PDA

View Full Version : Hand re-draw limit?



sckolar
06-20-2013, 11:29 AM
I'm not sure if this question has been covered yet, but I was wondering if you are limited to how many times you can shuffle your hand back into your deck & re-draw at the beginning of the match. I would imagine it being annoying if you are sitting there with your good hand, and your opposing player just keep re-shuffling because they don't have the exact cards they want. This sounds ridiculous, but I believe people like that exist. This clearly shows the player did not strategize well, meaning that their deck is not up to par. Although this is an advantage for me, it doesn't mean I want to sit through their re-draws.

Malakili
06-20-2013, 11:31 AM
I think every time you mulligan you get to draw 1 less card.

jai151
06-20-2013, 11:34 AM
I think every time you mulligan you get to draw 1 less card.

It is exactly this. Therefore your redraw limit would be 7, at which point you would have no hand

Rtsands45
06-20-2013, 11:34 AM
your starting hand is 7 - n. n is the number of times you mulligan

Gregzilla
06-20-2013, 11:36 AM
Would be interesting if, in PvE, there were some fights where you start the match, and instead of drawing 7, you only draw 1.

Edit: Maybe even a whole dungeon like that.

jaxsonbateman
06-20-2013, 11:50 AM
Would be interesting if, in PvE, there were some fights where you start the match, and instead of drawing 7, you only draw 1.

Edit: Maybe even a whole dungeon like that.
Interesting perhaps, but likely very brutal.

keroko
06-20-2013, 11:55 AM
when you're doing it you'll feel the risk... only got one resource in the starter hand and nothing below 3 to play.

push that mulligan button and you could end up with worse, and will end up one card down.

if coin toss to play first and first player draw no card, then how you've constructed your deck - how likely you are to have to mulligan, is all part of that consideration.

also mulliganing indicates to your opponent that they may be able to press advantage - and they will if you do a second time.

you better have a good reason to mulligan, it hurts.

jaxsonbateman
06-20-2013, 12:00 PM
While you decide mulligans on a hand by hand basis, a general rule of thumb is 2-4 lands and 2+ cards within the 1-3 cost range. Of course, losing a card means that not following this will often be a better move, but the thumb-rule is usually a hand you'll be quite happy to keep.

Icepick
06-20-2013, 12:29 PM
I don't know if there has been any limit on the number of times you can mulligan announced. Obviously you can't do it more than 7 times but there could be a limit of less than that applied. No idea how it works in MtG.

jaxsonbateman
06-20-2013, 12:33 PM
I don't know if there has been any limit on the number of times you can mulligan announced. Obviously you can't do it more than 7 times but there could be a limit of less than that applied. No idea how it works in MtG.
There's no hard limit (except, obviously, a mulligan from 0 is pointless), but most players would never go below 4 or 5 as at that point the odds of you actually getting a playable 3-4 cards are very slim.

SomeoneRandom
06-20-2013, 12:33 PM
I don't know if there has been any limit on the number of times you can mulligan announced. Obviously you can't do it more than 7 times but there could be a limit of less than that applied. No idea how it works in MtG.

Currently in Magic you can mulligan down to 0. Although by that point you may as well concede, most people stop at 4 no matter how bad it is because if you go any lower you don't really have a chance anyways.

snarvid
06-20-2013, 02:30 PM
What do people think about the MtG:DotPW free first mulligan?

Also, it is known that if you sing "good mulligan" to the tune of Ed Sullivan you will always draw the right mix of resources and cards.

Edit: effin smiley. I'm leaving it.

keroko
06-20-2013, 02:40 PM
no free mulligan - there's a war on son

Rtsands45
06-20-2013, 02:44 PM
There's no hard limit (except, obviously, a mulligan from 0 is pointless), but most players would never go below 4 or 5 as at that point the odds of you actually getting a playable 3-4 cards are very slim.

I've seen vintage dredge players mull down to 1 to hit that Bazaar of Baghdad then win the next turn.

Facilier
06-20-2013, 02:46 PM
I really like the 1 free mulligan from DotPW. I think it's a great compromise between the horrible feeling of drawing a bad hand and not allowing too many mulligans for people to fish for an ideal starting hand.

keroko
06-20-2013, 02:47 PM
you shuffled them, right? :p

Rtsands45
06-20-2013, 02:51 PM
I was a mere bystander.

Lafoote
06-20-2013, 04:43 PM
Would be interesting if, in PvE, there were some fights where you start the match, and instead of drawing 7, you only draw 1.

Edit: Maybe even a whole dungeon like that.
While interesting, I don't see why it would be fun.

sckolar
06-20-2013, 05:49 PM
While interesting, I don't see why it would be fun.

Ditto. It would be interesting, but it would suck after a little bit

Showsni
06-20-2013, 07:34 PM
I've seen vintage dredge players mull down to 1 to hit that Bazaar of Baghdad then win the next turn.

Heh, yeah; I have the Vintage Dredge deck (with a few proxies :P) and mulling to one is perfectly viable. (Plus you run Serum Visions).

theophanya
06-21-2013, 07:38 AM
I really like the 1 free mulligan from DotPW. I think it's a great compromise between the horrible feeling of drawing a bad hand and not allowing too many mulligans for people to fish for an ideal starting hand.

I'm ALL for it!

Rtsands45
06-21-2013, 08:22 AM
I really like the 1 free mulligan from DotPW. I think it's a great compromise between the horrible feeling of drawing a bad hand and not allowing too many mulligans for people to fish for an ideal starting hand.

One free mulligan is all a combo deck needs to win. Nuff said.

Diesbudt
06-21-2013, 08:43 AM
One free mulligan is all a combo deck needs to win. Nuff said.

Exactly. So I am against a free mulligan.

Avignon
08-09-2013, 11:16 PM
Necro'ing this based on watching most recent Vid. I really think that a free mulligan should be automatic if you draw a hand with 7 resources or no resources. Even if the 4th mulligan stays at 5 but must be kept would be better imo. I really loathe the magic hand draw system and think Crypto could come up with some slight variation to make it less painful than the current situation where straight up bad luck can prevent you from interacting in the game.

Not trying to get rid of it, just trying to eliminate those unnecessary and horrible experiences that occur from time to time.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-10-2013, 01:04 AM
To be fair though, a big part of a good card game (IMO) is random chance - occasionally you will get those bad hands when you need to mulligan, be it because you have too many sources, not enough, or you have a good amount but no playable early cards. A big part of deck construction is trying to limit the impact randomness has as much as possible - but you'll never eliminate it entirely.

Though if they decided to do one in order to prevent people raging too much when they hit those low-occuring bad luck scenarios, then I would hope the only free mull would be for 7 or none. But even then, I imagine there might be *some* way to abuse it.

Aradon
08-10-2013, 02:20 AM
Interestingly, in MtG, there actually is a hard limit. You aren't allowed to mulligan with 0 cards in hand. You're forced to keep once you drop to a 0-card hand. I suspect this rule was to prevent griefing by constant reshuffling of your deck instead of actually playing a game of Magic :)

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-10-2013, 02:24 AM
Just watched the KS stream, what about that inspired the need for free mulligans? There weren't a huge amount of mulligans, and the hand that Dan was considering going to 5 for looked more like a deck construction issue (not enough viable cheap cards to interact with an aggressive deck; Sapphire Aura seemed very underwhelming overall in the deck given that the champ could give flight, making it simply a +1/+1 for 3).

