PDA

View Full Version : resource screw and flood need to go! why and how.



maniza
08-29-2013, 12:47 AM
first of let me start by saying im and old magic player, so i can live with screw and flood. but they need to go. because they are not fun and do not serve any purpose in the game other than to frustrate players. and if the goal is to make this card game accesible and have players enjoy it mana flood and mana screw are a wall blocking players from doin that. and it is not fair. it is not fair to draw no lands and have to be punished by it.or to draw 5 or six lands in a row and lose the game because of that. there is a reason every player has a screw or flood story. its because that crappy moment stays with you. and if you can avoid that there is no reason not to.

in paper tcgs it is imposible to effectively reduce mana screw. but in hex beeing a digital game it shud be easy. if the player has no lands or all lands he shud get a 7 card mulligan once. maybe he can chose to get one if he has only on land. its that simple. it cant be done in paper but there is no reason not to doit in hex. and that reduces the chances of mana screw by alot.

now mana flood requires land cycling. there are a number of ways to do this. one option is to to have all resources have a cycling cost that alows you to draw a card instead of actualy playing the resourse. this may or may not charge the champion. other way could be to use non basic resources that can be cycled or used to fetch other basic resources.

ether way after playing magic for a good while and then other new digital tcgs for some time too i can say it is imperative to adress this issue. new more accesible online cardgames do away with resource screw and are much better for it. from what i have played they lack in balance and in complexity but the fact that you can actualy play your cards every time makes for a far better gaming experience. and that is what we all want in this game isent it?

Shadowelf
08-29-2013, 12:56 AM
Believe it or not there are people that consider building a proper mana base part of a challenge of constructing a competitive deck (and it is). I hate being mana screwed/flooded both for me and my opponent as it leads to unfair games. But i accept random chance as part of the game, and i absolutely have no problem with the resource system;

Random chance has to be accepted in games that use similar mana/resource systems; you can’t prevent it from happening but you can lessen the chance and cze is here to help; there will be ingame, a unique deckbuilding assistant, that will help build a resource base that is right for your deck and also help you to properly fill out your curve. (more on AIDA http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...e/posts?page=7) If you also choose to subscribe to vip program, you will also have access to a ‘goldfish’ option, that will help you test your first 1-3 draws (more on vip http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...e/posts?page=8)

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-29-2013, 01:07 AM
It's not as big a problem as people think, and especially at the higher levels of play it becomes even less of an issue thanks to players tuning their decks to include more land drop consistency for decks that want to hit 5+ mana (ie. more draw/filtering, ramp cards, etc).

My next vid is actually going to be on land/resource drop stats (primarily regarding the chances of actually hitting land drops if you keep a land light hand), so keep an eye out for it. But to put it simply, in a vacuum, the odds of not hitting your third resource drop on turn 3 on the play in a 24 resource deck are 6.3%, so in over 93% of games you'll get that crucial third land drop, and this doesn't even consider what cards you're actually running, such as ramp cards, extra dig and all that jazz, and doesn't factor in that those odds are even lower if you're on the draw.

Also, when this thread came up last time, I took the chance to ask over at the Wizards forums for references on the subject, though I mostly got opinions and reasons, so you can check those out too: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/30045191/Are_there_any_good_threadsarticles_on_why_the_mull igan_rule_should_remain_unchanged

maniza
08-29-2013, 01:09 AM
Believe it or not there are people that consider building a proper mana base part of a challenge of constructing a competitive deck (and it is). I hate being mana screwed/flooded both for me and my opponent as it leads to unfair games. But i accept random chance as part of the game, and i absolutely have no problem with the resource system;

Random chance has to be accepted in games that use similar mana/resource systems; you can’t prevent it from happening but you can lessen the chance and cze is here to help; there will be ingame, a unique deckbuilding assistant, that will help build a resource base that is right for your deck and also help you to properly fill out your curve. (more on AIDA http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...e/posts?page=7) If you also choose to subscribe to vip program, you will also have access to a ‘goldfish’ option, that will help you test your first 1-3 draws (more on vip http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...e/posts?page=8)

thanks for the info, i was asuming that you had a proper mana base to begin whit thou. other than that i agree with you in everything you say. but if you ask me witch is a better gaming experience i would have to say that the less screw and flood the better. and a game designers goal shud be to make the best posible gaming experience for the player.

