectly possible to prevent this game breaking events.
"message too short, please lengthen your message to at least 1 characters"

nrflorencio
06-04-2013, 09:12 AM
I feel like people are acting like mana screw never happens, or isn't frustrating when it does, or that shuffling/mulliganing stops it entirely. That's not true. You can still get screwed (and frustrated when it happens) and flooded.

I still don't think it's so frustrating or such a big problem that the system needs to be scrapped, but if it were, depending on what they changed it to, I also don't think it'd be the end of the world. Yes, I'm a fence sitter, but essentially I don't think the mana system employed is as bad or as good as some people are making it out to be. It's simply fine. On that note, I also don't think WoW's system is perfect - it changes the game dramatically, and significantly reduces randomness.


Agree with almost everything in your post. The only problem is when a screw happens in a final of a competitive tournament i.e., that makes it a big deal.

jai151
06-04-2013, 09:15 AM
Of course, cause if the deck was perfectly optimized the one land i got on the first draw, and zero lands on second draw, and 1 land in third draw would all be fine.

The arguments you are presenting are starting to border on trolling...

No, but because the decks have a very bad card pool and curve, that one land third draw is a death sentence, which is not necessarily true of an optimized deck. I've had plenty of cases where I mulliganed down to 4 or 5 and been fine throughout the game.

All systems have their drawbacks. In trying to artificially defeat mana screw, you introduce completely different and arguably game breaking issues.

And before you accuse anyone of trolling, you may want to take a look at the tone of your last few posts.

houjix
06-04-2013, 09:16 AM
Agree with almost everything in your post. The only problem is when a screw happens in a final of a competitive tournament i.e., that makes it a big deal.

Bad draws can happen in WoW too. Even though every card "can" be used as a resource, you still need to draw the cards that win you the game. Drawing only quests and 4+ cost cards means you'll probably lose to a perfect aggro draw.

jaxsonbateman
06-04-2013, 09:20 AM
Of course, we're also biased to remember the negative aspects of not hitting land drops we want to. Can you recall the excitement you might have felt when, your opponent finishes their turn. You're dead to their next attack - however, if you draw a land, you can play the card that's sitting in your hand. You hold your breath. Draw the card... bullseye. You play the land, grin, smack down your wincon, and shake their hand.

Of course, if you had a system where mana screw couldn't happen you'd have had a better chance of actually pulling that off (and your opponent would have had a better chance of stopping you), but it would have been nowhere near as exciting.

I can only imagine that once you remove random element X from the game, the next issue becomes random element Y causing match losses and frustration.

nrflorencio
06-04-2013, 09:21 AM
Zakedodead:

Well built deck definition doesnt matter if you have 2 mana in 10 turns. As well built deck in this situation i mean only about the amount of resource cards you have in your deck (33% to 40% in most cases). Doesnt matter the cards you have in your deck, if youre only getting 2 mana in 10 turns you wont be able to play (except with very few specially made decks. One of the best i ever made had 14 lands for 49 cards total and worked nicely).


Cant be arsed to find a decklist. The time that happened exactly like that i think the deck has 24 lands for 61 total cards.


I can very well build a deck, better than most, worse than some. i never said this happened always, but it happens enough to be disrupting. Am i unlucky? i doubt it happens only to me.

Deadpool319
06-04-2013, 09:22 AM
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. How is a new version of this thread popping up every morning?

Want to control your mana better and avoid mana flood/drought?

1. Build a better deck
2. Play better
3. See 1 and 2

nrflorencio
06-04-2013, 09:25 AM
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. How is a new version of this thread popping up every morning?

Want to control your mana better and avoid mana flood/drought?

1. Build a better deck
2. Play better
3. See 1 and 2

A perfect deck, perfectly played will still be mana screwed. Thats the main problem of the discussion

And if there is a new thread on this topic coming out every morning it is a sign there is a problem. We are not just a very large group of ppl that got together and said: "hey, lets screw with the Hex forums...". There is a big concern about this problem, and the fact it is a digital game that allows for solutions to the problem just makes it more obvious

houjix
06-04-2013, 09:26 AM
I can only imagine that once you remove random element X from the game, the next issue becomes random element Y causing match losses and frustration.

This. There is always going to be some random element that players will lay the blame on when they lose. There's only a few games that I can think of that completely remove the random element and none of them includes cards that have been shuffled.

Badmoonz
06-04-2013, 09:28 AM
A perfect deck, perfectly played will still be mana screwed. Thats the main problem of the discussion

And it will on average win more often than others. This is a card game, chance is involved. In fact, this variance of mana screw gives the less powerful deck or player a shot at winning a game that otherwise could not be won.

jaxsonbateman
06-04-2013, 09:29 AM
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. How is a new version of this thread popping up every morning?

Want to control your mana better and avoid mana flood/drought?

1. Build a better deck
2. Play better
3. See 1 and 2
I can understand NR getting frustrated with responses like this. Even with those, you can still get mana screwed and flooded.

I feel like we need some stats here so people understand when it comes up. In a 60 card deck with 24 lands, between the play and the draw, about 50% of the time you'll hit your fifth land on turn 5. The kind of deck that will usually run 24 lands might top out with a couple cards at 5 mana, but most are between 1-4, with the vast majority being between 1 and 3. The chance of hitting your 3rd land drop on turn 3 between the play and the draw is around 81%, which is pretty good odds. It still shows you can get mana screwed, but it'll happen less often than it doesn't. I should point out that this is for a deck with no drawing power, just relying on its 1-card-per-turn.

If you're interested in your chance-to-hit-land-drop stats, the site I usually reference is http://www.gatheringmagic.com/the-extra-card-fallacy/ .

I also want to say that while we did witness what looked like mana screw in the RW inspire deck, I'm curious as to what that decklist is. We actually saw, with our own eyes, four 5 drops, so I'm wondering if it had too many expensive cards or too few resources to support its mana base.

nrflorencio
06-04-2013, 09:32 AM
I can understand NR getting frustrated with responses like this. Even with those, you can still get mana screwed and flooded.

I feel like we need some stats here so people understand when it comes up. In a 60 card deck with 24 lands, between the play and the draw, about 50% of the time you'll hit your fifth land on turn 5. The kind of deck that will usually run 24 lands might top out with a couple cards at 5 mana, but most are between 1-4, with the vast majority being between 1 and 3. The chance of hitting your 3rd land drop on turn 3 between the play and the draw is around 81%, which is pretty good odds. It still shows you can get mana screwed, but it'll happen less often than it doesn't. I should point out that this is for a deck with no drawing power, just relying on its 1-card-per-turn.

If you're interested in your chance-to-hit-land-drop stats, the site I usually reference is http://www.gatheringmagic.com/the-extra-card-fallacy/ .

I also want to say that while we did witness what looked like mana screw in the RW inspire deck, I'm curious as to what that decklist is. We actually saw, with our own eyes, four 5 drops, so I'm wondering if it had too many expensive cards or too few resources to support its mana base.


I can understand me being frustated too :)

Nice statistics.

Deadpool319
06-04-2013, 09:32 AM
And it will on average win more often than others. This is a card game, chance is involved. In fact, this variance of mana screw gives the less powerful deck or player a shot at winning a game that otherwise could not be won.

This. +1

Tyrfang
06-04-2013, 09:33 AM
Elimination tournaments are best-of-3 for a reason...

Your opponent more-or-less has the same chance of being mana screwed as you do (unless they're running an acceleration deck, I guess.) For every game you get mana screwed, you'll probably win one because the opponent got mana screwed as well.

For every game you win because your drew the nut card you needed...
For every game you lose because your opponent drew the perfect starting hand...
etc.

Card games have randomness inherent to them.

nrflorencio
06-04-2013, 09:36 AM
And it will on average win more often than others. This is a card game, chance is involved. In fact, this variance of mana screw gives the less powerful deck or player a shot at winning a game that otherwise could not be won.


All true. Variance is good (great even), the problem is the extreme cases.

Tyrfang
06-04-2013, 09:37 AM
Card games would be pretty boring if you got the same starting hand every game.

houjix
06-04-2013, 09:38 AM
All true. Variance is good (great even), the problem is the extreme cases.

By their very nature extreme cases have a low frequency of occurence, they are just more memorable.

MaxtionHero
06-04-2013, 09:56 AM
I am sensitive to this issue but I think mostly because I'm an above average player, not a great one. For me, and potentially many players like me, we're good enough to win a few rounds in a tournment and then feel really cheated when we finally pass our traditional barrier, make it a later round, then get screwed because of something out of our control. It's devestating because there is no guarantee we'll make it that far again.

Truly great players I suspect don't have the same reaction because they easily can envision playing at that high a level again.

No system is perfect and Hex's system does seem better from what I've seen so far. At the same time, I can't help but feel like more could have been done, that something better is still out there. It is what it is though, and I'm looking forward to playing some sealed deck.

theophanya
06-04-2013, 10:42 AM
And it will on average win more often than others. This is a card game, chance is involved. In fact, this variance of mana screw gives the less powerful deck or player a shot at winning a game that otherwise could not be won.

Really? You literally bust your ass to get better and then lose to a complete noob because you're out of luck? And you're OK with that. I'd suggest you go have your fun in Vegas.

There SHOULD be a way (especially in digital) to improve a resource system. Accepting one because it's familiar or somehow became a standard does NOT make it a good one. It doesn't even make it a good enough one.

larryhl
06-04-2013, 10:45 AM
If you're losing to a complete noob 2 out of 3 games then I suggest you start looking for the real noob. Good players can and will mulligan down to 4 or less opening hand if they need to.

jai151
06-04-2013, 10:50 AM
Really? You literally bust your ass to get better and then lose to a complete noob because you're out of luck? And you're OK with that. I'd suggest you go have your fun in Vegas.

There SHOULD be a way (especially in digital) to improve a resource system. Accepting one because it's familiar or somehow became a standard does NOT make it a good one. It doesn't even make it a good enough one.

However, you assume that removing the random element would improve it. A great many of us disagree, and not because it's "familiar" or "standard."

Half the reason I haven't been able to get into many games beyond Magic is because I detested their take on a resource system.

Badgered
06-04-2013, 10:53 AM
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. How is a new version of this thread popping up every morning?

Want to control your mana better and avoid mana flood/drought?

1. Build a better deck
2. Play better
3. See 1 and 2
Fallacy.

I've built top tier decks, piloted tier 1 netdecks in Standard/Modern, and even piloted a tier 1 Vintage deck worth more than my car and still get mana screwed. That's with power cards in it, mind you. Leaving the most important part of a game - the resource system - up to chance is moronic. Just because Magic does it doesn't mean Hex should follow suit. Hell, CZE actually fixed this issue in a fairly elegant way with World of Warcraft's TCG. Why they throw it out in favor of their current system is beyond me.

Randomosity is a part of playing a TCG, but it should not be a determining factor in whether or not you get to play at all. There are games with much better resource systems out there that require you to make strategic choices.

- World of Warcraft TCG
- Scrolls
- Duel of the Champions: Might & Magic
- Android: Netrunner

They should look to those for resource systems rather than the frustrating pile of crap that is Magic's system, which is essentially the threshold system with the exception of getting color locked due to not drawing enough duals/fixers.

jaxsonbateman
06-04-2013, 10:55 AM
Ok ok ok. People on both sides of the fence need to remember, not everyone has to agree with your opinion. Just because you don't agree with someone else's opinion doesn't mean you should make assumptions about why they have that opinion, and vice-versa.

Deadpool319
06-04-2013, 10:56 AM
Really? You literally bust your ass to get better and then lose to a complete noob because you're out of luck? And you're OK with that. I'd suggest you go have your fun in Vegas.

There SHOULD be a way (especially in digital) to improve a resource system. Accepting one because it's familiar or somehow became a standard does NOT make it a good one. It doesn't even make it a good enough one.

You have either not understood or ignored every counter-argument in this thread and the countless others started on this same subject.

1. Any sufficiently advanced TCG rule set will maintain a neutral stance when it comes to deck randomization. ANYTHING that subverts the randomization of your shuffles and draws (that is not explicitly stated on card text and thus a part of the game) can and will be taken advantage of and is a terrible idea.

2. The ONLY attack on the current resource system that I have seen across all of these threads is that "getting mana screwed isn't impossible". It happens. You build a deck to reduce the chance of it happening. You play around it if it does happen. Sometimes you will lose. It. Happens. Have I lost key games in money tournaments due to mana problems? Occasionally. Have I won games in money tournaments because my opponent missed a land drop or drew a land instead of the perfect answer to my deck? More times than I can count. You have to set aside the confirmation bias of "omg I ALWAYS get mana screwed!!!" No you don't. No one does. You simply, by nature of how our memories work, remember much more strongly the really frustrating times when you lost even though everything was going so well and you just never drew that 5th land than all the times your deck worked just fine and you steamrolled your opponent and had yourself a chuckle.

3. No one here has played Hex. Why do we keep seeing threads about "please change the resource system because I played Duels of the Planeswalkers a couple times and man did I draw way too much mana!" How about we wait until the game comes out and actually test the resource system before demanding that they reprogram 2 years worth of development and re-balance 650 cards to accommodate some phantom algorithm that makes sure I always have my perfect land draws?

larryhl
06-04-2013, 10:57 AM
Ok...I hate people who expect to win just because they have a top tier deck. Seriously, the top tier decklists are out there for everyone to see for a reason. Those who don't have the skill and/or knowledge of the deck to back it up still won't pilot that deck to a top 8 PTQ or GP (in case of Magic).

Also, I've said it before, pro players who have a win percentage of 70% are considered godly. 60% is the norm for pros.