Avignon
08-10-2013, 02:58 AM
What inspired it was seeing the first game with the orc dead mana screwed. Now, don't get me wrong, this wasn't causing me the angst. What does is the possibility of it being worse than that. I don't think that you should start the game with no chance because of luck. Even a system where you start with min 1 resource and max 6 resources would be ok.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-10-2013, 03:18 AM
On that end, we have no idea what Phil's hand looked like. I think he played a couple 1 and 2 drops in that game - he probably had ~3 1-2 drops, 2 resources, and 2 3+ drops in his hand, which is perfectly playable. He just got a bit unlucky and didn't draw into any other lands. That's not really a mulligan issue. :-P

Vibraxus
08-10-2013, 07:33 AM
No free mulligans, but a "Gentleman's mulligan" when you both have crappy hands and both decide to mulligan, you both get your full 7 card draw is acceptable.

Nicalapegus
08-10-2013, 07:46 AM
I would like it if they considered 1 free mulligan (Where you can choose to redraw 7 cards). Mana screw is such a powerful thing in card games (especially MTG) and if you go first and mulligan more than once you are most likely done. The card disadvantage you suffered is too great to come back from most times.

Vibraxus
08-10-2013, 07:53 AM
I would like it if they considered 1 free mulligan (Where you can choose to redraw 7 cards). Mana screw is such a powerful thing in card games (especially MTG) and if you go first and mulligan more than once you are most likely done. The card disadvantage you suffered is too great to come back from most times.

Mana screw sucks, and thats why you tweek your deck after it happens often. A mana screw once every 10 games, not too bad, its just bad luck, get it 50%...bad deck, time for redesign. The mulligan is sortof a "Well you got screwed, time to suck it up buttercup and work with 1 less card now" Unless you get to Gentlemen's mulligan....but just getting a free one..nope.

Of course maybe it could have been added to the RL perk.

Nicalapegus
08-10-2013, 07:54 AM
In Magic 2014 they have a free mulligan feature. You're right though, mana screw is often a result of poor deck building. But sometimes it just happens. I'm sure you know that feeling when it does... urgh it sucks.

I've gotten mana screw in MTG decks with 26 lands. The math makes no sense.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-10-2013, 09:15 AM
Well to be fair, the math for a 26 card deck is "in 66.1% of opening 7 card hands, you'll get 3+ lands in your opening hand, and in 90% of opening hands you'll get 2+ lands in your opening hand". Which translates to "in 33.9% of opening hands you'll get 2 or less lands, and in 10% of opening hands you'll get 1 or 0 lands".

Essentially, in a 26 land deck, in 34% of games you won't have the 'ideal' number of opening lands in your hand (which is usually either 3 or 4), and in 1 out of 10 games you'll be looking at a 1 or 0 land hand which is just begging mulligan.

Vibraxus
08-10-2013, 09:20 AM
Well to be fair, the math for a 26 card deck is "in 66.1% of opening 7 card hands, you'll get 3+ lands in your opening hand, and in 90% of opening hands you'll get 2+ lands in your opening hand". Which translates to "in 33.9% of opening hands you'll get 2 or less lands, and in 10% of opening hands you'll get 1 or 0 lands".

Essentially, in a 26 land deck, in 34% of games you won't have the 'ideal' number of opening lands in your hand (which is usually either 3 or 4), and in 1 out of 10 games you'll be looking at a 1 or 0 land hand which is just begging mulligan.

Oh sure run the actual number to prove my point above. lol But well done. :)

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-10-2013, 10:16 AM
Oh sure run the actual number to prove my point above. lol But well done. :)
:-P Actually, it was because Nicalapegus said that the 'maths makes no sense', to which I disagree - hence, maths. :-3

Nicalapegus
08-10-2013, 10:34 AM
No, the math doesn't make sense. 26/60 being lands translates to nearly half the deck being land.

Maphalux
08-10-2013, 10:54 AM
The math does make sense to me. 1/3 of the time you can expect to not get enough land in your opening hand with 26 lands just looking at it in a vacuum. And that doesn't even take into account your costs of your curve which can impact whether or not 26 resources is even enough. The only way to nearly ensure you'll have enough land is to basically fill the deck with land, but then you just a new problem: flood. Screw happens.

Hemlock
08-10-2013, 04:06 PM
No, the math doesn't make sense. 26/60 being lands translates to nearly half the deck being land.

Just because you're not making sense of the math doesn't mean that the math doesn't make sense.

Having a half-mana deck doesn't mean that you're going to draw any mana. Hell, even if you made a 50-mana deck, you're not guaranteed to draw any until turn 4. That's... how probability works.

Anyway, I wouldn't be opposed to 1 free mulligan in a 7-or-no mana scenario, but anything beyond that gets silly.

WWKnight
08-12-2013, 05:13 AM
Any free mulligans for PvE?

EntropyBall
08-12-2013, 07:42 AM
What inspired it was seeing the first game with the orc dead mana screwed. Now, don't get me wrong, this wasn't causing me the angst. What does is the possibility of it being worse than that. I don't think that you should start the game with no chance because of luck. Even a system where you start with min 1 resource and max 6 resources would be ok.

I agree with this completely. I would be fine with a 7/0 shard or 6/1 shard free mulligan. Those are all really bad hands, virtually regardless of what deck you play. Yes, I'm sure someone can come up with a deck or deck-type that very marginally benefits from that free redraw in those cases, but so what? If this is the rule, then its just part of the game.

Kroan
08-12-2013, 07:46 AM
What would be cool to have is a partial mulligan system. Select the cards you want to keep in your hand and shuffle the rest back in. Then draw x-1 cards where x is the number of cards you shuffled back. :) This is often done in MTG Commander / EDH, at least in the playgroups I play with.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-12-2013, 09:01 AM
Partial mulligan is very open to abuse by certain decks though; specifically, if any combo decks come around (and it'd be very broken in PvE where they're more likely to exist).

I can't be the only person who doesn't think there's a problem with the current mulligan system can I? :-P

Maphalux
08-12-2013, 09:17 AM
I can't be the only person who doesn't think there's a problem with the current mulligan system can I? :-P

No, I also think it is just fine the way it is.

ossuary
08-12-2013, 09:31 AM
I don't have a problem with it, but I am also not categorically opposed to a free mulligan when you have 0 resources (as long as the opponent gets the choice of a free mulligan when you take one). Either way is fine with me.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-12-2013, 09:44 AM
I just see that as a way to take it easy on people who 'cut corners' when deckbuilding and don't try to minimise the impact of mana screw. Sure, it can happen to any player no matter how good they are, but it happens most frequently (and causes the most noise) from players that aren't making the best decks to begin with. As an example, the number of players I would hear complain about it on the Magic forums and then listening to them say they usually run 20 lands as a default is astounding.

Kroan
08-12-2013, 10:11 AM
Partial mulligan is very open to abuse by certain decks though; specifically, if any combo decks come around (and it'd be very broken in PvE where they're more likely to exist).