Khazrakh
08-29-2013, 01:31 AM
thanks for the info, i was asuming that you had a proper mana base to begin whit thou. other than that i agree with you in everything you say. but if you ask me witch is a better gaming experience i would have to say that the less screw and flood the better. and a game designers goal shud be to make the best posible gaming experience for the player.

I can understand what you are trying to do - nobody likes to be manascrewed/flodded. But even those "simple solutions" you offered generate more problems than they actually solve and after all - they wouldn't solve much at all.

As Jaxson pointed out you have a 93% chance to get your third resource on turn 3 if you run 24 resources in your deck. Now if you offer a free mulligan if you have 0 or 1 resource in your starting hand that chance increases accordingly. Effectively you don't need that chance to be any higher than 93% as you'll lose more by getting it closer to 100% than you'll win. So in the end, everybody would just drop ~2 ressources out of their deck and go with a 38 cards 22 ressources deck. So in the end, you'd still be screwed every now and then or you'd play at a disadvantage because your enemy has more threats/answers in his deck than you.

The same goes for the resource-cycling. Let's just say every resource gets "Pay (2), Discard this Card: Draw a Card". All of a sudden running more then 24 resources isn't that bad as you'd be able to cycle through your deck more consistently.

Withoug going into more detail - every change you bring in to help fixing manascrew/flod has a lot more impact on the game as a whole as you might consider at first. Manascrew is part of the game and while sometimes you'll just get unlucky, there's a lot you can do to prevent it and that's just a huge part of beeing a good player.

lucedes
08-29-2013, 02:16 AM
you think you don't like mana screw and mana flood

but subconsciously you actually love variance, or why would you be playing card games over pure strategy games?

also, you need something to blame your losses on other than being a poor player or poor deck builder (or both).

Shadowelf
08-29-2013, 02:23 AM
Also Cory Jones on mana screw (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/...ign-mpt=uo%3D4, episode 54 check 0:35:28)

Unhurtable
08-29-2013, 04:05 AM
you think you don't like mana screw and mana flood

but subconsciously you actually love variance, or why would you be playing card games over pure strategy games?

also, you need something to blame your losses on other than being a poor player or poor deck builder (or both).

You don't have to love variance to love card games. There are no good pure strategy games (that are new and that people actually play) on the market at the moment.

@OP I'd rather have the game more complex rather than it being simple and without mana screw / flood. Even though I'd personally want the game to be less based on chance, I don't think auto-mulligans would do much to prevent it. There are better options.

nrflorencio
08-29-2013, 04:30 AM
This is quite the controversial subject. Its good to see the legion still hasnt infected this thread and the discussion is still civil.

Like i said in other threads, its a pity that the designers are too afraid to take this chance of using the "digital" aspect of the game to greatly lessen mana flood or screw. It would be simple, viable and completely unexploitable.

But you cant blame the designers really... When the great majority of players seems to love MtG and are also too afraid of change to the precious memories they hold so dear.


For ppl that say its not that bad. Go check the streams, and see mono color decks getting 2 shards in 10 turns, followed by 8 shards in 8 turns.

The complete randomization of a digital system makes it much worse than it is in a physical environment, where everyone includes mana weaving in they're play.

That said. I love this game and ill definitely play it till exhaustion.

Keznath
08-29-2013, 04:50 AM
Wanna play a game without man screw/mana flood ?

Play The Spoils !

Diesbudt
08-29-2013, 05:24 AM
97-98% of all good players and well built decks do not have an issue on mana screw and mana flood (up to 2 mulligans). Based on the theoretical bell curve of hand draws players do on a 23-24 resource deck.

