The die roll imbalance.

[mulder]

One of the most imbalanced things in Magic is deciding who gets to start by the hand of a die roll. 99% of the people who win the die roll decide to play first, and see their chances of winning increased by a pretty large percentage because of it. The fact that the player who is on the play gets to draw a card is simply not enough for people to even consider not starting first.
I personally can't win a die roll if my life denpended on it, and knowing that you have less chance of winning simply because you rarely win die rolls is frustrating. You can tweak or change your deck, but rolling a die is just a random act that rewards people simply because they get lucky... .
What can be done to make this imbalance a little more balanced?
A 'free' mulligan?
A scry?
Drawing an extra card?
Playing two lands on turn 1?

Any suggestions?

[FTW]

I personally can't win a die roll if my life denpended on it, and knowing that you have less chance of winning simply because you rarely win die rolls is frustrating.
What can be done to make this imbalance a little more balanced?


Buy better dice. Your odds are 50/50.

People often underestimate their good luck and overestimate their bad luck. Look at all the complainers on MTGO. "The shuffler screwed me." "I draw better in paper, it's the shuffler's fault." "I get mana flooded EVERY TIME." No, there's nothing wrong with the odds. They just fixate on all the times luck worked against them and forget the other games it worked well.

[Sloshthedark]

One of the most imbalanced things in Magic is deciding who gets to start by the hand of a die roll. 99% of the people who win the die roll decide to play first, and see their chances of winning increased by a pretty large percentage because of it. The fact that the player who is on the play gets to draw a card is simply not enough for people to even consider not starting first.
I personally can't win a die roll if my life denpended on it, and knowing that you have less chance of winning simply because you rarely win die rolls is frustrating. You can tweak or change your deck, but rolling a die is just a random act that rewards people simply because they get lucky... .
What can be done to make this imbalance a little more balanced?
A 'free' mulligan?
A scry?
Drawing an extra card?
Playing two lands on turn 1?

Any suggestions?

balance the cards that T1 doesnt matter that much (no more T1 high impact cards), or play best of 5 if suitable, atm I think it's quite ok, the +1 card is big in a lot of MUs adn the T1 deck not getting the T1 with their general inconsistency (which should not be improved) as well unfortunately the new mull goes exactly against that adn I think the general rule change should be a matter of last resort so I guess just the 1st and ban the most extreme /unban a counterweight

[mulder]

Buy better dice. Your odds are 50/50.

People often underestimate their good luck and overestimate their bad luck. Look at all the complainers on MTGO. "The shuffler screwed me." "I draw better in paper, it's the shuffler's fault." "I get mana flooded EVERY TIME." No, there's nothing wrong with the odds. They just fixate on all the times luck worked against them and forget the other games it worked well.

I knew this comment was coming. No matter how you turn it, there will always be people who lose more die rolls than they win. Fun fact: I actually keeps stat of this for fun, and the last 5 years I've lost about 80% of all my die rolls. In theory sure, you have 50% chance but in reality there will always be people who win more and lose more. And winning or losing a die roll shouldn't have an influence on your chances of winning.
Besides, this is not about me whining about the fact that I can't win die rolls. It is about the fact that it is not correct that people have to start with and unfair disadvantage because of losing a die roll, or/and how to possibly compensate for that.

[mulder]

balance the cards that T1 doesnt matter that much (no more T1 high impact cards), or play best of 5 if suitable, atm I think it's quite ok, the +1 card is big in a lot of MUs adn the T1 deck not getting the T1 with their general inconsistency (which should not be improved) as well unfortunately the new mull goes exactly against that adn I think the general rule change should be a matter of last resort so I guess just the 1st and ban the most extreme /unban a counterweight

It is not ok when 99% of the people elect to begin when they win the roll. There are like tow fringe decks that elect to draw first, EVERY other deck/player prefers to draw first. That actually means that there is a pretty huge preference / advantage in playing first.

[tescrin]

It is not ok
:really:

This is a value judgement and has no place in any discussion. Those discussions that are beholden value judgements cannot be resolved and thus are pointless. Take this to heart and apply this to every discussion you ever have and you'll live a better life.


when 99% of the people elect to begin when they win the roll. [...] That actually means that there is a pretty huge preference / advantage in playing first.

This is simply true of turn-based games. If you don't like that turn based games have this 'feature' there is nothing to be helped. The issue occurs (notably) in Chess, in Total War (the human going first is a large advantage), in 40k/AoS, Checkers, Battleship, etc.

