Manalyzer and hybrid symbols

by **Goblin Hero** » 14 Sep 2010, 10:58

During deck building it is a good idea to use color mana symbols to calculate optimal land count. MWS and MTG Studio both have so-called Manalyzer tool. But what to to with hydrid mana? How to calculate it?
If a card costs {GW}

should I increment both green and white mana count by 1 or maybe by 0.5???
What to do with {2W} cost???

by **Bog Wraith** » 14 Sep 2010, 22:01

If your showing in the calculation what colour mana is being produced, then I think you have to show each one. If it simply is a total calculation of the mana cost regardless of colour like in a mana curve, then you could use .5.

Is there a way for you to show what colour mana is being counted by using the respective mana symbols in the GUI that will be used for this? If so, then just showing the mana symbols with the amounts for each would be fine.

by **Rob Cashwalker** » 16 Sep 2010, 21:11

But if you're doing a mono-green deck, then you have to count it as 1.

by **tanthorjen** » 06 Dec 2010, 03:31

I think it all depends on the purpose of counting the mana symbols. If we are trying to determine the number of lands to include for casting the card, then the final conclusion should be that a {GW}

symbol should always make the card easier to cast (or have no effect), as either {G}

or

can be used. The only way to come to this conclusion is to consider both {G}

and

mana sources together when analyzing the deck.

by **silly freak** » 06 Dec 2010, 20:39

probably a good base though, although it becomes more complicated with lands producing multiple types of mana:

In a monogreen deck, any green mana symbol can essentially be seen as colorless, since every mana source in your deck can satisfy it.
The same goes for hybrid in a two color deck.
so let's say you have 50% Plains and 50% Forest. {GW}

can be counted as {1}

, but

is twice as hard to satisfy, because only half of the sources fit.

Another Example:
Lands: 8 Forest, 8 Mountain, 3 Swamp
Cost: {1}

1+19/8+19/11 ~ 5.1
8 and 11 are the number of appropriate mana sources, 19 is the total number. Since the card becomes harder to cast the less lands you have, I take the inverse: 19/8. If my interpretation is right, this means you need to draw 5 lands in average to have the right mana to cast the card.

This, weighed with the converted mana cost, should be an indicator on how well a deck can cast the card. optimizing the mana distribution means to take the reverse approach and minimize the total weight of all spells in the deck. The algorithm could be tuned by adjusting some coefficients, e.g. weighting cheap creature spells more than others.