Building the deck to have the right amount of mana. The ability to notice a bad opening hand and mulligan the hand. Are actually high level TCG skills. No reason to remove them by manipulating the system. TCG's are also full or random chance. Digital ones more than others, with some cards literally running RNG in them. These are totally acceptable. People have wrote papers on how Mana flood and screw in magic are not as big an issue as players believe (Unless you don't know how to mulligan correctly).

If you want a game where there is not chance involved. I think games like checkers and chess are your only real options.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-29-2013, 05:29 AM
Like i said in other threads, its a pity that the designers are too afraid to take this chance of using the "digital" aspect of the game to greatly lessen mana flood or screw. It would be simple, viable and completely unexploitable.
It's a significant change to the game, when some people think it wouldn't be. And it's a significant, unnecessary change IMO.


But you cant blame the designers really... When the great majority of players seems to love MtG and are also too afraid of change to the precious memories they hold so dear.
That's not fair - I thought you said this discussion was civil. :-P As many of us have pointed out - with stats no less - there's actually no problem in our POV, for logical reasons. Not because we're afraid of change. So please don't make assumptions.



For ppl that say its not that bad. Go check the streams, and see mono color decks getting 2 shards in 10 turns, followed by 8 shards in 8 turns.
Those are hardly the most well built, finely tuned decks. They're precons, which are more prone to getting mana screwed.


The complete randomization of a digital system makes it much worse than it is in a physical environment, where everyone includes mana weaving in they're play.
Actually, any player that doesn't have a random enough deck is cheating. If a player's mana weaving actually has an affect on their deck layout, they've committed the infraction of insufficiently randomizing their deck, which off the top of my head is a game loss.

Malicus
08-29-2013, 05:31 AM
This is quite the controversial subject. Its good to see the legion still hasnt infected this thread and the discussion is still civil.

Like i said in other threads, its a pity that the designers are too afraid to take this chance of using the "digital" aspect of the game to greatly lessen mana flood or screw. It would be simple, viable and completely unexploitable.

But you cant blame the designers really... When the great majority of players seems to love MtG and are also too afraid of change to the precious memories they hold so dear.


For ppl that say its not that bad. Go check the streams, and see mono color decks getting 2 shards in 10 turns, followed by 8 shards in 8 turns.

The complete randomization of a digital system makes it much worse than it is in a physical environment, where everyone includes mana weaving in they're play.

That said. I love this game and ill definitely play it till exhaustion.

Anything which managed the randomness could absolutely be exploited and would be, mana flood and screw are not super fun when they happen but good deck building can aleviate most of the issues and the complexity of managing your mana/threshold base are too integral to the style of game that I am looking for to support any system which makes it less meaningful.

The reality is that Hex already takes steps to reduce flood impact via charge powers and screw via threshold, once we see the full spoil we will likely see additional fixing and non-basic lands which further mitigate these issues.

Maphalux
08-29-2013, 05:32 AM
@nrflorencio: With all due respect... if it were Magic players holding on to dear memories, they would actually be asking for what the OP is asking for: to go back to the free mulligan rule with no or all lands. There is good reason for why the current mulligan system in Magic evolved away from that.

@topic: Screw does happen from time to time. It just happened to me in a recent guild tournament, twice. With a deck that had 26 resources no less. The odds were in my favor to get that third resource drop I needed to activate my hand but it didn't happen. Sometimes that is the way it goes. But it just isn't that commonplace when the base is properly tuned to the contents of the deck.

vickrpg
08-29-2013, 06:08 AM
Resource/Mana screw is HORRIBLE. It sucks. it's the worst thing that can happen to any player. That's why it absolutely needs to be in the game.

How fun would [poker] be if your pocket aces never got busted?

houjix
08-29-2013, 06:25 AM
Everyone always remembers the bad game where screw or flood caused them a loss even if the frequency is rather low. The ones where you curve perfectly or where opponent got screwed are less vivid.