ForgedSol
06-04-2013, 10:59 AM
A perfect deck, perfectly played will still be mana screwed. Thats the main problem of the discussion

And if there is a new thread on this topic coming out every morning it is a sign there is a problem. We are not just a very large group of ppl that got together and said: "hey, lets screw with the Hex forums...". There is a big concern about this problem, and the fact it is a digital game that allows for solutions to the problem just makes it more obvious

I agree with this, all the arguments talking about ways to minimize mana screw will not keep this core part of mana screw out of the game. It will always be there.

But like it has already been said, artificially altering the randomness of the game will make new players lose more against experienced players because they don't know what's going on. You know what's worse than losing to luck? Losing to an artificial system that everyone is playing around that you don't even know exists. They're not only going to feel unlucky, similar to how losing to mana screw makes you feel, but they will actually be right that they are losing more often than than should based on random luck.

The solution you've presented is not a solution, and will only make new players feel that they are losing to bad luck even more than a pure random system, because of a rule that they don't is there. Altering the randomness will make things worse for new players and hurt the health of the game.

Deadpool319
06-04-2013, 11:01 AM
Fallacy.

I've built top tier decks, piloted tier 1 netdecks in Standard/Modern, and even piloted a tier 1 Vintage deck worth more than my car and still get mana screwed. That's with power cards in it, mind you. Leaving the most important part of a game - the resource system - up to chance is moronic. Just because Magic does it doesn't mean Hex should follow suit. Hell, CZE actually fixed this issue in a fairly elegant way with World of Warcraft's TCG. Why they throw it out in favor of their current system is beyond me.

Randomosity is a part of playing a TCG, but it should not be a determining factor in whether or not you get to play at all. There are games with much better resource systems out there that require you to make strategic choices.

- World of Warcraft TCG
- Scrolls
- Duel of the Champions: Might & Magic
- Android: Netrunner

They should look to those for resource systems rather than the frustrating pile of crap that is Magic's system, which is essentially the threshold system with the exception of getting color locked due to not drawing enough duals/fixers.

WoW TCGs resource system fixes nothing. Cory has stated as much in interviews.

I don't understand, maybe someone can help me, the mentality here of "I should always be able to play the cards I want to play all the time regardless of resource costs." It sounds an awful like the arguments people make against any and all "control" cards because it is "unfun" to not be able to just do whatever you want whenever you want without your opponent having a chance to stop you...

DeusPhasmatis
06-04-2013, 11:06 AM
And isnt amazing that even when you do, you still get mana screwed sometimes, albeit less often...

No, that's not amazing. That's predictable. And frustrating experiences, while unpleasant, are important to the welfare of the game (gambling is addictive/compelling because of both the failures and the successes).

Resource screw is a side effect of two components, both of which on their own are valuable. The value of these things, against the drawback of mana screw, are not trivial to link to the future success or failure of the game.

The first cause is randomness. Randomness is a fundamental aspect of TCGs. There are solutions to mana screw from randomness that don't remove randomness (but do reduce it in particular ways). However, these involve counter-intuitive algorithms that are especially confusing for new players. The game designers are probably in favor (try asking them) of keeping the random component completely straightforward: any single card has the same chance of being the next card you draw.

The second cause is the resource system itself. The decision to use an MtG style resource system, as opposed to WoWTCG or VS System, has several interesting effects. One is that it fundamentally alters tempo, since curves are no longer reliable. It can make games go back-and-forth, as players stall just below the cost of some important card, then draw a resource and take control of the game, until their opponent top decks a response (or maybe they have one in hand but need to draw a resource to play it). It changes the strategy of building the deck, from resource-light decks with alternate resource sources, to tempo decks with middling resources but lots of inexpensive cards, to slow decks with high resource counts and expensive yet efficient cards.

This resource system also allows interaction with it while also allowing significant power advantages to higher cost cards. This is because it assumes resource asymmetry; VS System, for example, has a steep power curve and almost no resource interaction, because getting even a single turn ahead in resources would be a game-deciding advantage. The alternative would be to have much slower power increases as cost goes up, but that diminishes the value of curve and resource acceleration itself.

Deadpool319
06-04-2013, 11:10 AM
No, that's not amazing. That's predictable. And frustrating experiences, while unpleasant, are important to the welfare of the game (gambling is addictive/compelling because of both the failures and the successes).

Resource screw is a side effect of two components, both of which on their own are valuable. The value of these things, against the drawback of mana screw, are not trivial to link to the future success or failure of the game.

The first cause is randomness. Randomness is a fundamental aspect of TCGs. There are solutions to mana screw from randomness that don't remove randomness (but do reduce it in particular ways). However, these involve counter-intuitive algorithms that are especially confusing for new players. The game designers are probably in favor (try asking them) of keeping the random component completely straightforward: any single card has the same chance of being the next card you draw.

The second cause is the resource system itself. The decision to use an MtG style resource system, as opposed to WoWTCG or VS System, has several interesting effects. One is that it fundamentally alters tempo, since curves are no longer reliable. It can make games go back-and-forth, as players stall just below the cost of some important card, then draw a resource and take control of the game, until their opponent top decks a response (or maybe they have one in hand but need to draw a resource to play it). It changes the strategy of building the deck, from resource-light decks with alternate resource sources, to tempo decks with middling resources but lots of inexpensive cards, to slow decks with high resource counts and expensive yet efficient cards. It allows interaction with the resource system and significant power advantages to higher cost cards because it assumes resource asymmetry; VS System, for example, has a steep power curve and almost no resource interaction (because getting even a single turn ahead in resources would be a game-deciding advantage). The alternative would be to have much slower power increases as cost goes up, but that diminishes the value of curve and resource acceleration itself.

This guy gets it.

Badgered
06-04-2013, 11:19 AM
WoW TCGs resource system fixes nothing. Cory has stated as much in interviews.

I don't understand, maybe someone can help me, the mentality here of "I should always be able to play the cards I want to play all the time regardless of resource costs."

WoW's resource system allows me to play cards even if I don't draw quests (lands). It fixes the issue of resource screw, which is what we're talking about here. Cory must have been referring to something else.

You are attacking a straw man. I don't want to play what I want regardless of resource costs, I want to be able to play the damn game by not having to hope that the shuffler gives me enough of my 25-27 lands/resources/whatever to actually be able to do something. There is a huge difference there.

In WoW, I can set any card face-down as a resource. This ensures that even if I don't draw my quests, I'm not entirely locked out of the game. I am probably sacrificing good allies or spells in order to do so, but at least I can play the game, even if I'm having to disrupt my strategy a bit to do so.

In DotC:M&M, I choose one of three different resources each turn to level up. The order in which you do this varies by your build, your chosen champion, and to an extent what you draw. Nobody is ever locked out of the game due to not drawing resources.

In Scrolls, I choose one card from my hand to either turn into a resource or discard to draw two more cards. This gives me a lot to think about and will also vary depending on what my deck's strategy is. Nobody is ever locked out of the game.

In Magic (and Hex), I can sit on my hand while my opponent essentially plays a solitaire game, or maybe they get screwed too and we just sit there and pitch cards into the graveyard until one of us draws enough resources to do something. You can have a well-built control deck with 27 lands, cantrips out the wazoo, and whatever else you want and still get mana screwed or flooded. This is something that doesn't happen in other TCGs and is part of the reason I quit Magic.


It sounds an awful like the arguments people make against any and all "control" cards because it is "unfun" to not be able to just do whatever you want whenever you want without your opponent having a chance to stop you...

There is a significant difference between the game not allowing me to play anything (resource screw) and my opponent playing a control deck well. I'm at least able to play the game, even if my opponent is giving me issues. If my opponent has to rely on me getting resource screwed to win, that's a whole 'nother issue.

In closing, I'm fine with losing because I couldn't dig for an answer to an opponent's threat, or I didn't quite curve out how I wanted to, or I just played clumsily. I am not okay with losing because the RNG gods deemed me unworthy of drawing resources, locking me out of the game entirely.

Deadpool319
06-04-2013, 11:24 AM
I am not okay with losing because the RNG gods deemed me unworthy of drawing resources, locking me out of the game entirely.

I'm... sorry? All of the games you mention that have a "better" resource system are out there and still available for play. None of them have reached the competitive level that MTG has, and that Hex hopes to achieve. I can't prove causation in that regard, but I believe that it is part of it.

jai151
06-04-2013, 11:27 AM
Having a guaranteed resource curve fundamentally alters the game, no matter how it is implemented. The point which neither side of this argument will get past is that those who like the system as is do not want that fundamental change. What you see as improving, we see as destroying.

We do not want that bit of randomness nor the thought that must go into deck construction to mitigate it removed because it allows for design space and decisions that we find interesting.

ForgedSol
06-04-2013, 11:34 AM
I'm not even arguing against fundamentally changing the game. I'm arguing against creating a poor experience for new players because they won't understand what's going on, and so will attribute their losses even more to bad luck more often than people complain about mana screw, and they will be right that their losses are unnatural.

larryhl
06-04-2013, 11:37 AM
See, new players will understand losing due to bad draws or mana screw/flood, and experienced players can help them improve their decks to mitigate those problems. When you tell someone they're losing because they're not taking advantage of a system that has been put into place, their first reaction will be...huh?

theophanya
06-04-2013, 11:39 AM
Having a guaranteed resource curve fundamentally alters the game, no matter how it is implemented. The point which neither side of this argument will get past is that those who like the system as is do not want that fundamental change. What you see as improving, we see as destroying.

We do not want that bit of randomness nor the thought that must go into deck construction to mitigate it removed because it allows for design space and decisions that we find interesting.

That kind of sums it all up. I just wish (as a WOWTCG player and mana screw/flood hater) I had a game like HEX play more like WOW than MTG. I have kind of accepted that as I've backed HEX up, but my preference still bugs me when I play. That's all.

Badgered
06-04-2013, 11:40 AM
I'm... sorry? All of the games you mention that have a "better" resource system are out there and still available for play. None of them have reached the competitive level that MTG has, and that Hex hopes to achieve. I can't prove causation in that regard, but I believe that it is part of it.

Indeed they are! I would expect CZE to learn from other people's mistakes rather than repeat them. This is why I brought those other games up to begin with; they fix what Magic broke.

None of those games are nearly as old as Magic is. The WoW TCG is by far the oldest on that list and it does have a thriving competitive and casual scene, though it is likely not as large as Magic's. Scrolls is brand new and is technically still in beta, but I do think it will take off and have some pretty decent success. DotC:M&M is also fairly new, is run by Ubisoft, and has outrageous pricing in their shop. I don't expect that one to do very well but it does have great mechanics IMO.

One thing Magic has that those other three games don't have (excluding a screw-free resource system) is two decades of investment in cards, time, money, and attachment. It took me a long time to finally sell off my cards because I was attached to them and had a lot of memories and good times wrapped up in that cardboard. Many people won't jump ship simply due to that. I don't think that the potential of losing games entirely due to chance is why Magic is still so popular.


Having a guaranteed resource curve fundamentally alters the game, no matter how it is implemented. The point which neither side of this argument will get past is that those who like the system as is do not want that fundamental change. What you see as improving, we see as destroying.

We do not want that bit of randomness nor the thought that must go into deck construction to mitigate it removed because it allows for design space and decisions that we find interesting.

It definitely changes the game. No doubt about that. The power level of cards shift and cards with higher costs become playable with guaranteed resources. However, I don't believe it requires any more thought to build a deck while taking the shuffler into consideration than it does building a deck with set resources in mind. If anything, it's different types of thought, except that in one scenario no amount of good building and planning can save you from the wrath of the RNG gods. You will get screwed out of time, money, or both, at one point or another simply due to a dose of bad luck.

Deadpool319
06-04-2013, 11:44 AM
Indeed they are! I would expect CZE to learn from other people's mistakes rather than repeat them. This is why I brought those other games up to begin with; they fix what Magic broke.

What you, the vocal minority, call broken, 90% of us think works just fine. Something isn't broken just because you don't like it.

jai151
06-04-2013, 11:49 AM
It definitely changes the game. No doubt about that. The power level of cards shift and cards with higher costs become playable with guaranteed resources. However, I don't believe it requires any more thought to build a deck while taking the shuffler into consideration than it does building a deck with set resources in mind. If anything, it's different types of thought, except that in one scenario no amount of good building and planning can save you from the wrath of the RNG gods. You will get screwed out of time, money, or both, at one point or another simply due to a dose of bad luck.

And the difference is I don't see that as a bad thing.

On the other hand, I played DoC and quickly got bored with it (of course the horrible deckbuilder certainly didn't help things), and the jury is still out on Scrolls. The WoW TCG system I just plain didn't like.

And that's what I'm trying to get at. You're calling the Magic system broken when I feel it's the best system I've played to date. There is a basic difference of opinion there that goes down to the deepest core of the issue. Now I'm sure not everyone falls to the extremes, but that's a pretty insurmountable difference of opinion there.

Omniloathe
06-04-2013, 11:49 AM
WoW's resource system allows me to play cards even if I don't draw quests (lands). It fixes the issue of resource screw, which is what we're talking about here. Cory must have been referring to something else.



You know what else will solve this problem? Playing with all cards face up. Instead of drawing the top card of your lib, just select one from the lib at the beginning of the turn. No Rng at all.

Does it screw up the gameplay? Yes. Does it make it a worse game? Absolutely.

But hey, not RNG. So everything is worth it!

If you're going to just ignore everything else but mana screw specifically, then we have nothing to discuss. Mana screw is a problem cause by a game mechanism which adds benefits in other ways. Its a negative element by itself, but the game mechanism which its a symptom of is a net benefit.

You lose that entire net benefit if you choose to eliminate mana screw. the question is whether its worth it. Looking at mana screw by itself makes no sense.


In closing, I'm fine with losing because I couldn't dig for an answer to an opponent's threat, or I didn't quite curve out how I wanted to, or I just played clumsily. I am not okay with losing because the RNG gods deemed me unworthy of drawing resources, locking me out of the game entirely.

but you're perfectly fine when the RNG gods decide you dont get to drawn creature or spell cards you need?

how is that different from RNG's influence on land?

the whole point of deck construction is to play the best you can given the influence of rng and imperfect information.