Aside from the fact that in some of these games the rules to help mitigate that advantage sometimes flips the script; the fact is it literally *can't* be perfectly balanced. Even if you offer additional advantages to going second you will still have an ideal strategy. Currently that strategy is the same for every deck which is what bothers you; but even if we implement the desired additional change (which adds another mild rule to the game that happens precisely once each game, complicating it somewhat) you'll still eventually have a strategy for every deck that weighs going first and second; which will be proven out by the data of wins/losses and there will be an accepted "correct" thing to do. The only difference will be people who wantonly disagree with that data and play different in spite of it.

What this means is we will still live in the same dichotomous world where people who get what they want and people who don't get what they want (based on those data driven advantages) are in the same position: "The die roll didn't go my way and I lost. The game is broken."

Which means that any mitigation strategy will ultimately fail. Q.E.D.
*with a tiny tiny note that if you instead had "best of x" where until you lose twice in a row the round continues; which has a different set of problems, that may be an appropriate strategy

____________

A side note is that good decks still win when they go second and good players mitigate those things. The RNG in magic (such as the way lands work) has been specifically pointed out as a means to allow worse players/decks to always have a chance at winning. RNG can be mitigated by skill, but not deterministically cancelled. This is what helps make games with RNG more addictive than those that are deterministic; because it gives your ego/brain an out. This has been pointed out by people like Mark Rosewater, love or hate him, as a fundamentally good choice for games to have.

When you get to blame your loss on RNG (true or not) the fact is that the variance is built into the game to make what caused your loss more obscured. The difference is when you collect data you will start to find out whether it is you or the game. If you say "I lost that one game to RNG but I've blown away these other 25 matches in a row"; it probably actually was the variance just nipping you.

What you should look at if you are consistently losing (and blaming the dice roll) is a mix of your deck and your skill/abilities. I realize this comes off as Ad Hominim; but I'm telling you that on top of the previous premise (that you literally can never fix this in a turn-based game) this 'flaw' is purposely built into the game.

____
Finally, there's already a mitigation strategy in place (your opponent is down a card) and people already make plenty of interesting decisions regarding who is going first, for some decks anyway. Daze is often trimmed more on the Draw, Force is often trimmed more on the play; cards that lock your opponent out are better on the play than on the draw, etc. Higher cost cards are slightly better on the draw.

One can thusly view it as an opportunity for skill to shine through more so then. If you build your deck understanding how the nuance of the game (and that matchup) change depending on whether you go first or not, you can show mastery and further differentiate yourself from the other player.

[kinda]

A quick Google shows in chess white wins ~55% of the time. This is mitigated by players alternating between black and white throughout the tournament. No die rolling. Maybe try chess?

[itslarryyo]

I knew this comment was coming. No matter how you turn it, there will always be people who lose more die rolls than they win. Fun fact: I actually keeps stat of this for fun, and the last 5 years I've lost about 80% of all my die rolls. In theory sure, you have 50% chance but in reality there will always be people who win more and lose more. And winning or losing a die roll shouldn't have an influence on your chances of winning.
Besides, this is not about me whining about the fact that I can't win die rolls. It is about the fact that it is not correct that people have to start with and unfair disadvantage because of losing a die roll, or/and how to possibly compensate for that.
80% over 5 years?

Did someone give you loaded dice?

[FTW]

I knew this comment was coming. No matter how you turn it, there will always be people who lose more die rolls than they win.

Every individual's rate varies, some will win more than others, but over the long run the more games you play it should converge toward 50%.

If it's not, like I said you should think about how you're rolling dice because there could be some mechnical anomaly behind it:
- don't use roll-down D20s. stick to normal 6-sided dice.
- roll 2 or more dice together and use the sum. using more dice reduces variance
- make sure both players are actually rolling the dice, not just plopping it out on one side

If that still doesn't work for you, then download a digitial random number generator on your phone and suggest to use that instead of dice.


And winning or losing a die roll shouldn't have an influence on your chances of winning.

Why not? Winning the die roll (a random event) influences your chance of winning, but so does how many lands you draw in your opening hand, how often you get mana flooded, how often you draw your combo piece, how often you topdeck well, and who you randomly get paired against in an event. Is it any more fair for someone to start with an unfair disadvantage if they draw worse hands or get paired against bad matchups? All of these things are pure chance, not skill. Magic is inherently a mix of skill and luck. Randomness is built into the game. Players mitigate that by designing decks that reduce variance and adapting their lines of play to what luck brings. Still, the game is intentionally designed so that sometimes you lose (or win) to randomness.