I can't be the only person who doesn't think there's a problem with the current mulligan system can I? :-P
Oh, I def. have no problem with the current system. Just saying that I like partial mulligan, but maybe that's only my feeling in EDH, because it's a) a format where you want all your opps to have a good start with some resources in their hand and b) a singleton format with a 100 card deck.

EntropyBall
08-12-2013, 01:31 PM
Partial mulligan is very open to abuse by certain decks though; specifically, if any combo decks come around (and it'd be very broken in PvE where they're more likely to exist).

I can't be the only person who doesn't think there's a problem with the current mulligan system can I? :-P

I don't fiercely hate the current system, but I'd prefer something more lenient. I also would not be for a "keep X" system, since I agree that is too helpful to combo decks trying to get an ideal setup.

I had a game just last week where I had a 24 land deck that drew 6 lands in the opening hand, then 0 in the redraw, then 1 in the next redraw.

In that deck, the odds of 0, 1, 6, or 7 land opening hand were ~15.6%. So a clear mulligan about 1 out of every 6 games.
Bumping up to 26 lands, which is quite a lot for most decks, you are still looking at 12.6% of the time, or 1 out of every 8 games.

Giving a free mulligan in those situations gets the chance of getting that twice down to 1 in 36 or 1 in 64.

For reference, at 20 lands, its 25.1%, or 1 in 4.

Miwa
08-12-2013, 02:49 PM
Partial mulligan is very open to abuse by certain decks though; specifically, if any combo decks come around (and it'd be very broken in PvE where they're more likely to exist).

I can't be the only person who doesn't think there's a problem with the current mulligan system can I? :-P
You're not alone. Any system that has no punishment for mulligan is ripe for abuse.

It's a numbers game on the draw, and changing the draw will change the numbers game, and smart people will optimize for it. Screwing up how 90% of your draws work trying to fix the 10% where the RNG hates you is just not a good plan.

Making there be a 0% chance of bad things means that a chunk of the 'interesting' and 'hard' part of deck design gets tossed. We don't need another low skill ceiling game, there will be plenty of those, like Hearthstone...

Miwa
08-12-2013, 02:51 PM
I really like the 1 free mulligan from DotPW. I think it's a great compromise between the horrible feeling of drawing a bad hand and not allowing too many mulligans for people to fish for an ideal starting hand.
All the free mulligan gives you in DoTP is a quality-of-life redraw, saving you a couple of mouse clicks from pushing the 'restart duel' button.

Nicalapegus
08-12-2013, 08:18 PM
Just because you're not making sense of the math doesn't mean that the math doesn't make sense.

Having a half-mana deck doesn't mean that you're going to draw any mana. Hell, even if you made a 50-mana deck, you're not guaranteed to draw any until turn 4. That's... how probability works.

Anyway, I wouldn't be opposed to 1 free mulligan in a 7-or-no mana scenario, but anything beyond that gets silly.

No it isn't how probability works.

http://ark42.com/mtg/land.php

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-12-2013, 08:48 PM
How is that not how probability works?

The chance of drawing a source with an individual draw when not every card in a deck is a source is less than 100%. Ergo, you are not guaranteed to draw a source unless every card remaining in the deck is a source. Certainly sounds like probability, and certainly makes sense.

Nicalapegus
08-12-2013, 09:16 PM
That's not how it works. There's proof in the link.

Also, my stance wasn't that I didn't draw a land 100% of the time, obviously... it was getting mana screwed or not getting screwed. Of course I'm not arguing that I will draw a source 100% of the time... duh...

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-12-2013, 09:27 PM
Well our counter arguments were to you saying that it didn't make sense (having high odds of drawing a land, and then not). Your very link proves that it makes sense. The 100% point is actually all that matters - that if it's not 100%, there're no guarantees no matter how good your odds. Like with the 26 land example, just under 30% of the time you won't hit your fourth land drop, despite having pretty good odds to actually hit it.

Nicalapegus
08-12-2013, 09:31 PM
Just under 30% of the time you won't hit your 4th land drop with a 26 land deck... riiiiiight. Anyone with any experience and/or can read the link I gave knows that isn't true.

Maphalux
08-12-2013, 09:34 PM
The probability to hit your 4th land drop on that list with 26 land is 71.6%. Therefore, the probability of not hitting your 4th land drop is 100 - 71.6, or 28.4 percent.

Jax is 100% right.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-12-2013, 09:50 PM
What's your counter-argument to that Nicalapegus?

Kamino72
08-13-2013, 12:25 AM
Imho, there is too many games won/lose because of mana screw/flood. Not fun to play. Frustrating.

Each feature that could reduce this problem without creating a major drawback is welcome :
- free mulligan when no or full lands
- free mulligan if both players mulligan (simultaneous choice)

Idea :
What about the option to trade 2 cards from your opening hand for 1 random land or 1 random non-land card ?

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-13-2013, 12:38 AM
Imho, there is too many games won/lose because of mana screw/flood. Not fun to play. Frustrating.

Each feature that could reduce this problem without creating a major drawback is welcome :
- free mulligan when no or full lands
- free mulligan if both players mulligan (simultaneous choice)

Idea :
What about the option to trade 2 cards from your opening hand for 1 random land or 1 random non-land card ?
The idea is extremely open to abuse. You would get players with all 0-2 cost cards, only running 2 lands, and trading 4 of their opening cards for lands (assuming they didn't get lucky and get them naturally). While it would be like a mulligan to 5, they'd have the assurance of never running out of gas.

Personally, I don't actually disagree that it isn't frustrating when it happens. It's just my opinion that it doesn't happen 'too much' to players piloting decks with a top tier level of construction. Of course, we'd have to define too much; without looking into stats or figure, I'd say a player being affected by legitimate resource flood or screw more than 10-20% of the time is too much, assuming that there are no issues with their deck construction.

I'm all for different mulligan rules in casual games though, and it might be a nice feature to implement.

Kamino72
08-13-2013, 02:08 AM
The idea is extremely open to abuse. You would get players with all 0-2 cost cards, only running 2 lands, and trading 4 of their opening cards for lands (assuming they didn't get lucky and get them naturally). While it would be like a mulligan to 5, they'd have the assurance of never running out of gas.
You are right.
- but is such a deck really overpowered ?
- all decks would be able to run less lands too, gaining some power
- we can limit to 1 trade (not cumulative with no land mulligan)
- better, we can force a minimum number of lands (15 ?) to unlock this trade ability !


I'd say a player being affected by legitimate resource flood or screw more than 10-20% of the time is too much, assuming that there are no issues with their deck construction.
A low 10% flood or screw means 19% "no-play" games (10% you, 10% opponent, minus 1% both). 20% means 36% "no-play" games. With mulligan, it's better, but 5%-15% are still no-play.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-13-2013, 02:20 AM
I'm not considering the opponent. If we're looking at the competitive scene, which is where the most finely tuned decks and least likely decks to be detrimentally screwed or flooded should be located, then you want the opponent to get screwed or flooded as it increases your chances to win. If I as an individual only get screwed/flooded 10% of the time after a mulligan to 5 at the most with a competitive deck, I'm fine with that. 20% of the time and I could see a flaw with either the game mechanics or deck construction, but given that Hex is so similar to Magic and I have experience with Magic, I'd fathom that it'd be deck construction.