Being able to react to RNG is tactical gameplay. Its different from strategy gameplay where you make plans based on assumed/known conditions.

Fireblast
06-04-2013, 11:50 AM
How can you say WOWTCG is better?
Not having anything below 3 drop on the draw vs aggro decks that consistently kill on turn 5 is worse than being able to mull to 4 to get lands and answers...

Also, MtG is best of 3; getting 2 "mana screws" during the same match is REAL bad luck or REALLY bad mulligan/deckbuilding skill (which happens more often).

~

scyphrre
06-04-2013, 11:53 AM
OP, how do you rationalize what professional poker players do? Would you say their profession is mostly luck or mostly skill? Having studied what they do I'd say it's mostly skill, with a little luck. How is MtG/Hex any different?

nrflorencio
06-04-2013, 11:54 AM
What you, the vocal minority, call broken, 90% of us think works just fine. Something isn't broken just because you don't like it.


Dont delude yourself into thinking you are the majority. For some reason this is the most discussed issue in this forums.

You are the vocal minority

jai151
06-04-2013, 11:57 AM
Dont delude yourself into thinking you are the majority. For some reason this is the most discussed issue in this forums.

You are the vocal minority

Everyone thinks everyone else thinks just like they do. Also, no, this is not the most discussed topic in the forums, just the flavor of the week.

Genocidal
06-04-2013, 11:57 AM
Dont delude yourself into thinking you are the majority. For some reason this is the most discussed issue in this forums.

You are the vocal minority

Please provide data if you're going to make outlandish claims.

DeusPhasmatis
06-04-2013, 11:58 AM
Dont delude yourself into thinking you are the majority. For some reason this is the most discussed issue in this forums.

You are the vocal minority

The majority of the backers don't post on the forums, and most of them wouldn't have backed at all if they felt that the resource system crippled the game.

Deadpool319
06-04-2013, 11:59 AM
Dont delude yourself into thinking you are the majority. For some reason this is the most discussed issue in this forums.

You are the vocal minority

People are much quicker to whine about mana problems then start a thread titled "The mana system looks stable!" Your argument is invalid.

nrflorencio
06-04-2013, 12:01 PM
Last 4 posts before this, provide data to support your claims or they are invalid... see what i did there?

Oh, forgot to mention outlandish

ForgedSol
06-04-2013, 12:01 PM
Dont delude yourself into thinking you are the majority. For some reason this is the most discussed issue in this forums.

You are the vocal minority

This is just not true. This is a forum of Hex backers. That means these are all people that are paying to play the game, which more than likely means that the vast majority of people range from tolerating to being happy with the system.

Daer
06-04-2013, 12:03 PM
The mana system looks fine.

jai151
06-04-2013, 12:04 PM
Last 4 posts before this, provide data to support your claims or they are invalid... see what i did there?

Oh, forgot to mention outlandish

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False-consensus_effect

Also, a quick search of the forums will bring back far more topics containing pro player than mana screw.

Your turn.

Deadpool319
06-04-2013, 12:05 PM
The mana system looks fine.

This guy. I like this guy.

nrflorencio
06-04-2013, 12:06 PM
i dont see the data. your turn.

also, the claim im interested in is the 90% of players thinking mana system is fine.

nrflorencio
06-04-2013, 12:08 PM
this is fun

LargoLaGrande
06-04-2013, 12:09 PM
i dont see the data. your turn.

also, the claim im interested in is the 90% of players thinking mana system is fine.

The null hypothesis would be that people who backed hex are ok with the mana system. Without further evidence you cannot assume that anyone is upset with it beyond those who have vocalized their problems on the forums. There are hardly over 1,000 people who have posted on the forums wishing for a different mana system; therefore you must conclude that over 90% of the backers are ok with the mana system.

Deadpool319
06-04-2013, 12:09 PM
i dont see the data. your turn.

also, the claim im interested in is the 90% of players thinking mana system is fine.

Almost 13k backers on KS. A dozen or so people on the Hex boards complaining about the mana system and/or agreeing with it should be changed.

You're right, more like 99.99%

jai151
06-04-2013, 12:10 PM
i dont see the data. your turn.

also, the claim im interested in is the 90% of players thinking mana system is fine.

I provided backup of every point I made. If you don't see that, it's because you stuck your fingers in your ears and went "lalalalaalala I can't hear you!"

Therefore, as I answered your challenge, the impetus is on you to provide backup for your claim that those who like the system are the minority.

Of course, I don't expect to ever see it (or should say I expect to see some other ridiculous comment about insufficient data) as you've quite clearly shown your tactics in past discussions.

Hatts
06-04-2013, 12:11 PM
Dont delude yourself into thinking you are the majority. For some reason this is the most discussed issue in this forums.

You are the vocal minority

I like the current system and prefer it to the WoW TCG style.

Gwaer
06-04-2013, 12:13 PM
I prefer this resource system to wowtcg, both of which I have played.

houjix
06-04-2013, 12:15 PM
I like the WoW TCG style better. I'm ok with Magic's. This is at least an improvement somewhat over Magic. Each has their problems and this one will too, but it is what it is.

KnowingCrow
06-04-2013, 12:39 PM
Dont delude yourself into thinking you are the majority. For some reason this is the most discussed issue in this forums.

You are the vocal minority

Don't kid yourself.

Tyrfang
06-04-2013, 12:42 PM
I prefer Hex's current resource system.

origosis
06-04-2013, 01:27 PM
I like both systems just fine. And either way. If they did have an automatic mana system in place, then the cards would be adjusted to fit that style.

Not only that but it brings in bonuses and detriments to deck building. Also even though it creates a chance for you to have a bad mana streak, it also creates a chance for your opponent to have a bad streak. So it is balanced out.

zakedodead
06-04-2013, 01:40 PM
I think that for every card you play a coin should be flipped to see if you have enough mana, if it comes up heads the card is played, if it comes up tails flip again.

I FIXED MANA SCREW

jaxsonbateman
06-04-2013, 01:42 PM
I think that for every card you play a coin should be flipped to see if you have enough mana, if it comes up heads the card is played, if it comes up tails flip again.

I FIXED MANA SCREW
Your coin flip idea reminded me of this: http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=73955

jai151
06-04-2013, 01:47 PM
Your coin flip idea reminded me of this: http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=73955

Comboed with http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=48923

Arbiter
06-04-2013, 02:13 PM
In closing, I'm fine with losing because I couldn't dig for an answer to an opponent's threat, or I didn't quite curve out how I wanted to, or I just played clumsily. I am not okay with losing because the RNG gods deemed me unworthy of drawing resources, locking me out of the game entirely.

Why is dying to not drawing one of your 12 creature takedowns in 10 turns fine? Why is losing a game to missing a drop fine? These are both RNG at work, causing you to lose the game. It is exactly the same thing as not drawing a resource in time.

Fireblast
06-04-2013, 02:30 PM
Because when you play only 5+ drops it's easy to say "I lost to mana screw as I never drew my 6th land (died 8th turn!)"

~

Badgered
06-04-2013, 03:19 PM
Why is dying to not drawing one of your 12 creature takedowns in 10 turns fine? Why is losing a game to missing a drop fine? These are both RNG at work, causing you to lose the game. It is exactly the same thing as not drawing a resource in time.

Because I could still play the game. I could still play creatures, cast spells, and interact with my opponent. I wasn't sitting there while he played solitaire for several turns. This is something that is unique to Magic (and Hex currently) that other games have fixed.

As I said, I'm fine with randomization as long as it doesn't completely lock you out of a game. Even the most well built decks get screwed which is an auto loss in competitive environments. This is an inherent flaw in the design of the game as it occasionally prevents players from even participating.

What we are all discussing is essentially how much randomization we want in the game. I am fine with random draws as long as the resource system can't screw you and keep you from participating. Some of you are fine with getting screwed as well, which I don't understand.

Win or lose I want it to be because of how well people played and how well their decks are built, not because they got mana screwed even with properly built decks.

Fireblast
06-04-2013, 03:25 PM
Can you define an example where you CANNOT play any card?

~

Gwaer
06-04-2013, 03:27 PM
Can you define an example where you CANNOT play any card?

~
When your deck consists of 2x1 drop, 2x2 drop 2x3 drop 2x4 drop, 12x5 drop, and 12x6 drops, 7 mana, and the rest are instants.

Fireblast
06-04-2013, 03:29 PM
When your deck consists of 2x1 drop, 2x2 drop 2x3 drop 2x4 drop, 12x5 drop, and 12x6 drops, 7 mana, and the rest are instants.

That's what I thought, can we agree the issue comes from the deck design and not the resource system then? :)

All the games I've lost to "mana screw" are games I could have played differently/better in retrospect.
(I mostly play Esper in Legacy, and usually I didn't fetch the right land/at the right time, kept Jace in hand instead of shipping them back in the deck with Brainstorms etc...)

~

hacky
06-04-2013, 03:29 PM
When your deck consists of 2x1 drop, 2x2 drop 2x3 drop 2x4 drop, 12x5 drop, and 12x6 drops, 7 mana, and the rest are instants.

This is almost like complaining that a deck with zero resources can't do anything...

Gwaer
06-04-2013, 03:33 PM
This is almost like complaining that a deck with zero resources can't do anything...
...Welcome to the joke?

Badgered
06-04-2013, 03:59 PM
Can you define an example where you CANNOT play any card?

~

2011, 27 lands in a blue white control deck. Mull to three before I see a land. Get crushed by Jund on one mana with two Wall of Omens in my hand and along with Negate and other low cost goodies. That's one example I remember quite vividly because it was at states.

This has happened with all sorts of well built decks in all kinds of formats and it will happen to people here unless the resource system is changed.

Leaving your ability to play cards up to chance is not good game design. Building a deck with nothing but for, five, and six drop critters is bad deck building. Do not confuse the two or assume that anyone who has ever been screwed builds bad decks.

I have never encountered being locked out of playing the game in any card game other than Magic. It does happen and it is a problem for hard core players and casual players alike.

Diesbudt
06-04-2013, 04:02 PM
All mana screw is, is an easy to see RNG fail. Even if the resource system was to be changed (it will not be, too late in production) the same level of RNG will be present. The only difference is, the illusion that you have some control on said RNG. So it looks better on paper and in ones mind when using the WOWTCG resource system. But overall the RNG is the same, just easier to recognize it when there is mana screw rng, and not XYZ cards RNG.

I have had worse RNG issues with WoWTCG than MTG in my own experiences. Though that is subjective.

Badgered
06-04-2013, 05:10 PM
All mana screw is, is an easy to see RNG fail. Even if the resource system was to be changed (it will not be, too late in production) the same level of RNG will be present. The only difference is, the illusion that you have some control on said RNG. So it looks better on paper and in ones mind when using the WOWTCG resource system. But overall the RNG is the same, just easier to recognize it when there is mana screw rng, and not XYZ cards RNG.

I have had worse RNG issues with WoWTCG than MTG in my own experiences. Though that is subjective.

With regards to actually being able to play resources (and fund playing cards) you are incorrect. In the WoW TCG you do not have the illusion of control over your resources; you actually have control over them. The same applies to Scrolls as well as DotC:M&M. You can choose to drop one resource every turn if you want to (or if your deck is designed around being able to do that) while in Magic/Hex I can only drop one if I happen to draw one. The barrier to being able to actually play is immediately gone.

What I draw after I am able to play is another story, and one that is left to the RNG, otherwise we'd be playing a form of chess with cards. Losing a back-and-forth match because I didn't draw into a Murder when I needed one is much less frustrating than losing because I didn't draw any/more than one resource after mulliganing my hand away while my opponent flogged me to death.

cronedog
06-04-2013, 05:22 PM
I think Hex will have less of a mana issue than Magic. Let's say the normal magic deck has 20 out of 60 cards as lands (this is just an example, I've not played magic in years). In Hex you could run 25 lands. This would make mana screw super rare, and mana flood is less of an issue since you could always use the extra lands to charge your hero. If you wanted to make sure you were never low on mana, run 30 lands, and pack some extra card draw into your deck to prevent being too far behind with regard to card advantage.

stiii
06-04-2013, 05:38 PM
All mana screw is, is an easy to see RNG fail. Even if the resource system was to be changed (it will not be, too late in production) the same level of RNG will be present. The only difference is, the illusion that you have some control on said RNG. So it looks better on paper and in ones mind when using the WOWTCG resource system. But overall the RNG is the same, just easier to recognize it when there is mana screw rng, and not XYZ cards RNG.

I have had worse RNG issues with WoWTCG than MTG in my own experiences. Though that is subjective.

If this was true then everyone would have a 50% win rate.

You obviously have some control over the RNG.

MugenMusou
06-04-2013, 05:55 PM
Hi guys. I love your idea (i'm a dungeon crawler backer), but coming from WOW TCG, i really tought TCG had solved the mana screw problem in a lot of different ways. (Also other competitors like Order & Chaos Duels, have found their way around).

Sorry for my criticism, but it seems we are 20 years back in time in the TCG game design.
Maybe i'm talking too early but looking at the stream i can see that it is a problem.
http://it.twitch.tv/hextcg/b/404773267

I don't know if you have a way to solve this, but despite all the customization it seems to me that this is a major issue. Mana screw, simply is not fun at all. Also, everyone i talked about the game pointed at Mana screw as the main flaw.

It would be a really good idea if you can find a way to mitigate this. As it is right now it's the only doubt i have about the game. I'm also interested about the reason of your choice.

Thanks in advance to anyone that is going to answer.

I was on your side until a few days ago. I've played Magic, I've played Carte which has mana system like WOW TCG, I've played Shadow Era which is complete sacrifice system, and Infinity Wars which is automatic build up resources.

