Talk:Mana curve

From MTG Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi there! It's been a while since I was here...

I can see that geomike is still out there. What about MM?

Anyways I popped in to give of a little information.

I've been studying mana for years with my simulations, and for a long time I have come to the conclusion that there is NO perfect manacurve regarding the sligh principle!!!

Curves seem to beat each other in a mathematical complex way (Which I have named "Deckpulse")

When first I set out to discover the perfect manacurve way back in time, I was convinced that there simply had to be a sligh mana curve that was faster than all others. It was my goal/dream to use simulations to search for that golden curve.

What I did not realize until so many years after, was that manacurves have two elements which they behave within.

There was speed!

And later I found out that reliability was a second element.

Speed and reliability together creates a "deckpulse" (Forming a pattern which is far more complex than the below example) Deck a is able to beat deck b. Deck b is able to beat deck c. Deck c is able to beat deck a.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Sorry, I'm not sure what you are trying to do here, but your "research" is complete gibberish. First, anyone with basic understanding of Magic could have told you that there is no perfect mana curve. There is a reason why there are is a difference in this regard between aggro, midrange and [[control], each with increasing mean mana costs. There are faster formats and slower ones, let us recall the difference between Kamigawa and Ravnica block. Mana acceleration also plays an important role, e.g. Urzatron and its application with Tooth and Nail which probably is as far away from the sligh curve as one can imagine. The fancy word you made up is nothing but a chaotic system in mathematics and system theory, or in Magic theory the very concept of the metagame! Speed and reliability, now sorry, but that's a triviality. You almost always need to balance these two, such as when considering how many counterspells to have in order to back up your plan. And finally, the last thing you describe is known as paper-scissors-rock. The cornerstone of balancing in any complex strategy game (cf. video games like Starcraft). Also again this is the notion of a metagame.
There is also another issue concerning your simulations. As I have written somewhere on this site before, your calculations or (whatever they are) do not, in any way, resemble a kind of simulation I know of (having taken undergrad classes on simulation). You seem to use your own nomenclature instead of math and Magic terms, which at beast means your articles are not going to be understood and at worst, hollow words without meaning. Second, there are no hints of scientific procedure, no hint of the model you used, the source of your data, your analysis and your approach to do so. Not that original research is allowed here at all, as an encyclopaedia we aim at collecting knowledge not producing it in the first place.
A lot of good articles on mana curve(s) are out there on the internet, both on and unofficial sites. I suggest you read those. As for the the complexity of Magic this is a good read. And if you are genuinely interested in simulations, I'd suguest taking classes, it is a really interesting and increasingly important subject, but it is also a complex one. Oracle of Truth 00:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Usefulness for Beginners[edit source]

The current article is written for those who wrote it, not for players new to the concept of mana curves. For example, the sentence: the final mana cost has received a doubled number because it is expected that you will miss the subsequent land drop and that it is therefore desired to draw a second of the prior part of the curve because enough land to make said land drop prevents enough spells to make every spell drop makes little sense even after reading it several times. Also, the formula:

8 at one, 7 at two, 6 at three, 5 at four, 9 at five, 25 Land.

Comes from: turn one 8 draws/60 cards * n successes = 1: for n is approx 8 one drops/land. Total so far 8 + 8 = 16.

would greatly benefit from increased clarification of 'what is what'. Whatever n succes may mean is probably clear to those using mana curves on a regular basis, but to those wanting to setup a model of their own, it's almost Chinese (asuming one does not understand Chinese). 09:58, 9 January 2011 (EST)