We can start going into the stats if you'd like, to see what the actual figure is (though it wouldn't account for non-resource cards in a deck which players will be using to mitigate land screw/flood, like card draw and mana sinks), though if I remember correctly Hex TCG Pro did this a few months ago.

EntropyBall
08-13-2013, 06:52 AM
I'm not considering the opponent. If we're looking at the competitive scene, which is where the most finely tuned decks and least likely decks to be detrimentally screwed or flooded should be located, then you want the opponent to get screwed or flooded as it increases your chances to win. If I as an individual only get screwed/flooded 10% of the time after a mulligan to 5 at the most with a competitive deck, I'm fine with that. 20% of the time and I could see a flaw with either the game mechanics or deck construction, but given that Hex is so similar to Magic and I have experience with Magic, I'd fathom that it'd be deck construction.

We can start going into the stats if you'd like, to see what the actual figure is (though it wouldn't account for non-resource cards in a deck which players will be using to mitigate land screw/flood, like card draw and mana sinks), though if I remember correctly Hex TCG Pro did this a few months ago.

60 card deck, chances of getting 0/1 land or 0/1 non-land card in each draw
_________7 ____6 ___5 __Total
22 lands: 19.8, 29.7, 44.5, 2.6%
23 lands: 17.5, 27.4, 42.4, 2.0%
24 lands: 15.6, 25.3, 40.6, 1.6%

These are all very low numbers, but I still think you should be allowed a free mulligan if you have 0, 1, 6, or 7 shards in your opening hand. Once you are down to 5, you are already in bad shape, and I would rather games just not play out that way.

Assuming that we don't want players to be forced to redraw to 5, and assuming again that 0/1 lands or non-lands is a forced redraw, the odds are 5.9, 4.7, 4%

So 8-12% of the games that will happen to one player or another. Giving a free redraw on your opening hand on a forced redraw drops that down to 1.2%, 0.8%, and 0.25%.

So in a 24 land deck, with a free redraw if your opening hand is unplayable, the odds of being forced to redraw to 5 is once in every 400 games, as opposed to once in every 25. To me, that's a nice improvement for very little downside.

Kamino72
08-13-2013, 07:00 AM
I'm not considering the opponent. If we're looking at the competitive scene, which is where the most finely tuned decks and least likely decks to be detrimentally screwed or flooded should be located, then you want the opponent to get screwed or flooded as it increases your chances to win.
Sure, but rules imply a symmetrical effect.

Assuming players are equally smart to build their deck (and that's not a great challenge to put the correct number of lands), mana screw or flood is all about luck.

Reducing this part of luck with better rules means adding to the part of skill (and fun for me).

Edit : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic:_The_Gathering#Luck_vs._skill

In addressing the complaint about luck influencing a game, Dr. Garfield points out that new and casual players tend to appreciate luck as a leveling field, in which a random effect increases their chances of winning. Meanwhile, a player with higher skills appreciates a game with less chance, as the higher degree of control increases their chances of winning. According to Dr. Garfield, "Magic" has and would likely continue decreasing its degree of luck as the game matured.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-13-2013, 07:03 AM
As I thought, Hex TCG Pro did do an article on this a while ago (specifically, how to figure out how many resources to include in a vacuum, but it includes stats there).

http://hextcgpro.com/?p=665

In the end, their ruby deck gets around a combined ~20% chance of being either flooded or screwed, with the majority of that being flooded (that is, still able to play cards that are drawn). That figure is fine with me, and it doesn't even take into account normal mulligans.

Edit: people often suffer dramatic observational bias when it comes to being resource flooded/screwed, because when it doesn't occur, it doesn't matter, but when it does occur it's a serious and significant problem for that specific game. It helps to explain that even with pretty low odds of being flooded/screwed after a single mulligan (and while not desirable most players will agree that one mulligan to a better hand isn't an auto-loss), there's a perceived notion that mana flood and screw is very common.

EntropyBall
08-13-2013, 01:16 PM
In the end, their ruby deck gets around a combined ~20% chance of being either flooded or screwed, with the majority of that being flooded (that is, still able to play cards that are drawn). That figure is fine with me, and it doesn't even take into account normal mulligans.

That article doesn't focus on your chances of being flooded or screwed in your opening hand. Most of it analyzes your odds of hitting your 2 drop. I've posted all the percentages in this thread already, but if you are trying to avoid having 0/1 lands or 6/7 lands, all reasonable decks are more likely to be screwed than flooded. You'd need more than 30 resources for flood to be more likely.

You seem to be just ignoring all the probabilities I've put in here (you can find them yourself using that ark42.com link above), so I'm not going to bother to add more, other than to say that I find a 20% chance of one player being screwed by mana to be far too high. Thats a 36% chance that one player in the game is going to lose mostly due to luck and not skill. Meaning that (on average) 1 game out of a best-of-3 will be heavily influenced by land draw.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-13-2013, 01:36 PM
Let's accept your initial premise that 0/1 and 6/7 resource hands in a 24 resource deck are an auto-mulligan (of course, a 6 resource + Living Totem hand is worth at least a pause, as is a clutch of 4 Savage Raiders, 2 Ruby Pyromancers and a ruby source, but for the sake of calculation we have to simplify).

Odds of opening hand having 2-5 resources: 84.39%
Quite frankly, I'm already happy with those odds.

However, in the interest of trying to reinforce my stance further, let's also look at a 6 card hand - that is, an assumed first mulligan, which most players will agree usually isn't backbreaking on its own.

Odds of opening hand having between 2 and 5 resources (you're more willing to accept a 5 resource hand at this point, as a mull to 5 can be very risky): 77.77%

Not bad odds at 6 cards either. So, what are the odds that we won't have a playable hand at either 7 or 6 cards from our 24 resource deck?

0.1561 * 0.2223 = 0.0347, or 3.47%. That's right. In a 24 resource deck, if you're willing to mulligan to 6 if your conditions aren't met (between 2 and 5 resources), you'll hit said conditions 96.53% of the time.

I'll even factor the opponent in on this. If you're both running 24 resources and accepting a hand with the aforementioned conditions (and are both willing to mull to 6), there's a 93.18% chance that you'll both have acceptable hands.

EntropyBall
08-13-2013, 01:48 PM
I posted this same math in post #62, and noted that the odds of it happening are low, but that they are VERY low if you just let people have a free mulligan with an opening hand that is not 2-5 resources. To me, the downsides of the free mulligan are worth it to push the odds of a "wasted" game from 8% down to 0.5%.

Vibraxus
08-13-2013, 02:02 PM
Id MUCH rather be given the option to mulligan, play my hand or offer a "gentleman's" mulligan to ever giving up a free mulligan just because I happen to hit that 3% chance I got screwed and my opponent didnt.

Kamino72
08-13-2013, 02:05 PM
Don't forget your math is for monocolor decks. It's worse for multicolor. Do you have a study on multicolor ?

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-13-2013, 02:06 PM
I actually like the odds as they are myself. I've seen many a casual Magic playgroup adopt a free mulligan approach, and from my experience it just encourages cutting corners when deckbuilding.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-13-2013, 02:06 PM
Don't forget your math is for monocolor decks. It's worse for multicolor. Do you have a study on multicolor ?
Color screw hasn't even been the topic of this thread has it? We've been talking about mana screw and mana flood. :-P

Vibraxus
08-13-2013, 02:13 PM
I actually like the odds as they are myself. I've seen many a casual Magic playgroup adopt a free mulligan approach, and from my experience it just encourages cutting corners when deckbuilding.

