Thoughts about the current HL-Situation

[ChristophO]

@berlinballz:
Running a deck with 1/3 lands (20/60; 33/100) does not bode well for spells that cost more than 3 and you should not see more than 1 or at the very max 2 spells that cost 3 in a normal game. Also most 60 card decks with low land counts play cheap library manipulation (e.g. 4 ponder + 4 brainstorm) in abundance. Compare this to HL decks. Typical highlander decks cut between 2 to 6 lands due to the spoils mulligan. Replacing 4 ponder with buisness cards in a 60 card decks also means that you will have to include 2 additional lands to stay consistenst (prevent mana screw). You are wrong and are making comparisions that do not work.

Regarding the landcount, at the last HL grand prix those amount of lands were played in the Top 8 (only mana producing lands; just a quick glance):
35
34
33
3* 32
31
28

All those decks play too little land und normal (proper) rules. Those players are purposely worsening the consistency of their deck to increase the power of their deck (and rightfully so). Thereby defeating the purpose of introducing the spoils mulligan in the first place. Once enough lands are cut, we might introduce a second free spoils mulligan as to enable even less lands! (sarcasm)

[berlinballz]

@LasH

1) you wrote: ,,I don't see where i wrote that decks only run 27-29 lands. Reread."
> okay i did.
in your post you wrote: ,,But seriously, if you only run 27-29 lands thats the price to pay".

> I assumed you are referring to (your) reality in what you say and replied:

,,now you are saying decks run ,,27-29 lands", like it's a regular thing? that is completely untrue."

2) you wrote: ,,i don't see where i wrote that control doesn't exist anymore (...)"

> you made 4 summarizing points. 2 of those where regarding the power of aggro. I must assume you state all this, to prove that there is a problem within the meta. by constantly saying aggro is overpowered, you oviously act like control isn't as powerful.

3) you wrote: ,,your statement about miracle spells is ridiculous"

okay, fine, you are right. there are lists that place well and run miracle spells. i believe there are still enough times, where these spells are lost in your hand, to not call them a real problem.

4) you wrote: ,,Berlin is for sure not more or less important for the meta than ANY other
city."

> maybe not. all i said is that berliners have placed well in the tournaments they played latley. i only said this, to prove, that the meta is meaningful and that i am not judging the situation from my kitchen table. there are tournaments on mtgpulse, where lists place well, that i am very sure wouldn't do anything in berlin.

@ChristophO:

you say: ,,All those decks play too little land under normal (proper) rules."

> why is this such a problem to you? so EVERYBODY runs less lands. aggro runs 32 avg, control runs 36 maybe? everybody gets to add 4-6 more non-land-cards to their decks, than with a normal mulligan.

i don't get this whole ,,proper rules" thing. highlander decks play only one copy of each card. that is not ,,proper" either.

In general:

I think at this point the whole debate is very far from the original ,,problem" "the disfunctional metagame".

A disfunctional meta must first be proven. To me it hasn't been. And to most voters it hasn't been proven either it seems like. the ,,roughly half of the community" statement by Christoph wasn't true for the voting-numbers I saw.

i am not talking about a local meta, where for some reason everybody runs 5-color-aggro, i am talking about a global meta, that is naturally judged by the top-decks.
to me a meta is broken if:
(a) there is no diversity in decks
(b) skill in deckbuilding isn't rewarded
(c) playskill isn't rewarded,
(d) games take only five minutes or too long.

maybe i forgot some stuff.

it is obvious, that in a singleton format a group of strong cards show up in a lot of decks, because it is not that easy to find 65 cards that are good enough. but there are still enough decks, that run many other cards and still succeed.

I feel like there is very vocal minority that is doing everything it can to change the existing mulligan rule. and i would be fine with that, if you could somehow prove that the meta is currently disfunctional.

but you simply haven't yet.

[MMD]

@ berlinballz: Please count again. You should better call this a majority. You can lead a horse to the water but you can't make him drink... 

[ChristophO]

you say: ,,All those decks play too little land under normal (proper) rules."

> why is this such a problem to you? so EVERYBODY runs less lands. aggro runs 32 avg, control runs 36 maybe? everybody gets to add 4-6 more non-land-cards to their decks, than with a normal mulligan.

i don't get this whole ,,proper rules" thing. highlander decks play only one copy of each card. that is not ,,proper" either.



The purpose of the spoils mulligan was to enable consistent decks that were not possible when it was introduced (lack of color fixing lands, only 5 fetchies etc.). Right now the consistency gain  for a "proper" deck is purposely given away to lower land count and increase the power of one's deck. So why allow a spoils mulligan in the first place? This is one of two things which is annoying me the most.

The second one has been described nicely by Lash in the post where he was quoting me.