I hate mana screw or mana flood but having said that it makes the game challenging on its own. I personally don't like the argument of people saying "oh but this allows beginner to win expert." So my thought process isn't that.

If you have a high resource cards that you want to play, you have to make a deck to allow that. You have to include enough resources, ability to have resource boost, perhaps draw engine etc.

Alternatively, if you had a automatic resource system, you will never get mana screw but your plan be much different and somewhat simplier. You know you will get there by turn X for sure, so just add cards so you can survive early turns.

Now HEX does also have potential system to alleviate the mana screw. First of all, you have to make your deck with probability in your favor. If not, that's actually our own problem not the game. Once you make a deck with probablitliy on our favor, then perhaps you can have champion with drawing card to further increase the chance you draw resource. And may be they will even make a champion that provide resource search as its power.

Having said all this, it would also be cool if Cryptozoic make a special casual format where you can have WoW like resource system.

saropatzi
06-04-2013, 05:58 PM
I read the whole thread trying to figure out other people opinion.

I see that the people that are ok with the mana screw use these arguments:

- you have mana screw problems only if you can't deckbuild very well
This is not true 'cause statistically speaking, mana screw happens. Also this imply that many new players should have mana screw problems. Not a great thing if the choice of this resource system was for them.

- "Other resource systems have other flaws, that you can compare with mana screw" and "mana screw is the same as not drawing the card you want"
I disagree, especially about the second sentence, because mana screw is something that prevents you from playing and interacting. It also happens at the very start of the game putting yourself out of the game before you can even start. It is not a matter of winning or losing it's a matter of playing and not playing.

- the game is in a far advanced state they can't change resource system right now
True. But i think that there are many other ways to avoid the frustration that comes with mana screw, both from rules, and card design. Given the fact that the game is still not out, maybe Cryptozoic can work to mitigate this problem.

A starting hand with at least 2 or 3 lands may be a good compromise, if the design of the game allows it. A good number of cards that generate resources may be another one. I think there is room for improvement and reasonable advices may be taken into consideraton.

The fact that this thread went so far seems to me that a good number of people consider this a flaw of the game.
Personally I'm investing in Hex an i would be really disappointed if another big company would start another game of this kind ,stealing the best ideas and exploiting this macro-weakness of Hex resulting in a better product.

BohemianStalker
06-04-2013, 06:00 PM
More people who dont get it and want to change the system just for the sake of their newbiness. Please.

saropatzi
06-04-2013, 06:18 PM
I was on your side until a few days ago. I've played Magic, I've played Carte which has mana system like WOW TCG, I've played Shadow Era which is complete sacrifice system, and Infinity Wars which is automatic build up resources.

I hate mana screw or mana flood but having said that it makes the game challenging on its own. I personally don't like the argument of people saying "oh but this allows beginner to win expert." So my thought process isn't that.

If you have a high resource cards that you want to play, you have to make a deck to allow that. You have to include enough resources, ability to have resource boost, perhaps draw engine etc.

Alternatively, if you had a automatic resource system, you will never get mana screw but your plan be much different and somewhat simplier. You know you will get there by turn X for sure, so just add cards so you can survive early turns.

Now HEX does also have potential system to alleviate the mana screw. First of all, you have to make your deck with probability in your favor. If not, that's actually our own problem not the game. Once you make a deck with probablitliy on our favor, then perhaps you can have champion with drawing card to further increase the chance you draw resource. And may be they will even make a champion that provide resource search as its power.

Having said all this, it would also be cool if Cryptozoic make a special casual format where you can have WoW like resource system.

Thanks for your reply. I think we play the same games (i played wow for a long time also)
If i had a choice WoW resource system is so much funnier that i would have no doubt, but realistically speaking i don't know if it would be possible to change so drastically the game in such a shrt time and also don't think Cryptozoic has the will to do this.

I have to disagree also about the simplier plan and turn X. It all depends on strategy and if you are willing to put down a resource every turn. Sometimes you can't put a resource down cause u need the card. Also you have less dead draws and more space in the deck to vary your strategy. But we are talking about differnt games

I only hope that the design can mitigate the mana screw problem especially at the start of the game and maybe evolve it in a second moment

saropatzi
06-04-2013, 06:25 PM
More people who dont get it and want to change the system just for the sake of their newbiness. Please.
I really don't like your trolling attempt.

Anyway if you read what other people say you may realize that the point is how to avoid/mitigate Mana Screw.
Because mana screw isn't something that only let you lose the game, but also something that prevents you from playing thus having fun.
After seeing some streamed matches i realized that the problem is there, and having invested in this game i want to address it properly. Think about me next time you get zero resources ;)

cronedog
06-04-2013, 06:27 PM
More people who dont get it and want to change the system just for the sake of their newbiness. Please.

Thank you very much for your well thought out and carefully reasoned arguments.


On a more constructive note: Why do so many assume that no major changes can occur to the game? They have months before beta launches. Most sets are going to come out on a 4 month cycle, so couldn't they almost make set 1 from scratch starting now? It is better to get the system right before the game launches.

Daer
06-04-2013, 06:36 PM
Thank you very much for your well thought out and carefully reasoned arguments.


On a more constructive note: Why do so many assume that no major changes can occur to the game? They have months before beta launches. Most sets are going to come out on a 4 month cycle, so couldn't they almost make set 1 from scratch starting now? It is better to get the system right before the game launches.

They don't start from scratch every 4 months. Set 2 is already in draftable form. In one of the early videos they said they had already done some work on Sets 3 and 4 as well.

saropatzi
06-04-2013, 06:39 PM
The majority of the backers don't post on the forums, and most of them wouldn't have backed at all if they felt that the resource system crippled the game.

While i think that the resource system should be improved, i see also that this game has a lot of potential, mainly for the innovative Pve raid and for being the first MMOTCG. So yes every backer tought this was tolerable. At the same time it seems for many people that the resource system is a major flaw. We are going to wait and see, hoping that cryptozoic will improve this

IndigoShade
06-04-2013, 06:45 PM
Well, just like I posted in another thread about the same exact topic:

The youtube video Fireblast linked a week or 2 back about Richard Garfield talking about skill vs luck (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSg408i-eKw) might be a pretty good listen for you guys complaining about mana screw. Particularly the idea that a degree of randomness opens the game to new and/or less skilled players to win occasionally even against more skilled opponents which makes them enjoy playing the game more and makes for a healthier playerbase.

&

Cory recently talked about it in this podcast (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamepo...ics-cory-jones) 35 minutes in. Long story short there's pros and cons to any resource system and they went with the one they felt was best for the game.

saropatzi
06-04-2013, 06:54 PM
WoW TCGs resource system fixes nothing. Cory has stated as much in interviews.

I don't understand, maybe someone can help me, the mentality here of "I should always be able to play the cards I want to play all the time regardless of resource costs." It sounds an awful like the arguments people make against any and all "control" cards because it is "unfun" to not be able to just do whatever you want whenever you want without your opponent having a chance to stop you...

I think you got it wrong. There is no mentality like that. It' s only that mana screw sucks. There are tons of solutions to solve the problem, but Hex sticks with an old system. Mtg has 20 years or more, it's only natural that card games (and resource system ) evolved beyond Magic. Also i see this extreme similarity to Magic like a potential threat. What if MTG decides to do something like Hex with his brand?

stiii
06-04-2013, 06:58 PM
More people who dont get it and want to change the system just for the sake of their newbiness. Please.

Clearly people who disagree with you are newbs no other possible reason. As you brought it up what are your credentials for not being a noob, how many pro tours have you played on?

Badgered
06-04-2013, 07:01 PM
Well, just like I posted in another thread about the same exact topic:

The youtube video Fireblast linked a week or 2 back about Richard Garfield talking about skill vs luck (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSg408i-eKw) might be a pretty good listen for you guys complaining about mana screw. Particularly the idea that a degree of randomness opens the game to new and/or less skilled players to win occasionally even against more skilled opponents which makes them enjoy playing the game more and makes for a healthier playerbase.

The bolded statement is horse shit. I can't believe anyone would say that and mean it. Winning because your opponent got mana screwed is a hollow victory at best, even when there's money and/or packs on the line. I would imagine that the inverse--getting mana screwed your first or second game--would make you more likely to quit on the spot when you realize that you can lose a game due to nothing more than pure dumb luck.


Cory recently talked about it in this podcast (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamepo...ics-cory-jones) 35 minutes in. Long story short there's pros and cons to any resource system and they went with the one they felt was best for the game.

I don't understand how allowing people to randomly automatically lose due to being locked out of the game is "best for the game." I'd imagine that what's best for the game is ensuring people could actually play the game rather than watch their opponent essentially play solitaire. I'd really like it if he had an open debate with people about this.

IndigoShade
06-04-2013, 07:07 PM
The guy that said that "hose shit" was the creator of Magic the Gathering. Maybe listen to wtf the man has to say before calling it bs?

Actually I'll even summarize it for you: Human nature is to blame losing on bad luck and winning on skill. When bad players win, even if it was because the other player got screwed by bad luck, the bad player feels good and keeps playing the game.

The good player blames the loss on bad luck, and continues to win more often than lose, and keeps playing the game.

Badgered
06-04-2013, 07:09 PM
The guy that said that "hose shit" was the creator of Magic the Gathering. Maybe listen to wtf the man has to say before calling it bs?

I am well aware of who Richard Garfield is, but I don't care if the Space Pope said such an asinine thing. It doesn't make it any less asinine. The emperor has no clothes if that's how he feels about it.

stiii
06-04-2013, 07:10 PM
The null hypothesis would be that people who backed hex are ok with the mana system. Without further evidence you cannot assume that anyone is upset with it beyond those who have vocalized their problems on the forums. There are hardly over 1,000 people who have posted on the forums wishing for a different mana system; therefore you must conclude that over 90% of the backers are ok with the mana system.

I'm never sure if this sort of post is a joke or people are just this terrible at logic. It uses words like null hypothesis but doesn't seem to understand what they mean.

We have no real evidence one way or the other, you can't just assume the position you like is true and work from there. You also can't put an impossible burden on the other side then claim victory when they don't meet it.

Lets assume for a second that the opposite is true 90% people would prefer a different system to magic. They don't have to hate magic system they just have to think magic's system is slightly worse than the other option. Would ALL these people then post on the forums about this? Well no obviously not you'd only see a very small percentage of people posting about this, most backers don't have a forum account. So we can know that even if 90% of people aren't ok with the system they still wouldn't post about it making this null hypothesis utterly meaningless.


This is not to say the majority of people wouldn't prefer magic's system just that we don't know. The evidence just isn't there at all.

stiii
06-04-2013, 07:12 PM
The bolded statement is horse shit. I can't believe anyone would say that and mean it. Winning because your opponent got mana screwed is a hollow victory at best, even when there's money and/or packs on the line. I would imagine that the inverse--getting mana screwed your first or second game--would make you more likely to quit on the spot when you realize that you can lose a game due to nothing more than pure dumb luck.



I don't understand how allowing people to randomly automatically lose due to being locked out of the game is "best for the game." I'd imagine that what's best for the game is ensuring people could actually play the game rather than watch their opponent essentially play solitaire. I'd really like it if he had an open debate with people about this.

The idea being that in most games mana screw is reasonably subtle. So when a player loses to due to not getting a 4th land until turn seven he doesn't feel that the game was really unfair but it still might result in him losing. There is also the issue that a newer player might not understand the game at all so they won't even notice the other player is mana screwed and will just notice that they won.

Lazybum
06-04-2013, 07:19 PM
have played mtg for several years sure getting mana hosed sucked but really just adds more luck and randomness to the game that i liked. always going to have bad days/games kind of ruins the fun if you take it out.

now maybe something being added for pve that you are allowed to keep throwing your hand back till you have 2 resources in your hand i wouldnt mind but i would be against it for pvp play

KnowingCrow
06-04-2013, 07:32 PM
The bolded statement is horse shit. I can't believe anyone would say that and mean it. Winning because your opponent got mana screwed is a hollow victory at best, even when there's money and/or packs on the line. I would imagine that the inverse--getting mana screwed your first or second game--would make you more likely to quit on the spot when you realize that you can lose a game due to nothing more than pure dumb luck.



I don't understand how allowing people to randomly automatically lose due to being locked out of the game is "best for the game." I'd imagine that what's best for the game is ensuring people could actually play the game rather than watch their opponent essentially play solitaire. I'd really like it if he had an open debate with people about this.

You are confusing the issue. The possibility of mana screw is a natural result of having a random deck of cards with limited resources. Variance is a result of a random system, and mana screw is only one small part of that variance. Yes, it can happen. But you can build decks to minimize it, and you balance that between cards that reduce mana screw and cards that advance your game plan.

But I have an issue with your argument; removing mana screw does not in any way eliminate the probability of being locked out of a game. You only exchange one variance system for another. Drawing too many combat tricks and no creatures is the exact same thing as mana screw. You are only addressing the worst case scenario involved with this resource system; That someone get's locked out of the game due to drawing too few or too many resources. And yet, you can design cards within this resource system to curve the probability of that being an issue; Cards that draw other cards, cards that add resources, cards that expend surplus resources. I don't think you are considering the probability of being mana screwed in your argument, you are only concerned with the possibility. Which I counter arguing that it is possible to be screwed in some way in any system.

Resource cards add design space to the game, they add variance to the game, they make the game more interesting. The philosophy behind this has worked for other games so I don't see any reason why they won't work here. Being frustrated over the randomness of the game is something I dropped long ago; I work with it and it works for me.

