Shuffle Mech - Worse in best of 3?

[Green Beets]

I have less than 130 hours in and for 95% that have played single game match. The shuffle was not great but 75% of the time it was ok. I'm actually able to build better decks now so I moved on to traditional standard w/sideboard.

Started playing Standard Ranked last week and WTF!!!! It's sickening and have posted on this before. So now I started playing the unranked best of 3 SR and the shuffle is equally as bad. I can see the frustration with opponents too.

Just now I drew 5 lands on a first draw and said I'll keep it just for Shi*ts and Giggles. Yeap, I drew 4 LANDS in a row after that. Happens a lot when I draw in with 3-4 lands. When I draw in with only 1-2 lands I wont see any for at least 3-4 rounds over 90% of the time. I went from 2 Smuggler's Surprise up to 4 literally just to counter the broken shuffle mechanics of this game.

MTG is intended to be played 2 out of 3 sideboard. That is, apparently, unless you play MTGA then stick to single games.?

Way too many are pointing this out so this can't be just Random. I want to be nice but if WoTC doesn't address this issue they'll be no more financial input into this game from me.

[Winter Wolf]

Lack of hand smoother is jarring.

[GarbageCollector]

Yeah if you weren't aware, Bo1 has a hand smoother, where the game will generate multiple (I think it's 3 now?) opening hands and select the one that is most average to present to you. You can still get screwed but it's far less likely. Things like 0 lands or 7 lands are particularly rare in Bo1.

Bo3 doesn't have this. You just get what you would really get if you did it in paper. I don't really have an opinion on which is better or worse, but as said it's definitely jarring if you get used to the hand smoother.

I just wish they were more explicit about its existence. I'm not sure it even tells you within the client itself that the hand smoother is a thing, anywhere. That's a problem.

Originally posted by Green Beets:

MTG is intended to be played 2 out of 3 sideboard. That is, apparently, unless you play MTGA then stick to single games.?

I mean, not necessarily. You just have to acknowledge that you're going to get more non-games in Bo3. You should also adjust your Bo1 deckbuilding to take advantage of the smoother. A lot of decks built for Bo1 can get away with less lands, because of the hand smoother, than you would ever want to risk in Bo3/normal opening hand probability.

Not the point of your post, but I would like to take the moment to smugly note that the existence of the hand smoother (and how much it seems to be preferred, generally) is pretty strong evidence against the "flawless" design of the land/nonland mana system. The not-so-remote possibility of not getting to play at all is a giant thorn in MtG's side from its inception, used to be even worse, and hopefully will continue to improve as the game lives on via various changes to mulligans, mana fixing, and the like. The hand smoother is just one of those latest efforts to do this, on arena only.

[The_Dybbuk_King]

Originally posted by GarbageCollector:

Originally posted by Green Beets:

MTG is intended to be played 2 out of 3 sideboard. That is, apparently, unless you play MTGA then stick to single games.?

I mean, not necessarily. You just have to acknowledge that you're going to get more non-games in Bo3.

Wut lmao

[ʍolɟ ǝɥʇ ǝsɹǝʌǝɹ]

Originally posted by The_Dybbuk_King:

Originally posted by GarbageCollector:

I mean, not necessarily. You just have to acknowledge that you're going to get more non-games in Bo3.

Wut lmao

What did you think hand smoother did? It keeps you on curve at an artificially higher rate. Ever heard of the 17 mountain exploit

[GarbageCollector]

Originally posted by The_Dybbuk_King:

Originally posted by GarbageCollector:

I mean, not necessarily. You just have to acknowledge that you're going to get more non-games in Bo3.

Wut lmao

A game where a player draws no lands at all for multiple turns after keeping a hand with 2, or drawing all lands after keeping a hand with 5, should be so trivially easy for their opponent (assuming they get fairly normal draws) to win that it is essentially a non-game. This can happen in Bo1 but it's rare.

In Bo3, all this can happen plus with no hand smoother, you are much more likely to draw worse opening hands with 0,1,6, or even 7 lands than in Bo1. You'll have to mulligan more often, sometimes starting with so many less cards than your opponent that it becomes trivially easy for them (assuming they get fairly normal draws) to win that it is essentially a non-game.

[ʍolɟ ǝɥʇ ǝsɹǝʌǝɹ]

Flood or screw isn't rare in bo1. Hand smoother only affects initial draw.

People wouldn't constantly be complaining about it if it was rare.

[The_Dybbuk_King]

Originally posted by GarbageCollector:

Originally posted by The_Dybbuk_King:

Wut lmao

A game where a player draws no lands at all for multiple turns after keeping a hand with 2, or drawing all lands after keeping a hand with 5, should be so trivially easy for their opponent (assuming they get fairly normal draws) to win that it is essentially a non-game. This can happen in Bo1 but it's rare.

In Bo3, all this can happen plus with no hand smoother, you are much more likely to draw worse opening hands with 0,1,6, or even 7 lands than in Bo1. You'll have to mulligan more often, sometimes starting with so many less cards than your opponent that it becomes trivially easy for them (assuming they get fairly normal draws) to win that it is essentially a non-game.

I wasn't asking you to explain yourself,

It's just hilarious when anyone uses the term "non-game." It's a telltale sign of a player that doesn't really understand the game as a whole.