Kilo24
08-29-2013, 07:17 AM
Personally, I hate mana flood/screw and wished that they would have seriously revamped the resource system of MTG. Maybe by removing resource cards entirely. But, that would dramatically change the whole game, and it's quite likely that it would behave quite differently from MTG. Hex's PVP is being built as a more polished version of MTG, and any major changes to that design would need extensive playtesting to ensure that everything that that changes is also brought to the same level of refinement. And I'm sure that a very large part of Hex's Kickstarter success is precisely because it is so similar to MTG; even if fundamental changes would have improved the game in the long run (which is far from certain), substantially distancing the gameplay from MTG would mean that the backers couldn't count on the certain degree of polish that is required to make professional competition fun. If a multiplayer game doesn't have enough players, it dies; the Kickstarter was an effort to secure that critical mass.

If I were employed at Crypto, all that still wouldn't change my strong desire to implement a better resource system, but they still do have good design reasons to stick close to MTG's (some of which have been said already). It's not a choice I'm happy with, but it's acceptable.

keroko
08-29-2013, 07:21 AM
what about when you intentionally run fewer mana than you should - gambling with luck and power?

genning randoms is tricky. It would be interesting to see how they batch produce random number blocks on servers and dish them out for use. probably do it in a way similar to how a RID master hands out UIDs?

I am not familiar with the middleware of random generation but it seems you might want that just happening and producing reams of them, dishing them out to other parts of the infrastructure.

they'll never tell us the secrets... unless we ask super nice!

keroko
08-29-2013, 07:26 AM
and yes mana screw / flood is horrible. but sometimes you set out with a plan and it end in a way it just wasnt supposed to.

each land is a resource for play, and a dead card in your deck once you go past a certain value (assuming your not packed with x or 'number of land type' cards). Getting that balance right, particularly when multi-colored, is an important balancing act.

a 1W is not normally as capable as a BW 2 cost multi-colored equivalent. this is because it is 'harder' to cast, you need the two colors.

If the concept of mana management was removed from hex or nerfed to the point where you don't build 60 card decks, you build 35 card decks and the game fills in your lands and makes sure they dish out at a constant rate... we'd lose a lot imo.

noragar
08-29-2013, 07:37 AM
After we 'fix' mana flood and mana screw, then what?

In a dual color deck you could still keep drawing resources of one color and cards of the other color. That needs to be fixed too.

And it's really annoying to draw a 7 drop on turn 2, then keep drawing your 1 drops on turns 8-10. Surely we can do something about that.

What about drawing a second copy of a Unique creature? He won't help you at all. THAT'S TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!!! That needs to be fixed.

.....

If you want to remove all randomness from the game, then just allow each player to set up their deck in whatever order they want at the start of the game. Then it truly becomes more like Chess and less like Magic. I also think it would be a lot less interesting and fun.

zadies
08-29-2013, 07:42 AM
Actually I don't feel mana flood will be all that bad in the situations where it happens in this game.

I have seen some very nice man a dumps, and also the charge powers on the heroes are quite nice at helping delicate the issue of too much mana.

Mana screw on the other hand is typically caused by not building your deck correctly the majority of the time.

hex_colin
08-29-2013, 07:42 AM
I got Ben Stoll to discuss how HexTCG mitigates mana screw/flood when I interviewed him at GenCon: http://www.thehexvault.com/blog/2013/08/18/gencon-2013-interview-with-ben-stoll-game-designer/

The relevant transcript sections:

Interviewer: We had a really interesting conversation last night about resources and the availability of resources in TCGs. I was wondering whether or not you could talk about what you discussed last night, like why you think the HEX is -

Ben Stoll: Resource system is good?

Interviewer: Yeah.