In general:

I think at this point the whole debate is very far from the original ,,problem" "the disfunctional metagame".

The debate is not very far away. But it is about more then dysfunctional metagames.



(a) there is no diversity in decks
(b) skill in deckbuilding isn't rewarded
(c) playskill isn't rewarded,
(d) games take only five minutes or too long.



Skill in deckbuilding is not punished enough because people can play decks with bad curve and bad colorfixing and have the spoils mulligan fix it with too little regards needed for those problems in the deckbuilding process.

Diversity is lowered in my opnion because of the unneeded strengthening of 4c aggro.

Playskill is not impacted by mulligan rules changes. Both mulligan rules demand skill. I believe option B would be a good solution in offering "protection" against bad luck without distorting the deck building process so much.

Game length varies a lot. At 4-0 at the last Highlander GP I lost game 1 againt Patrick's 28 deck because I did not find a sweeeper. In the second game I resolved The Abyss on turn 2 being on the play after Patrick played a Lllanowar Elf T1 and humilty on turn 4. In the third game Patrick mulled to six than fixed his hand with the spoils and played Dark Confidant T1 and Edric T2 or T3. So did the spoils mulligan prevent in those games that the game outcome had been decided by the players opening hands like it is supposed to do? Once the game started I was a hugely favored to win G2 and to lose G3.
   

Regarding your rant that I can not count:
Please count the votes of Option A and compare with (B+C). Yesterday that was 16 to 15 I think or roughly half.

[berlinballz]

Game length varies a lot. At 4-0 at the last Highlander GP I lost game 1 againt Patrick's 28 deck because I did not find a sweeeper. In the second game I resolved The Abyss on turn 2 being on the play after Patrick played a Lllanowar Elf T1 and humilty on turn 4. In the third game Patrick mulled to six than fixed his hand with the spoils and played Dark Confidant T1 and Edric T2 or T3. So did the spoils mulligan prevent in those games that the game outcome had been decided by the players opening hands like it is supposed to do? Once the game started I was a hugely favored to win G2 and to lose G3.

i love this, i ask for this to get back to the original discussion and you start telling me a story about a single game? is that where we are now? for a format where i can play 200 games of one matchup and all differ? what does this story tell me?

and no, i never said you can't count. to me b and c are very different. what i am saying now though, is that you are horrible to argue with, because you start a new subgame every time you answer.

again. no short, sorted information to prove why you want things to change. i could try to assume where the obvious frustration stems from, but i won't. prove the need for change. please don't just think out aloud. it wastes so much time.

[Vazdru]

@ all

try to stay polite to eachother - there is no need to be offending

[ChristophO]

@berlinballz:
You are constantly (and willfully?) misunderstanding Lash, MMD, and me. I think the points I and others have made are pretty clear. I believe the story I reported and you quoted just shows that competitive HL is a pretty powered format (which is fine) and that the metric "game length" is pretty tough to evaluate. If you can not read 10 to 20 lines of text without a summary I feel sorry for you.

@Vazdru:
I am trying - but its tough with some people 

@berlinballz:
Why do you think B and C are very much different? For building a deck they are of little to no difference.

[MMD]

I would also like to get a proof. Can somebody give me a proof for the official explanation why we use the Spoils mulligan? For your convenience: http://www.highlandermagic.info/index.php?id=mulligan

What is the "increased probability" in reference to other constructed formats because I simply don´t get it. Really. I don´t understand the explanation and cannot explain to others. Sorry.

I am not good in math but if I have 20-26 lands in a 60 card constructed deck, than there should be about 33-44 lands in a Highlander deck. We play 28-36 lands.
Also a lot of decks have a horrible mana curve. It is not very important because you can simply spoil the duplicates away.
We abuse our own rules.

Please don´t tell me there is not enough mana fixing to build a multicolored deck.

[berlinballz]

okay. maybe i am stupid. i've read your game summary like 20 times now. for one i don't understand what one game proves. i only speak of average game length here.
secondly sentences like:
"So did the spoils mulligan prevent in those games that the game outcome had been decided by the players opening hands like it is supposed to do?"
are written so poorly, that i can really honestly barely understand them.

are you saying the spoils mulligan is supposed to make sure nobody wins because of their starting hand?

you guys being a trio with the same apparently unchangeable opinion, doesn't mean you don't have to argue properly. this game is important to me, so i won't budge to you insulting my intelligence, simply because i don't understand your writing.

[W0lf]

I like 4 and 5 colored decks and i like playing less lands simply because drawing lands is not fun. Everyone that played modo for a longer period of time can relate to this. You draft an nice deck and then you lose in round 1 because of mulligan to 5 and still screw or flood. The spoils mulligan is the number 1 reason highlander is my favourite format. I like it the way it is and it should stay like that.