Arbiter
06-04-2013, 07:41 PM
have played mtg for several years sure getting mana hosed sucked but really just adds more luck and randomness to the game that i liked. always going to have bad days/games kind of ruins the fun if you take it out.

now maybe something being added for pve that you are allowed to keep throwing your hand back till you have 2 resources in your hand i wouldnt mind but i would be against it for pvp play

PVE has something when you think about it. Spectral Lotus, which should be affordable to use if you are not silly with them. They replace themselves, so you can play them in your deck, effectively making it smaller and more liable. And that game where you are behind in mana and about to die... use them to get out the clutch spell that you need.

stiii
06-04-2013, 08:02 PM
You are confusing the issue. The possibility of mana screw is a natural result of having a random deck of cards with limited resources. Variance is a result of a random system, and mana screw is only one small part of that variance. Yes, it can happen. But you can build decks to minimize it, and you balance that between cards that reduce mana screw and cards that advance your game plan.

But I have an issue with your argument; removing mana screw does not in any way eliminate the probability of being locked out of a game. You only exchange one variance system for another. Drawing too many combat tricks and no creatures is the exact same thing as mana screw. You are only addressing the worst case scenario involved with this resource system; That someone get's locked out of the game due to drawing too few or too many resources. And yet, you can design cards within this resource system to curve the probability of that being an issue; Cards that draw other cards, cards that add resources, cards that expend surplus resources. I don't think you are considering the probability of being mana screwed in your argument, you are only concerned with the possibility. Which I counter arguing that it is possible to be screwed in some way in any system.

Resource cards add design space to the game, they add variance to the game, they make the game more interesting. The philosophy behind this has worked for other games so I don't see any reason why they won't work here. Being frustrated over the randomness of the game is something I dropped long ago; I work with it and it works for me.

So what you are saying is because it is possible to get screwed in any system that no system should even try to prevent it? Because you can't remove the problem 100% it isn't worth trying?

For example they could never print any dual lands, they could just not exist in the Hex system. This would add variance to the game. Pretty much any negative thing could be used to add variance.

Tyrfang
06-04-2013, 08:05 PM
He's saying the utility of dual lands is a result of the resource system they used.

That's what he means by "they add design space."

KnowingCrow
06-04-2013, 08:08 PM
So what you are saying is because it is possible to get screwed in any system that no system should even try to prevent it? Because you can't remove the problem 100% it isn't worth trying?

For example they could never print any dual lands, they could just not exist in the Hex system. This would add variance to the game. Pretty much any negative thing could be used to add variance.
No, I am not saying that. I am saying that because it's possible to get screwed in any system, the argument that it is possible to be screwed in System A so lets try System B is not relevant because you can still get screwed in System B.

I offered several examples of how the current system can reduce mana screw. You can fix it in-system by using cards.

Deadpool319
06-04-2013, 08:16 PM
I think you got it wrong. There is no mentality like that. It' s only that mana screw sucks. There are tons of solutions to solve the problem, but Hex sticks with an old system. Mtg has 20 years or more, it's only natural that card games (and resource system ) evolved beyond Magic. Also i see this extreme similarity to Magic like a potential threat. What if MTG decides to do something like Hex with his brand?

There has not been one single good suggestion in this or any other thread. TCGs have not "evolved past magic" they have taken bits and pieces and created niche markets in MTG's shadow.

stiii
06-04-2013, 08:16 PM
No, I am not saying that. I am saying that because it's possible to get screwed in any system, the argument that it is possible to be screwed in System A so lets try System B is not relevant because you can still get screwed in System B.

I offered several examples of how the current system can reduce mana screw. You can fix it in-system by using cards.

Seems like you said no then repeated what I said.

The argument is you get screwed more in system A than in system B therefore system B is better. Maybe you can fix it in system but why should you, when instead you can use a better system in the first place?

Badgered
06-04-2013, 08:17 PM
You are confusing the issue. The possibility of mana screw is a natural result of having a random deck of cards with limited resources. Variance is a result of a random system, and mana screw is only one small part of that variance. Yes, it can happen. But you can build decks to minimize it, and you balance that between cards that reduce mana screw and cards that advance your game plan.

But I have an issue with your argument; removing mana screw does not in any way eliminate the probability of being locked out of a game. You only exchange one variance system for another.

I would argue that what I and several others are advocating doesn't exchange one system for another, but removes one of the two systems entirely from the picture.


Drawing too many combat tricks and no creatures is the exact same thing as mana screw. You are only addressing the worst case scenario involved with this resource system; That someone get's locked out of the game due to drawing too few or too many resources. And yet, you can design cards within this resource system to curve the probability of that being an issue; Cards that draw other cards, cards that add resources, cards that expend surplus resources. I don't think you are considering the probability of being mana screwed in your argument, you are only concerned with the possibility. Which I counter arguing that it is possible to be screwed in some way in any system.

Even a .001% chance to be locked out of any game that deems itself to be competitive is too much. If I'm spending the time/money to play a game, I should be able to actually play rather than lose due to chance. I disagree that drawing all burn and no creatures, all creatures and no removal, or all removal and no draw is the same as not being able to play at all. You at least have a chance to do something rather than chance preventing you from doing anything.

You wouldn't be able to be locked out of the game with what I'm suggesting, but you could still get sub-optimal draws. At the very least you would be able to interact with your opponent and have a fighting chance where being denied resources just makes you a punching bag.

In Magic/Hex, I am at the mercy of the shuffler with regards to resources and playable cards. By moving to a more controlled resource system the randomness shifts to what non-resource cards I draw rather than can I draw any/enough resource cards on top of what non-resource cards I draw.


Resource cards add design space to the game, they add variance to the game, they make the game more interesting. The philosophy behind this has worked for other games so I don't see any reason why they won't work here. Being frustrated over the randomness of the game is something I dropped long ago; I work with it and it works for me.

Resource cards definitely add design space to the game, I agree, and variance, but I disagree that they make the game more interesting when the possibility of losing/winning solely due to chance is ever present regardless of how skillfully you craft your deck. However, resources can still be very interesting even if you have a more structured resource system. World of Warcraft has very interesting resources in quests and locations without the possibility of getting resource screwed. That's the best of both worlds if you ask me. If I could include interesting and powerful resource cards in my deck but sacrifice any card in my hand and use it to add threshold of its color (or even a threshold-less resource) in case I got a poor draw/poorer mulligan I would be very satisfied.

The philosophy of being able to control your resources but having variance in what critters, spells, and other effects you can use works spectacularly well in the titles I've mentioned previously in this thread and I see no reason why the good folks at CZE couldn't put their own spin on a resource system that ensures you'll at least be able to actually do something each game.

stiii
06-04-2013, 08:19 PM
He's saying the utility of dual lands is a result of the resource system they used.

That's what he means by "they add design space."

Yeah this wasn't the best example. The line between what is part of the system and what is card design is rather complicated. My intended point was that lots of changes to the system can add design space, adding another type of resource to track for example. So just saying this adds design while true doesn't justify it in of itself.

Tyrfang
06-04-2013, 08:21 PM
Yeah this wasn't the best example. The line between what is part of the system and what is card design is rather complicated. My intended point was that lots of changes to the system can add design space, adding another type of resource to track for example. So just saying this adds design while true doesn't justify it in of itself.

Ah...Charges are another resource type.

...sorry.

stiii
06-04-2013, 08:22 PM
There has not been one single good suggestion in this or any other thread. TCGs have not "evolved past magic" they have taken bits and pieces and created niche markets in MTG's shadow.

Why is the magic system better than a very similar system where you can play any card face down as a resource that doesn't produce threshold. You still need "lands". It is however a lot harder to get mana screwed.

Magic was the first so it is the most popular that doesn't mean it has the best system.

stiii
06-04-2013, 08:23 PM
Ah...Charges are another resource type.

...sorry.

I'm not really sure what your point is?

Should they add yet another, that would add even more design space.

Deadpool319
06-04-2013, 08:25 PM
I would argue that what I and several others are advocating doesn't exchange one system for another, but removes one of the two systems entirely from the picture.



Even a .001% chance to be locked out of any game that deems itself to be competitive is too much. If I'm spending the time/money to play a game, I should be able to actually play rather than lose due to chance. I disagree that drawing all burn and no creatures, all creatures and no removal, or all removal and no draw is the same as not being able to play at all. You at least have a chance to do something rather than chance preventing you from doing anything.

You wouldn't be able to be locked out of the game with what I'm suggesting, but you could still get sub-optimal draws. At the very least you would be able to interact with your opponent and have a fighting chance where being denied resources just makes you a punching bag.

In Magic/Hex, I am at the mercy of the shuffler with regards to resources and playable cards. By moving to a more controlled resource system the randomness shifts to what non-resource cards I draw rather than can I draw any/enough resource cards on top of what non-resource cards I draw.



Resource cards definitely add design space to the game, I agree, and variance, but I disagree that they make the game more interesting when the possibility of losing/winning solely due to chance is ever present regardless of how skillfully you craft your deck. However, resources can still be very interesting even if you have a more structured resource system. World of Warcraft has very interesting resources in quests and locations without the possibility of getting resource screwed. That's the best of both worlds if you ask me. If I could include interesting and powerful resource cards in my deck but sacrifice any card in my hand and use it to add threshold of its color in case I got a poor draw/poorer mulligan I would be very satisfied.

The philosophy of being able to control your resources but having variance in what critters, spells, and other effects you can use works spectacularly well in the titles I've mentioned previously in this thread and I see no reason why the good folks at CZE couldn't put their own spin on a resource system that ensures you'll at least be able to actually do something each game.

The level of terrible in this post is astounding.

How is "getting to play at least something" a viable argument at all? Oh man, I only drew a few little dudes while you got your combo to go off... BUT AT LEAST I DIDN'T DRAW TOO MUCH MANA AMIRITE? You still lose all the same...

Deadpool319
06-04-2013, 08:30 PM
Why is the magic system better than a very similar system where you can play any card face down as a resource that doesn't produce threshold. You still need "lands". It is however a lot harder to get mana screwed.

Magic was the first so it is the most popular that doesn't mean it has the best system.

This is not true. The problem with WoW TCG is that whoever goes first (by a coin flip) is immediately and irrecoverably in the lead. They will ALWAYS have 1 access to 1 more mana than you. This kills any possibility of tempo and reduces the game to simple escalation.

People tend to only think of mana problems as drawing 10 lands in a row or going 10 turns without drawing one... What about all the times where your opponent missing 1 land drop let's you equalize the playing field and drop yours and have even mana bases?

Turtlewing
06-04-2013, 08:31 PM
Why is the magic system better than a very similar system where you can play any card face down as a resource that doesn't produce threshold. You still need "lands". It is however a lot harder to get mana screwed.

Magic was the first so it is the most popular that doesn't mean it has the best system.

I don't think that would make it meaningfully harder to get mana screwed. Without threshold you still aren't playing any cards, and you can design a deck to get the same basic benefit by running lower cost cards. It also encourages analysis paralysis in weaker players (what card to I give up for manna), devalues champion charge abilities, and may have other consequences I haven't thought of yet.

Turtlewing
06-04-2013, 08:38 PM
How is "getting to play at least something" a viable argument at all? Oh man, I only drew a few little dudes while you got your combo to go off... BUT AT LEAST I DIDN'T DRAW TOO MUCH MANA AMIRITE? You still lose all the same...

It's the "spartan fallacy". Basically loosing horribly feels better if you did something to prevent it and fail miserably than if you just accept that you can't do anything to change the outcome.

It's a valid point that mana screw causes dead turns, which is bad. However removing manna screw does not eliminate dead turns. And most proposals to eliminate mana screw involve drastic changes to core mechanics for limited practical gain.

Personally I say a champion ability is the best place for a solution (I made a thread about it) failing that designing manna fixing cards is also good.

But really manna screw just doesn't happen often enough to warrant the level of changes peosed in most of these threads.

Deadpool319
06-04-2013, 08:41 PM
It's the "spartan fallacy". Basically loosing horribly feels better if you did something to prevent it and fail miserably than if you just accept that you can't do anything to change the outcome.

It's a valid point that mana screw causes dead turns, which is bad. However removing manna screw does not eliminate bad turns. And most proposals to eliminate mana screw involve drastic changes to core mechanics for limited practical gain.

Personally I say a champion ability is the best place for a solution (I made a thread about it) failing that designing manna fixing cards is also good.

I read your thread and like the champion ability thought. I think it is great for PvE but I'm on the fence as far as PvP play.

Badgered
06-04-2013, 08:42 PM
The level of terrible in this post is astounding.

How is "getting to play at least something" a viable argument at all? Oh man, I only drew a few little dudes while you got your combo to go off... BUT AT LEAST I DIDN'T DRAW TOO MUCH MANA AMIRITE? You still lose all the same...

Because "getting to play at least something" can mean being able to stall with chumpers until you draw removal, or finally being able to play a threat that stops your opponents in your tracks. You've played enough games of Magic to know that this isn't a zero sum game of either mana screw or bad draws. You can actually come back from that situation unlike resource screw on top of bad draws. Let me break it down for you.

Currently, with Magic/Hex, you face:

- The possibility of getting resource screwed/flooded, which prevents you from actually playing the game.
- The possibility of bad draws.

My entire argument is that the first possibility is unacceptable in an era where other successful and some new games have come up with resource systems that are reliable yet require just as much thought and strategy as building your deck to minimize (but not entirely prevent) the chance of you automatically losing due to bad luck with resources.

What I am suggesting would be something more akin to what the World of Warcraft TCG does. You would face:

- The possibility of bad draws.

That's it. I have never felt locked out of a game of World of Warcraft. Or Scrolls. Or Android: Netrunner. Or DotC:M&M. I have lost games due to poor draws, but at least I was able to play and interact with my opponent rather than sitting there while they essentially goldfish.

You and several others are essentially trying to preserve the possibility of getting doubly screwed for reasons ranging from an aversion to change to the added variance that interesting resources have. You can still have cards that function as resources and have interesting effects in a game with controlled resources. See: World of Warcraft.

stiii
06-04-2013, 08:47 PM
This is not true. The problem with WoW TCG is that whoever goes first (by a coin flip) is immediately and irrecoverably in the lead. They will ALWAYS have 1 access to 1 more mana than you. This kills any possibility of tempo and reduces the game to simple escalation.