Ben Stoll: Yeah. You mean, just go over some of that? Yeah, sure. A resource system has a lot of functionality. Many TCGs have some sort of mechanic tied to how you play the cards. The thing I like about a progressive resource system – there’s a lot.
For one thing, a progressive resource system lends the game to an arc. So, the game experiences more texture because as the game progresses; the things that we’re doing become more impactful. When I start out, I’m putting little troops into play and playing minor actions. As the game progresses, though, if I make it ’til Turn Six, either one of two things is happening. I don’t have any six drops in my deck ’cause I’m super-aggressive and you’re almost dead, so there’s lots of attention and excitement. Or I am a slower deck and I’m putting down some powerful six cross dragon and he’s gonna put you in a world of pain. So, I like that.
On a related note, the thing I like particularly about something like HEX’s resource system is because there’s enough consistency that you get a good, strategic consistent-feeling experience, but there’s enough variance that the game is not gonna play out the same way every time. There’s a lot of tension on, “Am I gonna get that resource when I need it? Is my opponent going to?” It doesn’t have to be as extreme as getting “resource screwed,” it’s no, if my opponent just stalls a little bit and doesn’t play that fifth resource on Turn Five, that’s still a big deal. When he’s drawing that card off his deck, there’s a lot of tension and importance in what that card’s gonna be.
Beyond that, HEX’s resource system is deliberately designed to take advantage of the fact that HEX is a digital game. So, the resource system is extremely streamlined. It gets out of your way. There’s no messing with turning resource cards sideways and, “Oh, I turned the wrong one sideways,” and “Did I play a resource this turn? I can’t remember.” All that stuff is eliminated.
You play your resource card, it disappears forever, it’s gone, and you just got this nice, little, simple, clean, digital interface that’s telling you, “You have this many resource points. This is your threshold.” So yeah, I’m actually very big on HEX’s resource system.

Interviewer: Then, we were talking about how the charge powers are a way to serve and insure against resource flood.

Ben Stoll: Yes, sure, I’ll go on about that. Yeah, as we all know though, of course, despite the fact that I’ve just touted variance in resource system as actually being fun – which it is – and I believe it just is, whether people know it or not. I think a lot of people that say, “Well, I hate getting screwed” and all this stuff, it’s like well, you think you hate it, you kind of do. But how fun would poker be if your pocket aces never got busted, right? It would stink.
But anyways, HEX’s resource system recognizes that TCG players can hate this, and it can be really miserable. It is true that the worst thing is sitting there, discarding a card at the end of your turn every turn ’cause you can’t play your cards. You signed up to play the game; you didn’t sign up to discard the dragon every turn. So, the way HEX’s resource system is I believe actually alleviates this issue and hits just the sweet spot as compared to certain other TCGs.
So, there’s a few things. In HEX, you have a charge power, and the more resources you play, that’s the major way to get charges. There’s other ways, too. So, you’re incentivized already to play more resources. What this does is it incentivizes you to potentially play more resources in your deck than you would in, say, in a game where you have to risk a resource being a dead draw.
In HEX, you never have that risk. A resource is always live. It always does something useful. In fact, sometimes drawing that eighth resource means you just got to put a 6 / 6 squirrel titan into play because of your charge power. So, it’s very the opposite of that eighth resource being a dead draw. Which, we all know a dead draw feels like it sucks, too. So, you’re already incentivized to play more resources.
Because of that, there are two things. One, it’s less bad when you draw a ton of resources because of the stuff I just went on about. And also, because you’re playing potentially more resources, you are less likely to get screwed because there’s more resources in your deck. And beyond that, the one last cute thing I’ll throw in because it is important is the way the thresholding system works, sometimes in a TCG when you draw that resource that you really need, it still doesn’t really get you out of the jam ’cause you’re sitting there with a bunch of cards in your hand. All of a sudden drawing a resource, now you’ve got the ability to play those cards, but you can still only play one of them at a time.
In HEX, because of the way the thresholding system works, I rip that Ruby resource, I now have a Ruby threshold, suddenly all the Ruby cards in my hand are live, and so suddenly I’m right in the game now. I just got to totally catch up, and that’s a very exciting, fun moment. Not like, “Oh, I’m slightly less getting run over than I was before.” That’s my long spiel about the resource system.

Mindless
08-29-2013, 08:24 AM
People will start saying they get mana screwed alot more as it will be a quick escapegoat for not being able to play a card and sometimes not calcutale mana correctly. Also mana flood will be drawing 1 resource when you don't need it/can use it. Sadly I believe this is what will happen and if there is a crosschat you prob will hear alot of "you won cause I got mana flooded/screwed".