[berlinballz]

@ christoph

and regarding the difference between b) and c): I have never played option b. from my logic, i am thinking
c) will cause a lot of frustration, with floods screws and the like. as has been said by several members of this forum, other than me.
b) i don't know. might cause less frustration. just don't see an overall need for change.

[berlinballz]

@ mmd

why do you not just play 60 cards?
you keep bringing up these numbers, over and over, but why?
we have an exiting meta, with lots of decks and proven players.

[tonytahiti]

the only reason i would ever vote for a change of that rule is when 4c and 5c decks become unbeatable. then: i'd agree we must change something.

but: i dont see this happening. right now or in the near future. i see alot of decks doing well, its just about piloting them right.

what do we want from this format: variety of decks and fun games right? i dont know what all this "punish greed" or "punish deck construction flaws!" talk is about..greed will be punished, not always..but its in the freakin word..greed. flaws..will be punished..if they are really flaws...its also in the freakin word.

looking at top8 decks and saying they are full of flaws..is..well..flawed. they are doing well cause they carry less flaws than other decks.

highlander is different than 60 cards..thats why we play it..so i dont know why we cant accept that manabases, landcount/landpercentage can be different as well. its all about moving on..from that 60 card mentality.

[ChristophO]

Difference B) C):
I agree with berlinballz in the regard that C) has the danger to be frustrating for some people with not so well thought-out decks, that is why i would prefer B).
Nevertheless i really dislike the spoils mulligan A) for stated reasons.

Spoils mulligan:
So wolf posts that he dislikes the normal mulligan because of bad beat stories (screw/flood) and losing games after mulligans.
I just wanted to show with an example that this still happens with bad beats. People always argue that the spoils mulligan makes the games fairer
and longer and better than normal games and also fixes the mana problems.

1)
I am arguing that instead of using the spoils mulligan for fixing it is used to empower decks (shuffle away dead tutor cards, fix curve, cut many lands).
2)
Instead of longer games (because of an assumed good start for both players) I argue that the more powerful a start is the easier it is to be blown out by
missing a land drop or even just a castable card in the curve.
3)
Fixing the mana ist not boon (Segen) but a problem in my eyes. playing more colors leads to playing the same powerful cards everybody else plays.
There should be tradeoff. Naturally there will be sweetspot in every format. My believe is that the sweetspot in Highlander is too far on the multicolor side
especially because of the spoils mulligan. For diversities  

This is just why i see no reason for the spoils mulligan. It does not achieve its goals or overachieves (color fixing) it.

edit @tony:
For me the format is already too much 4c aggro. There are many other viable arche types but they are always overshadowed numberwise. With a normal mulligan the meta would still be fun and varied (or do you have reason to believe otherwise). The meta for sure isnt varied because of the spoils mulligan but in spite of it. I think that is the biggest difference in thinking between beople arguing against and for the spoils mulligan.

[pyyhttu]

I would also like to get a proof. Can somebody give me a proof for the official explanation why we use the Spoils mulligan? For your convenience: http://www.highlandermagic.info/index.php?id=mulligan

What is the "increased probability" in reference to other constructed formats because I simply don´t get it.

Spoils mulligan is a brainchild of Frank's and predates somewhere to early spring of 2007. How it came to be, you can scour the archived forums with search word mulligan (and posts made by Sturmgott there). Here's a starting point: http://magicplayer.org/archive/viewtopic.php?t=571&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=mulligan&start=30 (see 13.03.2007 post made by Sturmgott).

"Increased probability" mentioned at highlandermagic.info mulligan section refers to faq #12, where spoils mulligan is explained little bit more deeper by saying that:

"Through the nature of statistics, the chances of building groups of lands within the deck are higher with a 100 card deck than with a 60 card deck. This results in more starting hands with very few or very many lands. Since we wish to minimize situations where games are won through mana screw or mana flood, this additional mulligan rule was introduced. The introduction of this rule as indeed balanced out this statistical imbalance".

That sentence means that operating larger decks is slower and results with less riffle/pile/split shuffle iterations. This combined with one long game (where you collect your lands) and you've got a case with more land clumps (or no land clumps).

But that sentence also hints that the reality is that bigger portion of players don't randomize their 100 card decks properly before presenting it to their opponents, and spoils was designed to alleviate this. If it's right or wrong, I don't know but let's just say that by the rules you're entitled to present your "deck so that the cards are in a random order."

But in any case the unwanted side effects we see now, i.e. curving out and building no-brainer manabases enabling greedy combinations from all over the color wheel were not the target of fixing mulligan, only abolishing mana flood/screw was.