[Green Beets]

Originally posted by The_Dybbuk_King:

Originally posted by GarbageCollector:

It's just hilarious when anyone uses the term "non-game." It's a telltale sign of a player that doesn't really understand the game as a whole.

Pretty sure he was talking about ranked or unranked Bo3 vs just single game deck practice.

My thing is if I have to construct a deck to make up for flawed shuffle mechanics then that's still giving most ranked decks another huge plus over my ability to compete with my own main unique deck.

Mono Green
Claw & Draw
It's Hell when it's Well!!!
It just stays sick a lot-

[GarbageCollector]

Originally posted by The_Dybbuk_King:

Originally posted by GarbageCollector:

A game where a player draws no lands at all for multiple turns after keeping a hand with 2, or drawing all lands after keeping a hand with 5, should be so trivially easy for their opponent (assuming they get fairly normal draws) to win that it is essentially a non-game. This can happen in Bo1 but it's rare.

In Bo3, all this can happen plus with no hand smoother, you are much more likely to draw worse opening hands with 0,1,6, or even 7 lands than in Bo1. You'll have to mulligan more often, sometimes starting with so many less cards than your opponent that it becomes trivially easy for them (assuming they get fairly normal draws) to win that it is essentially a non-game.

I wasn't asking you to explain yourself,

It's just hilarious when anyone uses the term "non-game." It's a telltale sign of a player that doesn't really understand the game as a whole.

This community is so weird.

[Green Beets]

This community is so weird. [/quote]

Society in general is perpetually immature; and getting worse. Nothing like spewing of negative sh*t from behind a computer screen.

[ʍolɟ ǝɥʇ ǝsɹǝʌǝɹ]

Originally posted by The_Dybbuk_King:

Originally posted by GarbageCollector:

A game where a player draws no lands at all for multiple turns after keeping a hand with 2, or drawing all lands after keeping a hand with 5, should be so trivially easy for their opponent (assuming they get fairly normal draws) to win that it is essentially a non-game. This can happen in Bo1 but it's rare.

In Bo3, all this can happen plus with no hand smoother, you are much more likely to draw worse opening hands with 0,1,6, or even 7 lands than in Bo1. You'll have to mulligan more often, sometimes starting with so many less cards than your opponent that it becomes trivially easy for them (assuming they get fairly normal draws) to win that it is essentially a non-game.

I wasn't asking you to explain yourself,

It's just hilarious when anyone uses the term "non-game." It's a telltale sign of a player that doesn't really understand the game as a whole.

Wotc uses this term themselves... guess you are positioned as an outsider rather than a member of the community

[The_Dybbuk_King]

Originally posted by ʍolɟ ǝɥʇ ǝsɹǝʌǝɹ:

Originally posted by The_Dybbuk_King:

I wasn't asking you to explain yourself,

It's just hilarious when anyone uses the term "non-game." It's a telltale sign of a player that doesn't really understand the game as a whole.

Wotc uses this term themselves... guess you are positioned as an outsider rather than a member of the community

Lmfao gasp! Not that! Anything but being an outsider!

Fun fact: quick google search shows that it's just a bunch of reddit threads saying "nongames" and those threads sound even more ridiculous than some of the tripe posted here.

So you're right, I am an outsider to the "Mad about whatever reddit community" that just makes up ♥♥♥♥ and says "Buhbuhwotc"

https://mtg.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_Magic_slang

Go ahead: find Non-game or nongame or whatever the hell. I won't wait. Its not there.

[GarbageCollector]

Originally posted by The_Dybbuk_King:

Originally posted by ʍolɟ ǝɥʇ ǝsɹǝʌǝɹ:

Wotc uses this term themselves... guess you are positioned as an outsider rather than a member of the community

Lmfao gasp! Not that! Anything but being an outsider!

Fun fact: quick google search shows that it's just a bunch of reddit threads saying "nongames" and those threads sound even more ridiculous than some of the tripe posted here.

So you're right, I am an outsider to the "Mad about whatever reddit community" that just makes up ♥♥♥♥ and says "Buhbuhwotc"

https://mtg.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_Magic_slang

Go ahead: find Non-game or nongame or whatever the hell. I won't wait. Its not there.

The slang or who uses it isn't really the point. You can call it whatever you want.

Saying that you will inevitably have games where you will lose despite optimal play because you simply didn't draw what you needed and there was nothing you can do isn't cope. It's just a reflection of the random nature of the game.

Since you're clearly more enlightened than me though, please help me "understand the game as a whole" the way you do. How do you win when you don't draw playable cards?

[Winter Wolf]

I am fairly certain the term originated on the protour as a way to describe boring games.

[The_Dybbuk_King]

Originally posted by Winter Wolf:

I am fairly certain the term originated on the protour as a way to describe boring games.

With that being the case, literally every match against Stax is a "nongame."

Every game control stabilizes turn 5/6 is a "nongame."

Every RDW God hand is a nongame.

Legacy and vintage are just "nongame" formats

Originally posted by GarbageCollector:

Since you're clearly more enlightened than me though, please help me "understand the game as a whole" the way you do. How do you win when you don't draw playable cards?

That's the neat part. You don't. Not drawing "playable cards" is more of a deck building mistake than anything else. If you can not consistently play the cards you draw, your manabase is probably (most times) the culprit.