People tend to only think of mana problems as drawing 10 lands in a row or going 10 turns without drawing one... What about all the times where your opponent missing 1 land drop let's you equalize the playing field and drop yours and have even mana bases?

The player that wins the coin flip in magic is also in the lead at the start of the game. there are plenty of games of magic that end before either player misses a land drop. Some of these games are won by the player on the draw so clearly it is possible to gain/lose tempo in these games still. Saying the game is reduce to simple escalation makes me dubious if you have ever played any games of wow TCG, if it was true surely wow unlike magic wouldn't have the same players consistently winning events?

If there was some way of preventing those 10 land floods and leaving in minor mana screw I (and probably most others) would be perfectly happy with the magic system. Other systems don't need to be miles better than magic's they just need to e better. Given that this is a digital game they could fix the shuffler to prevent this. Which would create different problems however.

KnowingCrow
06-04-2013, 08:55 PM
Seems like you said no then repeated what I said.

The argument is you get screwed more in system A than in system B therefore system B is better. Maybe you can fix it in system but why should you, when instead you can use a better system in the first place?What I said and what you said are not the same.

You have to establish that system B is a better system. You have not.

KnowingCrow
06-04-2013, 08:56 PM
Even a .001% chance to be locked out of any game that deems itself to be competitive is too much.


I don't think card games are your thing.

stiii
06-04-2013, 08:58 PM
It's the "spartan fallacy". Basically loosing horribly feels better if you did something to prevent it and fail miserably than if you just accept that you can't do anything to change the outcome.

It's a valid point that mana screw causes dead turns, which is bad. However removing manna screw does not eliminate dead turns. And most proposals to eliminate mana screw involve drastic changes to core mechanics for limited practical gain.

Personally I say a champion ability is the best place for a solution (I made a thread about it) failing that designing manna fixing cards is also good.

But really manna screw just doesn't happen often enough to warrant the level of changes peosed in most of these threads.

This is pretty much the heart of the issue, what level of randomness is acceptable. And in what form is it best for it manifest. The problem with real mana screw where no player draw 12/2 or 2/12 lands is it leads to very dull one sided games. Even novice players can pretty quickly seem these games and feel cheated out of a real win by them. If however you have a system where you can get curve screwed it is much harder to tell if the one was really one sided, both players are still casting spells.

I would be fine with more powerful champion abilities but currently from what we've seen they don't seem like they will do enough if you get seriously flooded.

I think allowing people to play resources face down would prevent the most extreme cases of screw which is all that I think really needs fixing.

This spartan thing requires people to not really understand how the game works, which might be true of some players but certainly not all. The is a difference between complaining after a game that you lost due to XYZ and talking about the system in general and its flaws. The goal i'm aiming for is prevent these one sided games so skill matters more in the games. CZE might want worse players to win more and have picked magic's system for this reason but it would be nice if they'd admit it.

stiii
06-04-2013, 09:03 PM
What I said and what you said are not the same.

You have to establish that system B is a better system. You have not.

That would be because you are asking for an impossible task. You want it to be impossible to get screwed in system B before it is better than system A.

Badgered
06-04-2013, 09:06 PM
I don't think card games are your thing.

Resource screw/flood is not my thing. I really enjoy card games with systems that allow you to play the game rather than require you to beat the odds (however stacked in your favor they may be) before you can play the game. There is a difference. ;)

KnowingCrow
06-04-2013, 09:07 PM
That would be because you are asking for an impossible task. You want it to be impossible to get screwed in system B before it is better than system A.

No, I am not saying that. Is every response to you going to be a correction? Show me where I stated that B must be perfect for it to be better than A.

Turtlewing
06-04-2013, 09:08 PM
I read your thread and like the champion ability thought. I think it is great for PvE but I'm on the fence as far as PvP play.

Fair enough, I don't really think manna screw needs fixing. My main point is if you want to fix it champion abilities look like the place to do it.


This is pretty much the heart of the issue, what level of randomness is acceptable. And in what form is it best for it manifest. The problem with real mana screw where no player draw 12/2 or 2/12 lands is it leads to very dull one sided games. Even novice players can pretty quickly seem these games and feel cheated out of a real win by them. If however you have a system where you can get curve screwed it is much harder to tell if the one was really one sided, both players are still casting spells.

I would be fine with more powerful champion abilities but currently from what we've seen they don't seem like they will do enough if you get seriously flooded.

I think allowing people to play resources face down would prevent the most extreme cases of screw which is all that I think really needs fixing.

This spartan thing requires people to not really understand how the game works, which might be true of some players but certainly not all. The is a difference between complaining after a game that you lost due to XYZ and talking about the system in general and its flaws. The goal i'm aiming for is prevent these one sided games so skill matters more in the games. CZE might want worse players to win more and have picked magic's system for this reason but it would be nice if they'd admit it.

I would counter argue that deck building to mitigate screw is a skill and if hex has similar reasourse fixing/acceleration options to magic than there's already plenty you can do to make getting screwed uncommon enough that complaining about it is not meaningfully differnt from complaining about top decking the only card that can save you or getting crap draws.

DeusPhasmatis
06-04-2013, 09:08 PM
Why is the magic system better than a very similar system where you can play any card face down as a resource that doesn't produce threshold. You still need "lands". It is however a lot harder to get mana screwed.

Whether it is better or worse is a difficult question to answer, because of two major problems: we can't accurately predict the effects of subtle changes to the game's resource system; and we don't have an objective definition game design quality.

Being able to play any card as a pseudo-resource fundamentally alters the tempo of the game, changes deck-building constraints, and has deep and subtle effects on the balance of card costs against power. It is not trivial (from a game design perspective) to implement at this point in the game design.

There are two other important points about game design that need to be considered: one, players often want and ask for things that accidentally decrease their enjoyment of the game (the psychological implications of game mechanics are non-trivial); two, not all players have the same preferences (what improves the overall enjoyment for one player can decrease it for another).

Badgered
06-04-2013, 09:47 PM
Whether it is better or worse is a difficult question to answer, because of two major problems: we can't accurately predict the effects of subtle changes to the game's resource system; and we don't have an objective definition game design quality.

While it is true that this entire debate is a matter of system preference, I do think that one can objectively say that the current Hex/Magic system has an additional layer of randomness that the WoW TCG system lacks. Whether or not this is better is up to personal preference, but I think it is better.


Being able to play any card as a pseudo-resource fundamentally alters the tempo of the game, changes deck-building constraints, and has deep and subtle effects on the balance of card costs against power. It is not trivial (from a game design perspective) to implement at this point in the game design.

It definitely would have a large impact and require numerous changes to the game, though they have some time before release to test it and could push that date back if need be seeing as we've so generously donated almost $2M to their cause. The game will still be good even with the current system, just not ideal IMO.


There are two other important points about game design that need to be considered: one, players often want and ask for things that accidentally decrease their enjoyment of the game (the psychological implications of game mechanics are non-trivial); two, not all players have the same preferences (what improves the overall enjoyment for one player can decrease it for another).

I can't speak for anyone else but I'm not asking for something that would dampen my enjoyment of the game. I'm asking for something that I've already experienced in several other games. I'd like to see CZE's take on UDE's resource system rather than their take on the Wizard's mana system.

KnowingCrow
06-04-2013, 10:48 PM
It definitely would have a large impact and require numerous changes to the game, though they have some time before release to test it and could push that date back if need be seeing as we've so generously donated almost $2M to their cause. The game will still be good even with the current system, just not ideal IMO.
Honestly, if they did that I would drop my backing.

Genocidal
06-04-2013, 10:50 PM
I would strongly consider it as well. One of the big draws for me is how similar the core concepts are to those of Magic.

Tyrfang
06-04-2013, 10:52 PM
Man, if a dead horse could die again...

WowTCG = Curve screwed
MTG/Hex = Mana screwed

They aren't going to change it now.

Genocidal
06-04-2013, 10:59 PM
Yea, I wasn't saying that was a feasible option, but their initial choice is part of why I pledged how much I did.

Beastmaster
06-05-2013, 12:10 AM
I just posted in another thread on this issue:

Since its a digital game, why not just have a game option that generates a starting hand based on the ratio of resources in the deck

i.e. 20 resources/ 60 cards = 2 and 1/3 resources in the starting hand (1/3 chance at a 3rd resource)

Offer both options in Beta and see which is more popular..

This eliminates decks with low resources like 10 from gamin the system using charge powers etc

The whole point of Hex is to embrace the digital medium so it would be cool if they at least offered this as an option - also I hope they allow consensual free mulligans for casual play.

There is nothing worse than playing with friends who aren't quite as into the game and as a result of mana screw spent the whole time complaining about it - I would rather just give them a free mulligan and have a proper game than waste time like that

zakedodead
06-05-2013, 12:49 AM
we've so generously donated almost $2M to their cause.
I was not aware that everyone who backed agreed with you.

bogatog
06-05-2013, 02:25 AM
Just to tack on to the side disagreeing with the currently presented options as "better" than the MTG system.

I LIKE what the randomness of mana draws adds to the game. And yes, I've had my bitter defeats at the hands of mana screw. One particular instance was at regionals playing a pyschatog deck and I got stuck on 3 land with 3 Fact or Fiction in my hand. I was and am still bitter/sad about losing that round. But I've played other games like WoWTCG/Duels Of Champions and I do not like their resource systems better.

I assume this is where I get insulted and told I'm wrong for having a differing opinion and that is fine, it hurts your case more than mine.

saropatzi
06-05-2013, 02:33 AM
I was not aware that everyone who backed agreed with you.

Surely there are different opinions about this.
There's also no doubt that this is a main concern for many backers.

It's also true that we are backers and not buyers so to a certain degree our opinion should be taken into account. We are also not saying that we are not going to back if they don't solve this problem. We are just addressing a problem.

Also the request/suggestion/hope is not to entirely reshape the resource system but to find a way to consistently avoid mana screw.

Because mana screw is a known major flaw, and it has been for 20 years. This game is new. Why not improve?

Arbiter
06-05-2013, 02:35 AM
I just posted in another thread on this issue:

Since its a digital game, why not just have a game option that generates a starting hand based on the ratio of resources in the deck

i.e. 20 resources/ 60 cards = 2 and 1/3 resources in the starting hand (1/3 chance at a 3rd resource)

Offer both options in Beta and see which is more popular..

This eliminates decks with low resources like 10 from gamin the system using charge powers etc

The whole point of Hex is to embrace the digital medium so it would be cool if they at least offered this as an option - also I hope they allow consensual free mulligans for casual play.

There is nothing worse than playing with friends who aren't quite as into the game and as a result of mana screw spent the whole time complaining about it - I would rather just give them a free mulligan and have a proper game than waste time like that

It won't work. Your resource ratio is more than the number of resource cards in your deck. It includes non-resource cards that produce resources. It is affected by cards that draw cards as well as cards that search for cards. To simply calculate the effective ratio as resources divided by deck size, and separate the deck into two for draw is wrong. Also it is overpowered for low cost decks who can play 17 resources and be guaranteed 2 resources on turn two, which (given no other resource plays) is not the case for a true probability curve.

zakedodead
06-05-2013, 02:39 AM
Surely there are different opinions about this.
There's also no doubt that this is a main concern for many backers.

It's also true that we are backers and not buyers so to a certain degree our opinion should be taken into account. We are also not saying that we are not going to back if they don't solve this problem. We are just addressing a problem.

Also the request/suggestion/hope is not to entirely reshape the resource system but to find a way to consistently avoid mana screw.

Because mana screw is a known major flaw, and it has been for 20 years. This game is new. Why not improve?
My issue is with him saying it as if he personally backed for nearly $2m, and no mana screw is not a flaw, it's a design choice that you happen to not enjoy. Stop calling it a problem and just accept that it's an aspect of the game that happens to not appeal to you.

theophanya
06-05-2013, 02:52 AM
Man, if a dead horse could die again...

WowTCG = Curve screwed
MTG/Hex = Mana screwed

They aren't going to change it now.

For good or bad that's true, so let's stop this thread. They've deliberated on the resource system for 8 or so months and decided this is the right one for HEX. Like it or not (I don't like it either) we're having this. Let's deal with it.

saropatzi
06-05-2013, 03:16 AM
Just to tack on to the side disagreeing with the currently presented options as "better" than the MTG system.

I LIKE what the randomness of mana draws adds to the game. And yes, I've had my bitter defeats at the hands of mana screw. One particular instance was at regionals playing a pyschatog deck and I got stuck on 3 land with 3 Fact or Fiction in my hand. I was and am still bitter/sad about losing that round. But I've played other games like WoWTCG/Duels Of Champions and I do not like their resource systems better.

I assume this is where I get insulted and told I'm wrong for having a differing opinion and that is fine, it hurts your case more than mine.

I don't think you should be insulted.
I'm prone to think that you haven't played WoW as much as MTG. But that may be an entirely wrong assumption and you may like MTG resource system for many reasons. I also appreciate a good amount of randomness. I don't have problems if randomness results in game loss. I have problems if randomness results in frustration and not being able to play.

I'd like instead to point out that while the discussion has moved to confront the different resource systems, the main point is how the game can improve to avoid the horrible mana screw.

This does not mean it should adopt WoW/DoC/Ascension/Order&Chaos system, but maybe it can be inspired by them in finding a way to not frustrate players with it. I think this could be a common ground of discussion.

Many suggestion have been made, maybe they are not useful but it may be useful anyway to give a feedback:

- give a starting hand of resources based on the percentage of resources in your deck
- allow to back down a card during the first 2 turns as neutral resources
- Create low cost cards that have also resource functionality
- Free mulligan under the 3 resources
- Others?