Do I like it? I haven't played Magic so I haven't really any concept of it but every card game is also about luck that you simply have to have. You can only tune that luck in your favor. I don't want to change the system in hex but I can see many people not liking it and thus play heartstone instead.

EDIT: Not only luck of course

iscariotrex
08-29-2013, 08:28 AM
Thanks Colin, this is exactly what I was going to talk about. I had listened to your interview. The Hex system has elegantly answered the mana flood/screw problems with champion charge abilities, even if one doesn't want to acknowledge it. You are rewarded for running a higher land base, which helps against screw, and you have the charge power to burn off if you are flooded so you can always do something. It is a balancing game that needs to be there I think. There are situations that will arise that are suboptimal to hitting your perfect curve, but when you do it is also icing on the cake.

As for how "unfair" it is... seriously? It is a built in game condition that both parties have to tune their decks around. That is completely fair. You aren't given the gimp deck, you made it. Your opponent doesn't have a superior product, unless he is better than you. Games that don't go your way just make the victories sweeter.

Resistant to change? There are multiple games on the market and I imagine most gamers avail themselves of multiple products. We play with different systems all the time, we can do different. That being said, you might want to try Duel of Champions or Hearthstone; they both have just escalating resource/per turn systems. I don't think either will have the depth of play that Hex will, and part of that is the chance that you will resource flood/screw.

BTW that wasn't a hostile, "you don't like it how it is, you go play another game," statement. Like I said, most of us play multiple games at a time. Please play both, or all three. I was trying to be helpful by suggesting games you may find less stressful.

Facilier
08-29-2013, 09:27 AM
Resource screw is easy to hate because it's more obvious than the alternative of curve screw. I tested HearthStone for a long time, and there are games you get blows out of the water because your opponent plays 1-2-3-4-5 drops, and you are stuck down on mana usage because you only drew a 3 for turn 4, with no 1 to supplement it, and get crushed by incremental advantages.

Deck construction is a large part TCGs, and I am happy that HEX is keeping it as an integral part of the experience, giving people the flexibility to build with more or less resources to suit their game plan. Long as the hints and guides system is robust to help newbies get info on the stable base of resources, let people deviate from that as they wish. We had one player come to an MTG draft, played 4 games and was complaining about bad luck, with 2 mana screws and 1 mana flood, so we asked them about their deck composition and they were playing 13 lands (17 is generally the baseline). We suggested to go closer to that, which was rapidly rejected with the 1 mana flooded game as "proof" that the balance is right. A few weeks of losing later the player tested a more traditional construction, managed to get to the final.

On top of that, knowing when to take a mulligan is part of the game's skill: too many people will keep an all-white hand with all red mana sources, then complain about mana screw, when in reality it is a position they put themselves in by keeping a speculative hand.

Alternatives to mana screw have their own drawbacks, and in this case the design team is taking some steps to improve the system after having made their own educated choice as to which will offer the best game experience. I got total respect for that, even if I, personally, am taking an extended break from HEX if VS System gets resurrected as an online experience.

Dheyjin
08-29-2013, 09:36 AM
There are so many games out there who managed to get rid of the mana screw/flood, why not this one too ?
Everyone who lost once in a tournament simply because of bad luck, knows what I'm talking about. That doesn't just screw you over, but your opponent as well, who just got a win handed, he didn't do anything for, watching you struggle, knowing excatly how that feels.
I've been in both situations countless times and it needs to go. Because it's no fun, for both players.


Ok, I get it, because of the charge feature you still can do something when being flooded. But that doesn't mean you get to do something usefull, that will keep you alive until you caught up to your opponent. And it doesn't help against starving at all. Even if you put more resources in your deck than usual, doesn't guarantee you'll actually draw them. So atleast there should be an option to use charges to summon a resource from your deck, for a reasonable price, like 2 or 3.
Or just use another system:

Like
WoW TCG - non resource cards can be used as a resource if needed. That negates starving completely and could add more interesting functions like a creature with "if used as a resource-> effect X happens" like card draw, getting 1/1 tokens, or counters or what ever. So if I need more mana, I can sacrifice it for a minor effect and stay in the game, or if I have enough / too much mana allready, I just play it normally.