It totally lets you cut corners. Id drop down to a 20 resource deck if I know I lose nothing for a first mulligan. Honestly Ive messed around with 22 resource decks and I only have to mulligan about 10% of the time, and that is me wanting to end up with 3 resource starting hand. The (non gentleman's) free mulligan just opens it up to shenanigans IMHO.

Kamino72
08-13-2013, 02:23 PM
I actually like the odds as they are myself. I've seen many a casual Magic playgroup adopt a free mulligan approach, and from my experience it just encourages cutting corners when deckbuilding.
Maybe could we :
1) give players a lot of options for friendly games
2) see what they like the most
3) experiment in tournaments
4) adopt best practices

Miwa
08-13-2013, 02:30 PM
Or:
5) Look at 20 years of MtG experience

Reducing the odds simplifies the game. Simpler game = lower skill ceiling.

Also, the screw/flood odds are slightly improved, as it may happen to both players, canceling the effect. Matches that matter aren't a BO1, which evens out the odds even more.

The end result is that the current no-free-mulligan rules evolved out of many years of testing. Of all the options, it's the most fair, and has the least effect on deck building. Allowing free redraws skews the odds towards particular styles.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-13-2013, 02:34 PM
I'm all for this sort of thing in casual games. But when it comes to any sort of game that might matter - a PvE encounter, a draft, a world qualifier, whatever - I want my mull-to-1-less to stay. And of course we have experienced TCG developers on staff, and that's what they're going with at this point, so they must also be happy with it. :-3

Don't forget, there's observational bias too; you remember the times that you get flooded and screwed much more vividly because they actually caused a significant problem in those games, whereas in games where you don't get flooded or screwed you don't consider your mana because it's working fine (unless you get color screwed, in which case you have OB towards color :-P).

ossuary
08-13-2013, 03:38 PM
Also the fact that Hex has threshold instead of casting cost is going to make low resource hands generally more playable than in Magic (for multicolored, anyway). It doesn't matter if you have 2 sapphire and 1 ruby, if all 3 cards in your hand are single cost ruby spells, you can play all 3 on the same turn. It's probably not going to increase your odds of winning much with 2-3 resources vs your opponent's 5-6, but it will certainly help improve your survivability until another 1-2 resources show up if you're playing multicolored.

Nicalapegus
08-13-2013, 07:26 PM
That is not including opening hand, etc. The stats I posted are those of drawing a land.

Regardless, I stand by my opinion that you should be allowed 1 free mulligan.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-14-2013, 12:02 AM
That is not including opening hand, etc. The stats I posted are those of drawing a land.

Regardless, I stand by my opinion that you should be allowed 1 free mulligan.
Even after seeing that it's less than a 4% chance that you'll get a sub-optimal hand (from a resource point of view) if you're willing to legitimately mulligan once? IMO, those stats speak for themselves.

Also, the fatal flaw I'm noticing with the "make turn X's land drop" stats is that they never account for the ability to mulligan. They just say, "if you take 10 random cards out of your deck, will there be 3 lands in them?". Still, the stats aren't even that bad.

Kamino72
08-14-2013, 12:19 AM
5) Look at 20 years of MtG experience
I did. I started playing Magic in 1994. And I do appreciate the HUGE benefit of the mulligan rule.


Reducing the odds simplifies the game. Simpler game = lower skill ceiling.
Strangely, I think it would reduce luck factor and raise skill ceiling.


Allowing free redraws skews the odds towards particular styles.
You are 100% right. And that's why it would be very hard to apply to MTG, as the balance has been built around the current mulligan system. Hex is a new game, more open to break old rules, designed to break old rules.


Don't forget, there's observational bias too;
I am aware of that. I am not saying the current system is bad. I am saying we could maybe improve it.


But when it comes to any sort of game that might matter - a PvE encounter, a draft, a world qualifier, whatever - I want my mull-to-1-less to stay. And of course we have experienced TCG developers on staff, and that's what they're going with at this point, so they must also be happy with it. :-3
I could argue there is a conservative bias here. ^^
Hard to get out your confort zone ? :-3
Speaking of skills, maybe could we have moving rules for tournaments, forcing players to adapt.


I'm all for this sort of thing in casual games.
Let's try.


Also the fact that Hex has threshold instead of casting cost is going to make low resource hands generally more playable than in Magic (for multicolored, anyway).
Yes. Furthermore, it's easier to understand, no card to tap, visual space gain. Cryto did a very good job here.

Avignon
08-14-2013, 07:15 AM
I have read everything here and there are good arguments for and against. The purpose of the necro was to generate discussion because the best part about this game is that it is NOT Magic. The rules do not have to be exactly the same and we have a huge opportunity to speak up about the parts of Magic and other games that we like or do not like so that this can be the game that we all love.

If anyone at Cryptozoic or anyone who played WoW TCG remembers the "bunny deck" (I am pretty sure they all will), this got banned very quickly for the simple fact that it was "non interactive and created an environment that was not fun for the opponent". I am going to make the point that dropping a starting hand down to 5 or 4 because your previous draws had no resources or all resources has the potential to create similar experience.

Another way of doing it would be to make the minimum mulligan 4 but make it so that you will get given 2 resources and 2 non resources randomly. I can't see anyone who goes to 3 vs an opponent with 6 or 7 having a snowflakes chance in hell of winning (I am sure MTG players have a miracle story though). This would be really hard to work out in a physical game but in a digital space is at least easy to do. Also this means that by going down to 4 you know that you might still have a chance, where under normal circumstances going down to 4 is going to make your opponent very happy.

Even forcing the game to make sure your starting hand had a minimum of one of each would be very cool so that you are still at a disadvantage for redrawing but at no advantage over your opponent for keeping. I know that people say "build with 26" but it doesn't have to be this way for Hex. What is stopping this game having 24 as the new 26?

I consider a lot of the magic resources to turn chances to be archaic when you consider there is a certain hero that allows a free draw at 4 charges, and another one at 6 charges.

Keep the discussion going and hopefully we might even get a "we looked at it and are leaving it" or "we will consider it further" response.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-14-2013, 07:38 AM
I'm just going to say that while I'm aware that Hex isn't Magic and should improve upon areas where it can, I don't think the mulligan rule needs changing. Between my own personal experiences and the stats, I'm content with how few times I'm affected by mana screw/flood, and I haven't seen any arguments posed yet that convince me. I'm fine with people having other opinions though.

As for the build with 26 - most people I know who play Magic always posit that when deckbuilding you should start with 24 and go from there, and it tends to work. While it depends on the specific deck and cards it has as well as its strategy, typically I'll go less than 24 if all my cards cost 4 or less, and I'll go more than 25 if I have any cards that cost 6 or more.

EntropyBall
08-14-2013, 10:37 AM
Reducing the odds simplifies the game. Simpler game = lower skill ceiling.

...

The end result is that the current no-free-mulligan rules evolved out of many years of testing. Of all the options, it's the most fair, and has the least effect on deck building. Allowing free redraws skews the odds towards particular styles.