I'd really like to collect ideas in this thread rather than hate and would like this game to be the best, and not a MTG copy.

P.S: Also we'll have access to the alpha and beta at a certain point of development so we'll be able to test our assumption and see how everything blends together.

larryhl
06-05-2013, 03:21 AM
Alpha and Beta are not the places to test whether a resource system works or not. That is a game design issue, and Hex is already way beyond that. Discussing it here is not helpful, to the players or the devs.

saropatzi
06-05-2013, 03:27 AM
My issue is with him saying it as if he personally backed for nearly $2m, and no mana screw is not a flaw, it's a design choice that you happen to not enjoy. Stop calling it a problem and just accept that it's an aspect of the game that happens to not appeal to you.

I can't agree with you.
Mana screw is not a design choice i don't personally like.
It's, at least, a drawback. Something you'd like to avoid but couldn't.

It does not add anything.
It's a "not fun" aspect of a game.
It makes some game unplayable.

I know no people that has fun being mana screwed.
And the main purpose of this game is to have fun right?

bogatog
06-05-2013, 03:27 AM
I don't think you should be insulted.
I'm prone to think that you haven't played WoW as much as MTG. But that may be an entirely wrong assumption and you may like MTG resource system for many reasons. I also appreciate a good amount of randomness. I don't have problems if randomness results in game loss. I have problems if randomness results in frustration and not being able to play.

I'd like instead to point out that while the discussion has moved to confront the different resource systems, the main point is how the game can improve to avoid the horrible mana screw.

This does not mean it should adopt WoW/DoC/Ascension/Order&Chaos system, but maybe it can be inspired by them in finding a way to not frustrate players with it. I think this could be a common ground of discussion.

Many suggestion have been made, maybe they are not useful but it may be useful anyway to give a feedback:

- give a starting hand of resources based on the percentage of resources in your deck
- allow to back down a card during the first 2 turns as neutral resources
- Create low cost cards that have also resource functionality
- Free mulligan under the 3 resources
- Others?

I'd really like to collect ideas in this thread rather than hate and would like this game to be the best, and not a MTG copy.

P.S: Also we'll have access to the alpha and beta at a certain point of development so we'll be able to test our assumption and see how everything blends together.

Of course I don't think I should be insulted, but that has been a good part of this thread unfortunately.

Anyway, yes I have played significantly more MTG than WoWTCG and that is a valid point that I'm sure impacts my preference for the system out of familiarity. However, I just do not prefer the always available resource systems.

Ultimately, I really can't wait to test the current system WITH the cards they have designed to see how it all feels as I'm willing to be they have made some stuff that mitigates many concerns people have raised in this thread.

saropatzi
06-05-2013, 03:31 AM
Alpha and Beta are not the places to test whether a resource system works or not. That is a game design issue, and Hex is already way beyond that. Discussing it here is not helpful, to the players or the devs.

While i agree that Alpha and Beta are mainly there for tech tests. Once you test you test everything.

Beastmaster
06-05-2013, 03:45 AM
It won't work. Your resource ratio is more than the number of resource cards in your deck. It includes non-resource cards that produce resources. It is affected by cards that draw cards as well as cards that search for cards. To simply calculate the effective ratio as resources divided by deck size, and separate the deck into two for draw is wrong. Also it is overpowered for low cost decks who can play 17 resources and be guaranteed 2 resources on turn two, which (given no other resource plays) is not the case for a true probability curve.

It will still work - you will still have a chance of drawing resource spells as normal.
You are correct about the 17 resource deck having a high probability of 2 resource cards (1.983 resources) but its not guaranteed. I dont see it as being a huge problem myself and im sure most casual players would agree - if it becomes something that is abusable in tournaments, they it would remain as merely a casual option for players who dislike mana screw..

McKahlan
06-05-2013, 03:50 AM
I'm not bothered by mana crew or full. I like the tension you have when you need THIS mana to save your ass, that is a great feeling IMO.
Although, I am strongly for a "free mulligan" mechanic. And it's not just for mana full or screw, but also for curve screw. I know that's deckbuilding issues but still, there is always THAT one time where you don't draw a playable hand.

Arbiter
06-05-2013, 03:59 AM
While i agree that Alpha and Beta are mainly there for tech tests. Once you test you test everything.

You can't test or change the resource system though. The entire rules and card set have been designed with that system in mind. Simply put, with 8 months spent choosing a resource system (so they would have gone over variants of all of the suggestions here) and multiple sets developed or being developed over two years there is zero chance that there can or will be any change in the resource system. Some cards would need to be pulled, some re-balanced. To change the resource system would set release back well over a year.

So it really is time to stop asking Crypto to fix your mana, and time to start reading and researching and figuring out how you can best fix your own mana problems. There are a lot of resources out there (and even some stuff already here) that will help you.

BohemianStalker
06-05-2013, 04:02 AM
Clearly people who disagree with you are newbs no other possible reason. As you brought it up what are your credentials for not being a noob, how many pro tours have you played on?

2475 post and you dont even know the difference between being noob and being a newb. Let me englighten you. Newbie is not a pejorative term ,-) (next time before you post use that google thing and dont put words into my mouth) thanks

Mana screw exists for a reason. You all could avoid it and add more lands to your deck. But since you want to maximize the effectivnes of your deck you are playing with not enough lands/resources. You have a higher win/chance with fewer lands, but sometimes you become mana screwed. Anyway you are just hypocrites because you wont talk about how much effective this deck is and how you have 60% win ratio. No, you like to talk how you get manascrewed while you had complete freedom to add thos 3-5 lands to your deck and did not do it.

In the end it shows: The low number of lands and thus chance to become manascrewed is actually most effective gameplay

and one more thing: Mana screw exists for a reason , to prevent from some overpowered mana price heavy combos and to give advantage a low cost mana decks over them,

Almazy
06-05-2013, 04:53 AM
edit: nvm

jai151
06-05-2013, 05:15 AM
As I said 10 pages ago, there is a basic impasse that the "No mana screw" side of the argument will never get past, and it is the reason that this argument is still going on.

Mana screw is not a problem to be overcome. It's not an undesired drawback. It's a fully intended consequence of the system.

nrflorencio
06-05-2013, 05:30 AM
When did this become a choice between MTG and WOWTCG resource system?

Why did people (maybe on purpose) decide to ignore the chance to do subtle chances to the existing system in order to eliminate mana screw, WITHOUT removing the randomness effect of the game.

When did this become an all or nothing afair?

zakedodead
06-05-2013, 05:50 AM
When did this become a choice between MTG and WOWTCG resource system?

Why did people (maybe on purpose) decide to ignore the chance to do subtle chances to the existing system in order to eliminate mana screw, WITHOUT removing the randomness effect of the game.

When did this become an all or nothing afair?
Because that idea is fucking dumb from the beginning. All it does is create a hidden system for people who know about it to game.

nrflorencio
06-05-2013, 06:40 AM
Bah, nvm. Not wasting my time with inferior intelects anymore...

jai151
06-05-2013, 06:49 AM
nrflorenco, you aren't helping your case. zakedodead may have been out of line in his opening, but that doesn't excuse your response.

Any system that games the shuffler is prone to abuse. There is no such thing as an untamperable system. Worse yet, it would be abuse on a completely counter-intuitive level, leaving newer players to get trounced.

Any system that changes the order of your library outside of a card that is meant to do so is game-breaking and removes an entire design space, stacking your deck. In magic, this is a Blue staple and I'm sure we'll see in Hex.

nrflorencio
06-05-2013, 06:58 AM
I dont think you saw my actual response, before i decided it wasnt worth it.

Especially in a digital world doing a non-abusable (wtf word...) system is possible.

Thats how digital "casinos" deal with people that try to "cheat" the system. Very simply, the house "cheats" back.

jai151
06-05-2013, 07:03 AM
I dont think you saw my actual response, before i decided it wasnt worth it.

Especially in a digital world doing a non-abusable (wtf word...) system is possible.

Thats how digital "casinos" deal with people that try to "cheat" the system. Very simply, the house "cheats" back.

I saw your response.

Digital casinos don't cheat, they simply don't alter the rules. They don't need to, the house already has an advantage. What you're proposing is altering those rules. When you programmatically defeat a random system, you have introduced an entry point to use your defeat to game the shuffler in your favor.

Phearbot
06-05-2013, 07:06 AM
I rly love the idea of mana like MTG... I don't like the upcoming Heartone because of this... no lands in your deck.
If you wanna play at high level, having mana cards is another thing to deal with, and I personally love it.
Gj imo : )

nrflorencio
06-05-2013, 07:08 AM
I rly love the idea of mana like MTG... I don't like the upcoming Heartone because of this... no lands in your deck.
If you wanna play at high level, having mana cards is another thing to deal with, and I personally love it.
Gj imo : )


Many of us love mana, me included, and im one of the main supporters of change, in order to alleviate mana screw.
For me, mana or no mana is not the point. MAna all the way baby!

stiii
06-05-2013, 10:35 AM
Man, if a dead horse could die again...

WowTCG = Curve screwed
MTG/Hex = Mana screwed

They aren't going to change it now.

People saying this so clearly haven't played wow. This curve screw thing really isn't the issue. You don't need to hit your drops perfectly and few decks even try to go 1/2/3/4/5/6.

The issue is that going first creates tempo and unlike magic you can't ever stumble on mana/colour so you have to directly do something to regain the tempo. The system isn't perfect but people seem to love to evaluate problems of systems they haven't played/understood.

stiii
06-05-2013, 10:37 AM
For good or bad that's true, so let's stop this thread. They've deliberated on the resource system for 8 or so months and decided this is the right one for HEX. Like it or not (I don't like it either) we're having this. Let's deal with it.

Why are you posting in this thread then? You could say this about any thread where anyone suggests any change. No one is forcing you to read.

Genocidal
06-05-2013, 10:44 AM
People saying this so clearly haven't played wow. This curve screw thing really isn't the issue. You don't need to hit your drops perfectly and few decks even try to go 1/2/3/4/5/6.

The issue is that going first creates tempo and unlike magic you can't ever stumble on mana/colour so you have to directly do something to regain the tempo. The system isn't perfect but people seem to love to evaluate problems of systems they haven't played/understood.

That was Cory's explanation, and I assume he has played WoWTCG and has at least some understanding of the system.

stiii
06-05-2013, 10:49 AM
2475 post and you dont even know the difference between being noob and being a newb. Let me englighten you. Newbie is not a pejorative term ,-) (next time before you post use that google thing and dont put words into my mouth) thanks

Mana screw exists for a reason. You all could avoid it and add more lands to your deck. But since you want to maximize the effectivnes of your deck you are playing with not enough lands/resources. You have a higher win/chance with fewer lands, but sometimes you become mana screwed. Anyway you are just hypocrites because you wont talk about how much effective this deck is and how you have 60% win ratio. No, you like to talk how you get manascrewed while you had complete freedom to add thos 3-5 lands to your deck and did not do it.

In the end it shows: The low number of lands and thus chance to become manascrewed is actually most effective gameplay

and one more thing: Mana screw exists for a reason , to prevent from some overpowered mana price heavy combos and to give advantage a low cost mana decks over them,

Let me explain a word to you.

Pejorative : Disparaging; belittling.

You said that the people who disagreed with you are newbs. This is belittling because you are suggesting that the only reason they don't agree is because they are new players.

You continue this inside this post by saying the reason I'm complaining is because I'm bad and want to blame my loses on something other than my mistakes. You have no evidence for this other than an inflated sense of superiority based me being a newb.

Next time before you try and give an English lesson you might want to look up the words you are using yourself. I'd also note that newb and noob are both slang terms with vague meanings. They aren't in the dictionary in the first place so their meaning is vague and depends on which group you are talking to. That said replacing it just with new players it is still an insult anyway.

Vorpal
06-05-2013, 10:52 AM
I am fine with Hex's current system. It is much superior to a proposed 'any face down card is a resource' system.

Having to carefully think about the balance of resource cards in your deck, how many of each cost of card you have, and so on, is an integral part of deck building.

Just being able to throw any old card down whenever you need more resources removes that element entirely.

The argument against hex current system seems to be "It makes me sad when I lose because of the RNG"

In that case, TCG's are not for you. The randomness is a deliberate and positive design choice that enhances replayability and excitement. If you play TCG's, you will lose games simply because of bad luck. That is unavoidable. There is no difference between losing because of one type of bad luck and another, so the people attempting to draw a false distinction between losing because you got no lands and losing because you never got the cards you needed are simply incorrect. The two situations are identical, it is just that one provides you an illusion of control.

It's like complaining you hate losing when you roll a '2' but you're fine when losing if your opponent rolls a '12'. Same principles are at work.

all that said, for people that cannot contemplate having even a single game where they couldn't play any cards they wanted because of lack of resources, it seems it should be trivial for CZE to put in a champion ability to address this.

Isn't that much simpler than trying to change a fundamental underlying principle of the game design?

stiii
06-05-2013, 10:52 AM
That was Cory's explanation, and I assume he has played WoWTCG and has at least some understanding of the system.

You would think so but he also said games were over by turn eight due to this curve issue. Which just isn't true which leads me to think he is just very bad at explaining why this is the case?

Wow games are over by t8 in the same way magic games are, aggro decks plan on winning by then control decks don't

papalorax
06-05-2013, 10:57 AM
Two points -

1) I do think a digital interference into drawing the opening hand should be implemented. Not sure what is best - but something where (unseen to you) it insures you get two resources in your opening hand. Why not take advantage of the digital experience to fix an inherent problem in the core engine.

2) Making creative resources and abilities that give resources is an absolute must.

stiii
06-05-2013, 10:59 AM
I am fine with Hex's current system. It is much superior to a proposed 'any face down card is a resource' system.

Having to carefully think about the balance of resource cards in your deck, how many of each cost of card you have, and so on, is an integral part of deck building.