Hearthstone - auto gain resources every round until a threshhold is met. That negates both starve and flood scenarios. Since we're dealing with a multi colour resource system here, someone who plays a multi coloured deck could maybe choose which colour resource to play next, (but has to maintain an even spread, for instance)

Yugi-Oh - Needs to sacrifice creatures to play high tier ones. In Yugi-Oh itself this leads usually to starve situations because the attacker chooses the defending creature, so you end up without creatures on the board very often. But we don't have this system here, so we could use it (partially) to give the option to play high cost cards with mana and additional sacrifices. Like, for instance, a six mana card can be played for four mana and sac. a creature, an eight mana card needs four mana and two creatures, and so on. So if you just don't get the necessary resources, you can still play these.
Offcourse I'm aware that this would give you the opportunity to abuse the system by using a token deck and sacrifice away, but that would add to the variety of possible play styles and is, like the other examples, just an idea.

I'd be fine with either of these, or completely different systems as long they get rid of the starve/flood problem.
Because no matter how good you or your opponent are, and how well the decks are build, you will run into these situations and when you're in a game that matters, like a tournament for instance, than you know exactly why it has to go.
Loosing a close game, knowing you did everything you could is fun. Loosing a game because you had to discard for several turns while your opponent killed you with a couple of low level / support creatures, is not.
And since gaming is supposed to be fun for all players (that includes the loosers), this system needs to go.

houjix
08-29-2013, 09:43 AM
All of those systems have their own inherent problems, but their cards are designed with those problems in mind. The cards in Magic and Hex are designed around their resource system. Changing the resource system changes the way cards work. Anyway, people will just replace Mana screw/flood with card screw, as in I didn't draw the 1 card I needed. There will almost always be something to blame the loss on.

Besides this has already been discussed ad naseum. Unless someone has a time machine to go back 2 years it isn't going to change at this point.

hex_colin
08-29-2013, 09:47 AM
What's interesting to me is that over time you'll actually see the expected rate of resource "screw" based on the number of resources you put in your deck because your hands will actually be totally random.

Too often in physical TCGs people make an effort to evenly divide their resources/land amongst all of their cards thus subtly (or not so much so ;)) altering (effectively reducing) the actual resource "screw" percentage.

Bottom line - we'll all be playing 1 - 2 more resources that we would have normally considered based on our experience with similar TCGs. That'll minimize the potential for "screw" (less than 1 in 20 games) and we'll probably get an extra charge power use in cases of "flood".

houjix
08-29-2013, 09:51 AM
What's interesting to me is that over time you'll actually see the expected rate of resource "screw" based on the number of resources you put in your deck because your hands will actually be totally random.

Too often in physical TCGs people make an effort to evenly divide their resources/land amongst all of their cards thus subtly (or not so much so ;)) altering (effectively reducing) the actual resource "screw" percentage.

Bottom line - we'll all be playing 1 - 2 more resources that we would have normally considered based on our experience with similar TCGs. That'll minimize the potential for "screw" (less than 1 in 20 games) and we'll probably get an extra charge power use in cases of "flood".

I don't think the charge powers are really going to warrant pushing the mana base higher. Very few of them are impactful enough risk getting higher instances of flood.

maniza
08-29-2013, 10:02 AM
alot of people seem to defend mana screw on the fact that its not so bad or that its part of the game. but my point is that it makes the game worse. that is of course an opinion. im shure ben has a diferent one. now im no game designer but i am a game player.
and from playing both a game with resources (magic) and with no resources (doc and others) as well as watching streams from hs. my conclusion is that magic has the most complex and intresting resource sistem, althou the others are good as well. but that minimizing screw and flood tru means only available to digital games will lead to a better game. as to how to do it i didnt realy put much thought into it im shure there might be better options.

Miwa
08-29-2013, 10:20 AM
Oh goodie, another screw/flood thread. We haven't had one in a few days.