Going first has a huge impact in games like chess, and chess is a completely deterministic game otherwise (unlike Magic). Playing a best-of 3 instead of single elimination mitigates that somewhat. In pro sports (e.g. football), winning coin flips matters too.

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

I knew this comment was coming. No matter how you turn it, there will always be people who lose more die rolls than they win. Fun fact: I actually keeps stat of this for fun, and the last 5 years I've lost about 80% of all my die rolls. In theory sure, you have 50% chance but in reality there will always be people who win more and lose more. And winning or losing a die roll shouldn't have an influence on your chances of winning.
Besides, this is not about me whining about the fact that I can't win die rolls. It is about the fact that it is not correct that people have to start with and unfair disadvantage because of losing a die roll, or/and how to possibly compensate for that.

If you're losing 80% of for die rolls, play decks that need to be on the play.

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

:really:

This is a value judgement and has no place in any discussion. Those discussions that are beholden value judgements cannot be resolved and thus are pointless. Take this to heart and apply this to every discussion you ever have and you'll live a better life.


Nuclear take detected.

[apple713]

I knew this comment was coming. No matter how you turn it, there will always be people who lose more die rolls than they win. Fun fact: I actually keeps stat of this for fun, and the last 5 years I've lost about 80% of all my die rolls. In theory sure, you have 50% chance but in reality there will always be people who win more and lose more. And winning or losing a die roll shouldn't have an influence on your chances of winning.
Besides, this is not about me whining about the fact that I can't win die rolls. It is about the fact that it is not correct that people have to start with and unfair disadvantage because of losing a die roll, or/and how to possibly compensate for that.

You must not be playing that many games, like 50 games over 5 years doesn’t count bro. If you are playing hundreds of games and your 80% is reasonably accurate, and you havent switched to a deck that benefits from on the draw, then this is natural selection at its finest.

[tescrin]

Nuclear take detected.
(couldn't find an RA2 gif, so this will have to do)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyafFTPs85M

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

(couldn't find an RA2 gif, so this will have to do)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyafFTPs85M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTlYyxvwOJE

[Dice_Box]

Who the hell rolls a die, you all know these exist yea?

https://i.imgur.com/OddNdOe.jpg

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

Who the hell rolls a die, you all know these exist yea?

https://i.imgur.com/OddNdOe.jpg

I knew a guy who used these. He had to stop because explaining the Monty Hall problem to teens is incredibly cumbersome.

[Dice_Box]

I knew a guy who used these. He had to stop because explaining the Monty Hall problem to teens is incredibly cumbersome.
I have two sets, I hand one to them and use one myself.

[H]

The answer to the "problem of dice" or whatever, is to do (as I think there are other card games that do) and simply have the pairing software put on the match slip who gets the choice. This way, as long as the algorithm is reasonably robust, it should adhere to 50/50 in the long run.

Now, as for the game play mechanic of the Play being that much better than the Draw, that is a "problem" of cards that have disproportional effect on the game being castable via "fast mana." This isn't a thing that can be solves except with the widest of ban hammers. Although we are going to see it given a stress test when the London mulligan comes to fruition.

[tescrin]

I knew a guy who used these. He had to stop because explaining the Monty Hall problem to teens is incredibly cumbersome.

You know, I was thinking that the last time someone handed me it: "Didn't I learn in college that he has a 50% chance of winning while I have a 33%?" but I didn't pipe up. I'm not 100% monty hall applies here; but that's just because it's such a mind twist.

brazingra

[compacta_d]

I tend to lose die rolls as well. I highly doubt it's 80% though. My guess would be somewhere between 60-70, which really is 1-3 in a 4 round event more times than 2-2 average. Not that bad IMO.

I'm very used to playing on the draw and don't really mind it. Even when chalice/thoughtseize are the majority of turn 1s.

[Fox]

Tiger is overpowered, everyone knows this @Dice_Box. 50% of the time it wins 100% of the time and that's like a 75% win rate.

[ESG]

Manaless Dredge loves to lose the die roll.

If you aren't interested in that deck, how about trying some non-dice methods of randomization, like flipping a coin? It's hard to believe your stats claim, but if it's actually that unfavorable, then try something else. Any random method ought to be fine as long as your opponent agrees. I like Dice_Box's suggestion. I personally keep a deck of poker cards with me and like to put a card face down and have my opponent guess whether it's a red card or a black card. With more casual games or poker fans, it's fun to do a quick poker hand and have the winner of that choose whether to be on the play or on the draw.