Just being able to throw any old card down whenever you need more resources removes that element entirely.

The argument against hex current system seems to be "It makes me sad when I lose because of the RNG"

In that case, TCG's are not for you. The randomness is a deliberate and positive design choice that enhances replayability and excitement. If you play TCG's, you will lose games simply because of bad luck. That is unavoidable. There is no difference between losing because of one type of bad luck and another, so the people attempting to draw a false distinction between losing because you got no lands and losing because you never got the cards you needed are simply incorrect. The two situations are identical, it is just that one provides you an illusion of control.

It's like complaining you hate losing when you roll a '2' but you're fine when losing if your opponent rolls a '12'. Same principles are at work.

all that said, for people that cannot contemplate having even a single game where they couldn't play any cards they wanted because of lack of resources, it seems it should be trivial for CZE to put in a champion ability to address this.

Isn't that much simpler than trying to change a fundamental underlying principle of the game design?

lol one of the arguments against the wow system was that being able to row cards creates analysis paralysis, players have too many options. It is funny how people can say building a mana base gives you all these options but rowing cards is bad for doing the same thing.

larryhl
06-05-2013, 11:03 AM
Two points -

1) I do think a digital interference into drawing the opening hand should be implemented. Not sure what is best - but something where (unseen to you) it insures you get two resources in your opening hand. Why not take advantage of the digital experience to fix an inherent problem in the core engine.

2) Making creative resources and abilities that give resources is an absolute must.

Let me introduce you to Mono-red and Naya Blitz, only two of the fastest decks in Standard MtG tournament play right now. And they would love you for guaranteeing that their opening hand would only have 2 resources.

stiii
06-05-2013, 11:04 AM
No, I am not saying that. I am saying that because it's possible to get screwed in any system, the argument that it is possible to be screwed in System A so lets try System B is not relevant because you can still get screwed in System B.

I offered several examples of how the current system can reduce mana screw. You can fix it in-system by using cards.

In reply to this question

"No, I am not saying that. Is every response to you going to be a correction? Show me where I stated that B must be perfect for it to be better than A."

You are saying it isn't even worth trying system B because you can still get screwed in system B. So before you leave system A you want a perfect system B, which is clearly impossible.

jai151
06-05-2013, 11:05 AM
lol one of the arguments against the wow system was that being able to row cards creates analysis paralysis, players have too many options. It is funny how people can say building a mana base gives you all these options but rowing cards is bad for doing the same thing.

There's a HUGE difference between making decisions during deckbuilding and making decisions while playing.

Bernado
06-05-2013, 11:08 AM
The game looks incredibly good.
However seeing how the resource system works, I'm thinking on lowering my pledge or canceling it at all.
To put so much effort on a new game which has a lot of advantages by being digital and to choose one of the worst systems for resources just because it's the one that has been around during most time, doesn't convince me.
There are a lot of card games that have other resource systems apart from WoW and magic.
I prefer in particular the system used on Mage Wars.
I know it's a different kind of game but something in between could have been used in Hex.
I just think they didn't work on that aspect much.

stiii
06-05-2013, 11:08 AM
Let me introduce you to Mono-red and Naya Blitz, only two of the fastest decks in Standard MtG tournament play right now. And they would love you for guaranteeing that their opening hand would only have 2 resources.

While I agree this might be a problem I'm not sure those decks would be that powerful. Naya would really suffer from only ever being able to play two drops, you would have endless spells but you couldn't play them very quickly and a deck with 3/4 drops would prevent you from attacking very quickly. You'd probably only be able to get basic lands as well meaning you'd only have a limited number of quality cards.

Mono red is more of an issue but there are still only so many lava spikes and shocks before you just run out of good cards and end up with rubbish.

stiii
06-05-2013, 11:11 AM
There's a HUGE difference between making decisions during deckbuilding and making decisions while playing.

Well yes but are decisions in deckbuilding better than those in play? The post suggest that rowing cards makes it easier which is opposite of how it works.

There is also the fact wow has quests/location along with classes/factions so you still have to build a sort of mana base anyway.

Mr.Funsocks
06-05-2013, 11:11 AM
Let me introduce you to Mono-red and Naya Blitz, only two of the fastest decks in Standard MtG tournament play right now. And they would love you for guaranteeing that their opening hand would only have 2 resources.

You mean there's a deck that is only balanced by it getting a bad hand and that's considered a good thing?

DeusPhasmatis
06-05-2013, 11:14 AM
You would think so but he also said games were over by turn eight due to this curve issue. Which just isn't true which leads me to think he is just very bad at explaining why this is the case?

Wow games are over by t8 in the same way magic games are, aggro decks plan on winning by then control decks don't

WoWTCG isn't the only other card game. I never played a game in the Versus System that lasted beyond turn 8. Most of them ended on turn 7.

stiii
06-05-2013, 11:14 AM
You mean there's a deck that is only balanced by it getting a bad hand and that's considered a good thing?

Yes

Although this is sort of a point in magic's favour. Naya is more powerful than mono red but has a worse mana base. Therefore you need to work out how much power you gain in exchange for how much randomness. It is rather complicated to build a three colour mana base when you want to cast lots of cheap aggressive cards of different colours. You might have to cut some powerful cards because they are too hard to cast.

stiii
06-05-2013, 11:18 AM
WoWTCG isn't the only other card game. I never played a game in the Versus System that lasted beyond turn 8. Most of them ended on turn 7.

Corey was talking about wow tcg. I would agree that VS had a problem with curves. I did however play some games of VS that ended later and it was possible to build decks that tried to get past turn 8.

larryhl
06-05-2013, 11:22 AM
You mean there's a deck that is only balanced by it getting a bad hand and that's considered a good thing?

Their best hands look something like this: 2 mana, about 3 one CMC creatures, and 2 two CMC creatures.

larryhl
06-05-2013, 11:23 AM
While I agree this might be a problem I'm not sure those decks would be that powerful. Naya would really suffer from only ever being able to play two drops, you would have endless spells but you couldn't play them very quickly and a deck with 3/4 drops would prevent you from attacking very quickly. You'd probably only be able to get basic lands as well meaning you'd only have a limited number of quality cards.

Mono red is more of an issue but there are still only so many lava spikes and shocks before you just run out of good cards and end up with rubbish.

You've really been out of MtG for a while if you're still talking about Lava Spike and Shock...

jai151
06-05-2013, 11:25 AM
Well yes but are decisions in deckbuilding better than those in play? The post suggest that rowing cards makes it easier which is opposite of how it works.

There is also the fact wow has quests/location along with classes/factions so you still have to build a sort of mana base anyway.

Decisions in deckbuilding are desirable. No win decisions while playing ("All these cards are useful, oh god, what do I toss, *panic*") are not.

houjix
06-05-2013, 11:28 AM
Decisions in deckbuilding are desirable. No win decisions while playing ("All these cards are useful, oh god, what do I toss, *panic*") are not.


But there's also times when cards are completely dead in a given matchup. Being able to use it as a resource gives even dead cards functionality. And let's face it, when people can net deck, deckbuilding decisions don't matter to a lot of people.

stiii
06-05-2013, 11:46 AM
You've really been out of MtG for a while if you're still talking about Lava Spike and Shock...

Those were examples of the types for cards that would cause an issue. If you could build a deck full of lava spike effects then it would be very hard to beat 40 spike/20 mountain is a very good deck.

Playing a bunch of red creatures no matter how good they might be isn't really a problem.

stiii
06-05-2013, 11:53 AM
Decisions in deckbuilding are desirable. No win decisions while playing ("All these cards are useful, oh god, what do I toss, *panic*") are not.

I don't see why there is such a big aversion to punishing bad players during the game but not in deck building. When people are build a mana base for a limited deck they will often have to pick between 7/7/3 or 8/8/2 or something else. Both these things require player skill so why is it good in deck building but not in deck playing?

If it is so terrible to toss a card does this mean they shouldn't print discard spells either? Even a spell that is draw two discard one forces players to pick. While these things don't come up every turn, you don't have to row a card in the wow system every turn either, there are a bunch of cards you want to row so whenever you have them there is no pressure.

Turtlewing
06-05-2013, 12:09 PM
I don't see why there is such a big aversion to punishing bad players during the game but not in deck building. When people are build a mana base for a limited deck they will often have to pick between 7/7/3 or 8/8/2 or something else. Both these things require player skill so why is it good in deck building but not in deck playing?

If it is so terrible to toss a card does this mean they shouldn't print discard spells either? Even a spell that is draw two discard one forces players to pick. While these things don't come up every turn, you don't have to row a card in the wow system every turn either, there are a bunch of cards you want to row so whenever you have them there is no pressure.

The main difference is during play you are on a timer which can cause a player to "panic". Whereas deck-building is done at your leisure and you have all the time you want to mull over the possibilities where no one is watching you.

Being put on the spot to "choose which card you discard now. And remember: your chances of victory depend on choosing well" every single turn as an artifact of the basic resource system it potentially more off putting (especially to new/casual players who don't have the metagame internalized) than loosing the occasional game due to manna screw which is basicly a "whoops act of shuffler, I'll totally get you next time!" or "back to the drawing board I will find a way to make this decl work" moment.

Discard effects on cards that are played are different. That's your opponent trying to 'hurt you' and it's expected to 'suck' but at the same time you get to 'hurt them' back or counter their attempt with the cards you play both of which are satisfying.

Fleckenwhatever
06-05-2013, 12:09 PM
Decisions in deckbuilding are desirable. No win decisions while playing ("All these cards are useful, oh god, what do I toss, *panic*") are not.

Oh, you mean like "Well, I guess my 40% land deck is stuck on two, I lose?" That's not a decision.

The system we appear to be staring at is a small step up from having a 60 card deck with 26 blanks whose sole purpose is to enable the other 34 cards. Now we have 26 blanks that fractionally allow us access to a power that helps offset the cost of drawing too many blanks, but does nothing to solve the problem of not enough blanks.

Personally, were I locked into the notion of lands and thresholds and charges that Hex is using, I'd have charges work in reverse. Every resource you play lowers your champion charge by 1 if able, and you can spend charges for some effect. That way, if you draw enough resources to actually play the game you can, and if you don't you at least have your champion's charge power to hopefully keep you in the game long enough to even out the RNG.

Turtlewing
06-05-2013, 12:14 PM
Personally, were I locked into the notion of lands and thresholds and charges that Hex is using, I'd have charges work in reverse. Every resource you play lowers your champion charge by 1, and you can spend charges for some effect. That way, if you draw enough resources to actually play the game you can, and if you don't you at least have your champion's charge power to hopefully keep you in the game long enough to even out the RNG.

um.. I guess if your champion automatically charged every turn maybe. As written (where no method of increasing champion charge is specified) that would have a lot of negative consequences.

stiii
06-05-2013, 12:17 PM
The main difference is during play you are on a timer which can cause a player to "panic". Whereas deck-building is done at your leisure and you have all the time you want to mull over the possibilities where no one is watching you.

Being put on the spot to "choose which card you discard now. And remember: your chances of victory depend on choosing well" every single turn as an artifact of the basic resource system it potentially more off putting (especially to new/casual players who don't have the metagame internalized) than loosing the occasional game due to manna screw which is basicly a "whoops act of shuffler, I'll totally get you next time!" or "back to the drawing board I will find a way to make this decl work" moment.

Discard effects on cards that are played are different. That's your opponent trying to 'hurt you' and it's expected to 'suck' but at the same time you get to 'hurt them' back or counter their attempt with the cards you play both of which are satisfying.

I pretty much agree with what you are saying.

I however would much prefer the system where if I lose it is my fault due to rowing the wrong card three turns ago than because I got unlucky with drawing my lands. The issue is maybe one method is worse for new players but they aren't all the players in the game, should we also aim to make the other players happy too?

Time limits are part of the game already, picking between which of two different three drops also puts you under time pressure. Building your limited deck after a draft will also be timed. Why is it important to removes this one time pressure but not to remove all these other time pressures?

MugenMusou
06-05-2013, 12:23 PM
I'm sure all of us know but this discussion will never come to a unanimous conclusion as Magic have had 20 years of the same discussion.

I've written a little about this topic on my blog with referencing to couple of classic Magic articles.

http://houshasen.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/%E3%80%90hex%E3%80%91-why-resource-screw/

My conclusion is as a player who get mana screwed, it is sucks. It's a negative experience. Wish they can do something about it. However, when you look at a game design as a whole, the negative experience of a player at a moment may make an epic game for someone (even for the person who got mana screwed).

Fleckenwhatever
06-05-2013, 12:32 PM
um.. I guess if your champion automatically charged every turn maybe. As written (where no method of increasing champion charge is specified) that would have a lot of negative consequences.

Yep. So instead, have every land read "When this resource comes into play, your champion loses 1 charge if able." Solved.

Vorpal
06-05-2013, 12:39 PM
lol one of the arguments against the wow system was that being able to row cards creates analysis paralysis, players have too many options. It is funny how people can say building a mana base gives you all these options but rowing cards is bad for doing the same thing.

Analysis paralysis while you are building your deck hurts no one.
Analysis paralysis while you are deciding what card to play as a face down resource hurts your opponent(s)

Fleckenwhatever
06-05-2013, 12:40 PM
Analysis paralysis while you are building your deck hurts no one.
Analysis paralysis while you are deciding what card to play as a face down resource hurts your opponent(s)

Analysis paralysis at least means you are getting to make decisions.

Not having the ability to make decisions is precisely what the WoW system solves.

houjix
06-05-2013, 12:42 PM
Analysis paralysis while you are building your deck hurts no one.
Analysis paralysis while you are deciding what card to play as a face down resource hurts your opponent(s)

This is really getting over stated. It doesn't take that much time. It's no different that some one looking over the board and deciding whether to attack and doing all the math of whether pushing through a point of damage is worth losing their crappy 1/1. I've seen players do it all the time in Magic.