I've now seen people defend mana screw by claiming that it benefits experienced players through raising the skill ceiling AND defend it by saying it benefits new players because they sometimes get to just win against a superior opponent. It's one or the other, and I believe it to be the latter, that it actually reduces the odds of a skilled player winning.

But why is no-free-mulligan the most fair? How does it have the least effect on deckbuilding? I agree that it would affect deckbuilding in some way, but doesn't the -1 mulligan also skew deckbuilding towards decks with more lands? Doesn't it also skew the decks toward particular playstyles? I haven't seen any arguments about why it is actually worse, rather than just being different from the MTG status-quo. People have said "well, I'd just build a 20 mana deck if they did this." As if that was an argument against it? I'd argue its good that decks could have more interesting cards in them (generally, mana sources aren't that interesting).

A free mulligan on an unplayable hand greatly reduces the chance of being screwed, and I haven't seen anything to convince me that there is an appreciable downside. Maybe its just my bias, but it often seems to me that people oppose ideas for Hex on the grounds that it would be different from MTG. That's fine if there is some inherent reason that its important in MTG, but surely there are parts of the game that could be better if they were allowed to start over again.

Miwa
08-14-2013, 11:11 AM
Adding a free mulligan isn't going to have the end result you think it will. Instead of calculating starting hand % on the first 7 cards, we'll do it assuming a free mulligan. Which will mean fewer resources to get the exact same % of outcomes of starting hand as now (since that has been tuned as the optimal outcome).

Which means that everyone will have to follow the same formula, or you won't have the same chance at having the optimal start. And if you continually have a worse start, then the math says that over time you'll lose more games, everything else being equal.

Meaning we end up exactly where we are now, with the exact same % of having a workable starting hand. The only difference is psychological, you'll feel better if you build your deck with the same number of lands as today, but you'll have a 2nd chance at a starting draw. But you'll lose a larger % of games, due to having those extra lands in there that others don't.

EntropyBall
08-14-2013, 08:20 PM
That's an interesting point that I hadn't considered, but do you think a free mulligan will really cause that much of a shift in the optimal land mix? I am by no means an expert on figuring out the optimal number, but my impression that it was always pretty open to debate for a given deck. I would guess that this would maybe cause people to choose the lower end of that range, but keep in mind that I am not proposing 1 free mulligan no matter what, just in opening hand flood/screw situations. And if you shift to a much lighter land ratio, you are still reducing your chances of hitting your later drops.

I just hate that feeling of drawing an auto-mulligan and knowing that I'm already at a card disadvantage completely due to bad luck. Maybe it is much more of an emotional problem than a real, rational one.

BongoBong
08-14-2013, 08:49 PM
Adding a free mulligan isn't going to have the end result you think it will. Instead of calculating starting hand % on the first 7 cards, we'll do it assuming a free mulligan. Which will mean fewer resources to get the exact same % of outcomes of starting hand as now (since that has been tuned as the optimal outcome).

Which means that everyone will have to follow the same formula, or you won't have the same chance at having the optimal start. And if you continually have a worse start, then the math says that over time you'll lose more games, everything else being equal.

Meaning we end up exactly where we are now, with the exact same % of having a workable starting hand. The only difference is psychological, you'll feel better if you build your deck with the same number of lands as today, but you'll have a 2nd chance at a starting draw. But you'll lose a larger % of games, due to having those extra lands in there that others don't.

I disagree with the last point. Maybe for the competitive players they just adjust their decks to be the same (although I cant imagine there wouldn't be any differences), but for the casual player who doesn't know how to build a deck absolutely ideally they get less chance of mana screw, and that's a good thing. Mana screw is not fun and reducing the chances of it would be great for those who are casual and new.

Honestly if you are right that the change would have little effect on the competitive player, I would say that is the greatest endorsement for a change like this, because it benefits the casual player while not effecting the competitive. I haven't seen much in the way of an argument that its bad for the competitive player aside from a vague "it will change how decks will be built", which I don't see that as an inherent flaw, or how a combo deck could potentially be stronger with a system like this, but really, even with the mulligan -1 card is beneficial to combo decks. Personally I would hope hex just prevents crazy combo deck 1 win turns from being possible.

I see a lot of talk about how mana screw is basically poor deck building being punished. But is this the way the game should be played with casuals/new players being punished for not knowing the ideal way to build decks as opposed to rewarding those who know how to build a good deck? I don't see this idea of bad decks being punished with an inherently unfun game situation (mana screw) is a good way to have players start and continue to play the game.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-14-2013, 09:13 PM
I disagree with the last point. Maybe for the competitive players they just adjust their decks to be the same (although I cant imagine there wouldn't be any differences), but for the casual player who doesn't know how to build a deck absolutely ideally they get less chance of mana screw, and that's a good thing. Mana screw is not fun and reducing the chances of it would be great for those who are casual and new.
I don't believe this is a good thing though. We should be helping new players learn how to construct decks well, not making the rules - which are tried and tested via Magic - more lenient to bad deck building.


Honestly if you are right that the change would have little effect on the competitive player, I would say that is the greatest endorsement for a change like this, because it benefits the casual player while not effecting the competitive. I haven't seen much in the way of an argument that its bad for the competitive player aside from a vague "it will change how decks will be built", which I don't see that as an inherent flaw, or how a combo deck could potentially be stronger with a system like this, but really, even with the mulligan -1 card is beneficial to combo decks. Personally I would hope hex just prevents crazy combo deck 1 win turns from being possible.
The issue is that this does also affect competitive players - having a free mulligan means that matchups which are already bad for one player (such as a control deck facing down a short range aggro deck) become even worse, because the opponent gets to see 3 hands before deciding if he wants to go down to 5 (and most players will agree that if you have the advantage in a matchup, a good hand at 6 is perfectly fine and much better than an average hand at 7). Essentially, this reduces the chance of an upset against a favored deck, and makes the game much more predictable. Variance and chance are not a bad part of a TCG, especially in the competitive scene.


I see a lot of talk about how mana screw is basically poor deck building being punished. But is this the way the game should be played with casuals/new players being punished for not knowing the ideal way to build decks as opposed to rewarding those who know how to build a good deck? I don't see this idea of bad decks being punished with an inherently unfun game situation (mana screw) is a good way to have players start and continue to play the game.
Again, we should be teaching them how to build decks properly, rather than introducing rules that affect every level of the game in, IMO, a negative way. And besides, it's not even that complicated. While deckbuilding mitigates the effect of mana screw/flood further, if you have 24 lands in a deck you have a <4% of getting less than 2 lands and more than 5 lands in an opening hand if you're willing to mull to 6. Basically, mana screw and flood doesn't even happen as often as people think, as long as you're following the most basic guideline of deckbuilding - build with 24 resources until you know better.

BongoBong
08-14-2013, 09:31 PM
I don't believe this is a good thing though. We should be helping new players learn how to construct decks well, not making the rules - which are tried and tested via Magic - more lenient to bad deck building.