[mistercakes]

Play miracles. Prob great on the draw.

[Bithlord]

You know, I was thinking that the last time someone handed me it: "Didn't I learn in college that he has a 50% chance of winning while I have a 33%?" but I didn't pipe up. I'm not 100% monty hall applies here; but that's just because it's such a mind twist.

brazingra

The Monty Hall problem is framed as follows:

The game show presents you with three doors, and you can pick one. Behind one is a car, behind both of the others is a goat. You arbitrarily pick one door. The game show host will *always* then open a door with a goat. You then get the choice of staying with the door you picked (which had a 1/3 chance to be the car), or switch to the other closed door (which has a 1/2 chance to be the car, since you now have knowledge that the open door is not a car).

Monty Hall doesn't apply, because what makes it "work" is the change in knowledge from initial pick to the second pick. Assuming you *each* have a set of paper/scissors/rock - you have no knowledge of the other players choice and equal odds to win. If you try and make it work using only one set, and randomly pick onecard for each player, then each players still has equal odds of winning, but those odds are only 35% (the remaining 35% is a draw and forces the players to redraw).

But, there will *never* be a game where your odds are 35% and his are 50%, because it's a zero zum situation. Either he wins the roll or you win the roll.

[FTW]

You know, I was thinking that the last time someone handed me it: "Didn't I learn in college that he has a 50% chance of winning while I have a 33%?" but I didn't pipe up. I'm not 100% monty hall applies here; but that's just because it's such a mind twist.

brazingra

You both have a 50% chance of winning.

He presents you the 3 cards face down. He picks one at random (e.g. Rock). He presents you with the remaining 2 choices. One of them loses to it (e.g. Scissors) and the other one beats it (e.g. Paper), so you have a 50% chance of winning and 50% chance that he beats you. It's perfectly fair.

The Monty Hall problem is different. It involves having the option to switch your choice after Monty eliminates one of the other options. There's no switching with the Rock Lobster game. Also the key difference is Monty doesn't remove one at random. As the show host he already knows the real answer, and he always removes a losing choice (for the drama of opening a door and revealing a dud). His choice adds information (he never eliminates the car) and that's why the odds change. If Monty removed one at random, it wouldn't matter whether you switch or not.

[FTW]

You then get the choice of staying with the door you picked (which had a 1/3 chance to be the car), or switch to the other closed door (which has a 1/2 chance to be the car, since you now have knowledge that the open door is not a car).

Minor technicality: The other closed door has a 2/3 chance to be the car. It's still zero-sum.

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

Monty Hall applies to any statistical problem where Choice 1 is invalidated by Choice 2. In the classic problem it's because Choice 1 was made at different odds, and in this problem it's because Choice 1 serves only to seed the definition of Choice 2.
If you're worried about it I recommend adding a Goat Token to get the true Zonk experience.

[FTW]

Monty Hall applies to any statistical problem where Choice 1 is invalidated by Choice 2. In the classic problem it's because Choice 1 was made at different odds, and in this problem it's because Choice 1 serves only to seed the definition of Choice 2.

Ok sure the problem can be generalized to other things. Still the odds only change because both of these occur:
1) someone with perfect information removes one of the options nonrandomly, revealing information about the remaining choices
2) you're allowed to change your choice after the information is revealed

Even in the classic problem, if you couldn't change your choice after he opens the door, there's no trick. It's a fair game.

If Monty eliminated a door at random, again there's no trick. It's a fair game.

There's no Monty Hall issue playing with Rock Lobster and friends. You're both picking at random. Each player has a 50% chance to win.

[Bithlord]

Minor technicality: The other closed door has a 2/3 chance to be the car. It's still zero-sum.

good catch. Wrote it fast at work.

[Dice_Box]

You know, there is always the other option, this:
https://i.imgur.com/HYuoQly.jpg

[TomTwice]

You know, there is always the other option, this:
https://i.imgur.com/HYuoQly.jpg

Except that then introduces the possibility of a draw, whereas just the one set is always a 50% chance to win the 'die roll' for the player picking second.

[Echelon]

So if you draw you go again. What's the problem?

You could also just pick even or uneven (or high or low for that matter) and just roll the die.

[Enesta]

Probably easier to make games best-of-two
And will be a fairer metric..
If you cant “break their serve”, u dont win..