Again, we should be teaching them how to build decks properly, rather than introducing rules that affect every level of the game in, IMO, a negative way. And besides, it's not even that complicated. While deckbuilding mitigates the effect of mana screw/flood further, if you have 24 lands in a deck you have a <4% of getting less than 2 lands and more than 5 lands in an opening hand if you're willing to mull to 6. Basically, mana screw and flood doesn't even happen as often as people think, as long as you're following the most basic guideline of deckbuilding - build with 24 resources until you know better.

But once again this goes towards a punishing a player for bad deck building as opposed to simply rewarding good deck building. Even if they don't get mana screwed, poor deck building will still be inferior to a well built deck, and in the end I think the idea of punishing players with unfun games (as opposed to just losing, which they still will) is a bad mechanic.


The issue is that this does also affect competitive players - having a free mulligan means that matchups which are already bad for one player (such as a control deck facing down a short range aggro deck) become even worse, because the opponent gets to see 3 hands before deciding if he wants to go down to 5 (and most players will agree that if you have the advantage in a matchup, a good hand at 6 is perfectly fine and much better than an average hand at 7). Essentially, this reduces the chance of an upset against a favored deck, and makes the game much more predictable. Variance and chance are not a bad part of a TCG, especially in the competitive scene.

This is an area I couldn't speculate on the overall effect. If it does have a significant negative effect on competitive games or viability of a large number of decks then it shouldn't be implemented.

4 percent chance (higher if you find your opponent being mana screwed a problem) while small is not insignificant. Someone else mentioned confirmation bias and that certainly comes into play here, but really in a negative way. Yes you are more likely to remember those few times you got screwed even if the odds are actually not that great, but that in itself is a bad thing. You can say "oh its just confirmation bias that you think you are getting screwed all the time" but that doesn't change the fact that people will be having bad games because of mana screw, and people will be remembering those games more then the good ones. If you can reduce shitty games that people don't want to play, that's a great thing.

In the end I doubt its something that will get changed, and it very likely shouldn't be (you obviously have a good grasp of the competitive effects of this, and if you are right about how it would effect that side, it shouldn't be implemented). But if they did look into it and decide that it doesn't have much of a negative effect on competitive play/decks I think its a no brainer to implement it to reduce the odds of crappy games as low as possible. I definitely don't think the argument that mana screw is needed to punish people for bad decks is a good one.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-14-2013, 09:43 PM
It's not needed for that reason, but it's also not a problem, IMO. Plus, beyond improving the odds of victory for an already favored deck in a matchup, it improves the odds of any combo deck going off. Also, it's not about 'punishing' new players for building a bad deck. It's not even about rewarding a player for not building a bad deck (ftr, when I say building a bad deck, I'm actually saying not constructing an optimal deck). All the mulligan rules as it currently stands is about, is "if you have an opening 7 cards which you are not completely happy with, you can choose to try your luck with a new hand - however, you do not get this upside without a cost, and as such you will get one less card".

Let's look at it another way - two players draw their opening hands. One has a decent opening hand, the other does not. If they get to mulligan for free, then the mulligan rule clearly favors them in this game, as they get all upside (assuming that any new hand they draw couldn't be worse than the hand they shipped) and no drawback, whereas the other player doesn't get upside out of it, assuming that on average the new hand they draw would only be as good as the one they have. The current mulligan rule favors both players in this situation equally, as the player with the bad hand gets one part upside to one part downside for balance, whereas the other player also gets balance (they have to settle with the decent hand they have, but don't get the chance to see a potentially better hand either - if they want that upside, they have to accept the downside of one less card).

I have no qualms about it for casual formats and games, and I'll certainly adjust and manage it if they decided to introduce it into competitive formats and games. I just don't think it's necessary, or even a good idea.

Edit: also, for the sake of some people, here's a few links to mulligan strategy. A fair amount of players don't realize that there's more to mulliganing than simply "do I have enough resources" and "do I have enough early plays".

http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/pvs-playhouse-more-on-mulligans-part-2/
http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/breaking-through-unorthodox-mulliganing/

Maphalux
08-14-2013, 11:09 PM
Well constructed decks rarely have resource issues. If people really want to avoid screw, they should take the time to learn how to build a proper resource base. There is more to building a correct base than just throwing in 20 resources because you are aggro or 26 because you are control. Learn about determining average CMC, about hypergeometric distribution. Pay attention to threshold requirements and adjust accordingly. Don't assume that your base needs to be a 60/40 split between two shard sources just because that's how the playable cards count out. Taking personal responsibility to learn these concepts, and correctly applying them, will make a person a better player in the long run.

Crutches, however, do not. And a free mulligan is just that: a crutch.

ossuary
08-15-2013, 04:19 AM
Yeah, all you new players. If you don't know about hypergeometric distribution on day one, you're just an idiot. ;)

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-15-2013, 04:52 AM
:-P

Seriously though, if a player's new to the game, they're going to use a guide when building their first deck - be it an official guide from CZE, and unofficial guide on the forums, or the guidance of a friend or guildie. If this guide is a decent source they'll be told that they should start with 24 resources in any deck, and then once they've gained some experience with mana curves and the like they'll start to learn when they should include more or less.

And as long as they have those 24 resources, they're not going to run into too many overly mana screwed or flooded opening hands with the current mulligan rule. ;-)

Avignon
08-15-2013, 04:58 AM
Opportunity is there to improve it though, I think that's the point. Magic's current mulligan rule is not perfect. That being said, free mulligan is probably not an ideal solution either. But I am sure there is some variation somewhere (like I said, guaranteed 1 resource 1 non resource on 3rd mulligan, with mandatory keep would be an improvement) that will improve the Magic rules and give people to look at Hex as an even more awesome game.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-15-2013, 05:07 AM
I'd be ok with that, given that a mull to 5 is pretty hamstringing as is. People just have to realise that it can't be changed without extremely careful consideration, which a free mull would probably be the result of.

ossuary
08-15-2013, 05:18 AM
Looking at it in a serious manner, instead of this crazy "you should do 2 months of deep mathematical research before even trying the game" mentality... ;)

Since it's a fully digital game, could there be merit in somehow leveraging that? What if the system just automatically gave you 1 random resource from the deck, and 1 random non-resource, and the other 5 cards totally random? That would make it impossible to have a 100% unplayable hand, but not give the player any kind of abuse-able control they could build for (unless you can think of a turn 1 win using only 1 resource or only 1 non-resource in the entire deck!). Then you could leave the actual mulligan rule intact.

This would still punish people who put too few resources in their decks, as the other 5 cards would be less likely to be resources if you only put a total of 10 in the deck, but alleviate the frustration of a fully unplayable hand. What do you think of that, jaxson? I ask you, because of all the people who know the deep math of the game, you strike me as the most reasonable and sane. Or, at least, the one who is still closest to reasonable and sane. ;)

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-15-2013, 05:47 AM
Looking at it in a serious manner, instead of this crazy "you should do 2 months of deep mathematical research before even trying the game" mentality... ;)

Since it's a fully digital game, could there be merit in somehow leveraging that? What if the system just automatically gave you 1 random resource from the deck, and 1 random non-resource, and the other 5 cards totally random? That would make it impossible to have a 100% unplayable hand, but not give the player any kind of abuse-able control they could build for (unless you can think of a turn 1 win using only 1 resource or only 1 non-resource in the entire deck!). Then you could leave the actual mulligan rule intact.

This would still punish people who put too few resources in their decks, as the other 5 cards would be less likely to be resources if you only put a total of 10 in the deck, but alleviate the frustration of a fully unplayable hand. What do you think of that, jaxson? I ask you, because of all the people who know the deep math of the game, you strike me as the most reasonable and sane. Or, at least, the one who is still closest to reasonable and sane. ;)
Haha, I'm probably close but not right there. :-P Really though, I do think that I'm pretty reasonable. The issue with any sort of system that guarantees resources is that it's open to abuse. While it's far less likely when the game first comes out due to such a limited pool of cards, when more cards are released there'll be the potential for combo and fast aggro decks that can operate entirely with a single resource (Goblin Charbelcher comes to mind, which usually runs only 1 or 2 mountains, and then non-resource mana for the rest like Chrome Mox and Lotus Petal). Essentially, the rule would confine the dev team into avoiding certain design space entirely due to it being open to abuse.

If they want to deviate from the traditional mulligan rule, then I'd recommend they do what Wizards did when they first introduced the mulligan rule - that is, test it at certain events. Because it's an entirely digital game, it wouldn't even be hard to say for a week "we'll be using this mulligan rule instead", and then have all on-demand events use it, and gauge feedback from the players in those events.

Of course, that's if they deem it necessary, and I personally remain unconvinced. To play devil's advocate though, if they did want to introduce a change, I think I'd be happiest with the "gentleman's free mulligan". That is, a player only gets a free mulligan if the opponent agrees to it, and in doing so they also get a free mulligan. It offsets the advantage the free mulligan gives to the unlucky player - that is, a player with a below-average hand gets all upside with a free mulligan, whereas a player with an average or better hand either gets no benefit from a free mulligan (as if they don't take it they're in the same position, and if they do take it they're likely to get the average hand again). I don't think it's a necessary change, but it would drastically reduce the both-players-screwed games figure, so the only figure that would be concerned with is games with only one player screwed, which with a mull-to-6 isn't that significant.

Kamino72
08-15-2013, 06:27 AM
Since it's a fully digital game, could there be merit in somehow leveraging that? What if the system just automatically gave you 1 random resource from the deck, and 1 random non-resource, and the other 5 cards totally random? That would make it impossible to have a 100% unplayable hand, but not give the player any kind of abuse-able control they could build for (unless you can think of a turn 1 win using only 1 resource or only 1 non-resource in the entire deck!). Then you could leave the actual mulligan rule intact.
I really like it.

This would be a system painful to use in a paper TCG, and that's why we even didn't try. But now, as shuffling the deck is instant, we can try more sophisticated systems like this one.

Maphalux
08-15-2013, 09:11 AM
I don't see why it is insane to suggest that people learn the math if they want to avoid the math getting the better of them. It isn't that hard and no it doesn't take months to learn. It takes looking up some information on the internet and then putting into practice until you get it. And I never said people can't just jump in and play the game without doing this. Of course, they can. Don't put words in my mouth, Ossuary. It's not cool.

All I'm saying is if someone isn't willing to increase their knowledge about how to build a correct base, they have no right to complain about screw since they are literally doing it to themselves. However, if they want to become better players and move on from that new player realm, it would benefit them greatly to start learning these concepts. It will make them a better builder and, in turn, a better player.

ossuary
08-15-2013, 09:28 AM
Not familiar with hyperbole, then? :)

Maphalux
08-15-2013, 10:17 AM
Yes, I'm quite familiar with hyperbole. I'm also familiar with the internet and forums where people use hyperbole in an inflammatory attempt to argue against someone else and discredit their points. My apologies if this was not the case.

stiii
08-15-2013, 10:27 AM
People seem to be assuming the only time you have any mana issue is when you have too few. You mulligan all the time from too many lands as well.

So I'm not sure why people are suggest that a free mulligan will mean everyone plays less lands.

Maphalux
08-15-2013, 10:32 AM
I wouldn't say all the time. A mull from too many lands is much rarer than one from not enough. I mean the chances of having 6 or 7 resources in your opening hand with 24 resources in deck is 1.4%.

Most people who make mistakes with resources err on the side of too few as opposed to too many.

ossuary
08-15-2013, 10:38 AM
Yes, I'm quite familiar with hyperbole. I'm also familiar with the internet and forums where people use hyperbole in an inflammatory attempt to argue against someone else and discredit their points. My apologies if this was not the case.

No, I was not trying to use it to be inflammatory or discredit you. I was just pointing out that talking about learning / knowing hypergeometric distribution in regards to a suggestion for helping new players is a bit extreme in and of itself. :)

Maphalux
08-15-2013, 10:44 AM
I don't feel that the people who complain about screw are new players. They are people who have been playing TCGs long enough to understand what screw even is. If you ask a new player what mana screw is, they are going to turn around and ask you "what's that?"

ossuary
08-15-2013, 10:54 AM
Fair enough. :)

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-15-2013, 08:45 PM
People seem to be assuming the only time you have any mana issue is when you have too few. You mulligan all the time from too many lands as well.

So I'm not sure why people are suggest that a free mulligan will mean everyone plays less lands.
Because if prepared to go to 6 we've already determined that with a 24-resource deck that the times when you see either 0, 1, 6 or 7 resources is less than 4%. With an extra free mulligan thrown into the mix, a good player would realise that running less resources is an acceptable 'risk', and would do so in an attempt to bring the % chance of seeing X resources in an opening hand, as well as the % chance of seeing Y resources by turn Y in line with what they currently are.

kaffis
08-18-2013, 08:32 PM
I got down to a 4-card hand once today before I realized they were actually getting smaller each time. Don't look at me like that! It was my second game! It probably was moderately more playable for me early on, but I ended up getting gem-screwed in the long haul.

Gwaer
08-18-2013, 08:41 PM
I went down to 1 a few times. Trying to start with specific cards, while testing some stuff(abusing uzume to spoil more bunnies). I don't recommend it. I did win one of them in a game of amazing top decking.

Nthanel
08-18-2013, 10:36 PM
He was cheating! I was the other guy! ;D I don't recommend dropping down to one card either. It was funny Cause of what Gwaer and I was doing but really you shouldn't. If your deck makes you do that alot, you should prolly take another look at how you build your deck. Though I did have some REALLY bad luck in the normal games I was playing sometimes and would have to drop down to 5 cards a couple times. I was a sad panda.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-20-2013, 11:42 AM
Hey guys - my latest vid is out, and thanks to this thread I did it on the subject of mulligans. Not whether we should have them or not, mind you, but how strategic the actual decision to mulligan can (and should) be, and how actually being willing to mulligan can help you win games (and potentially avoid some incidences of mana-screw). Check it out!

http://youtu.be/nsoJ9-kDALw

ossuary
08-20-2013, 12:09 PM
Did you ever announce the winner from your contest, from back before you went on vacation? I don't remember seeing it (it may have just got lost on the shuffle, or been on the other forum while I was on vacation myself and not checking).

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-20-2013, 12:23 PM
I hadn't, as I wanted to include it in the next video after the contest - so it's at the start of this video, and now in the thread (Frey and DrakarT were the winners, and I'm sure they can't wait for me to take them on a raid - which they'll surely choose, amirite? :-P).