Gwaer
08-29-2013, 10:27 AM
I spoke to Ben Stoll about this for probably an hour, and heard him rant about it in the background 5 or 6 times in addition, I don't think I can type about this as eloquently as he talks about it but let me try to explain a bit where it seems they are coming from.

The deck building aspect of the game involves a few different types of complexity that make it interesting and engaging

1. The different cards you can put into the deck to make it, and the proportions of those cards so that you're likely to "curve out" IE. have a 1 drop on turn 1, 2 drop on turn 2, 3 drop on turn 3 etc. making sure you can play the optimal card.

And

2. Resource management, having the correct resources to play your optimal cards on the optimal turns.


If you removed the resource management aspect you would be halving the complexity of the deck building portion of the game, which really is quite fun. Additionally at that point the unfun factor that people would focus on is getting curve screwed. Not getting your correct cost cards out at the optimal time. The person that got their 6 or 7 drop out when the other is only using a 5 drop will win.

That is less fun, less interesting, and just inferior.

They could even go beyond that, and make it so that you always get a resource every turn, and you always draw a card with the resource cost of the turn if you have one to draw. But now we are out of fun entirely. If we remove all the random elements we get a boring game, so there's a balance somewhere.

they very much believe they have found that balance, and I absolutely agree. The resource system honestly does do wonders for correcting screw and flood without removing it entirely. With this system if you get color screwed the second you land your threshold you now have your entire pool to throw out the short color cards in one turn if that's what's best. And with charge powers hitting resources that would be a dead draw in magic actually become useful, so flood is less of an issue.

stiii
08-29-2013, 10:55 AM
It's not as big a problem as people think, and especially at the higher levels of play it becomes even less of an issue thanks to players tuning their decks to include more land drop consistency for decks that want to hit 5+ mana (ie. more draw/filtering, ramp cards, etc).

My next vid is actually going to be on land/resource drop stats (primarily regarding the chances of actually hitting land drops if you keep a land light hand), so keep an eye out for it. But to put it simply, in a vacuum, the odds of not hitting your third resource drop on turn 3 on the play in a 24 resource deck are 6.3%, so in over 93% of games you'll get that crucial third land drop, and this doesn't even consider what cards you're actually running, such as ramp cards, extra dig and all that jazz, and doesn't factor in that those odds are even lower if you're on the draw.



I always wonder people feel that 6.3% of the time getting utterly screwed is perfectly fine? It also contains the idea that people who disagree just don't understand how magic or high level magic works. Maybe it is a bigger problem than YOU think it is? Why do YOU know better than the people on the other side of the argument?

stiii
08-29-2013, 10:58 AM
After we 'fix' mana flood and mana screw, then what?

In a dual color deck you could still keep drawing resources of one color and cards of the other color. That needs to be fixed too.

And it's really annoying to draw a 7 drop on turn 2, then keep drawing your 1 drops on turns 8-10. Surely we can do something about that.

What about drawing a second copy of a Unique creature? He won't help you at all. THAT'S TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!!! That needs to be fixed.

.....

If you want to remove all randomness from the game, then just allow each player to set up their deck in whatever order they want at the start of the game. Then it truly becomes more like Chess and less like Magic. I also think it would be a lot less interesting and fun.

Why not apply this logic in the other direction and remove the ability to mulligan? If hex didn't currently have a mulligan rule and someone suggested adding it you could use this exact logic to say that it would be a bad idea. This stems from the idea that the current magic/hex rules are perfect and any change would automatically makes things worse no matter what it changed.

Diesbudt
08-29-2013, 11:02 AM
I always wonder people feel that 6.3% of the time getting utterly screwed is perfectly fine? It also contains the idea that people who disagree just don't understand how magic or high level magic works. Maybe it is a bigger problem than YOU think it is? Why do YOU know better than the people on the other side of the argument?

6.3% of the time, for amateurs yes. The top players are more around 1%. Why? Deck building skill, and hand "know when to hold them and know when to fold them" is an important skill.

Top players who can read cards (can and will mulligan up to 2 times) and in those 2 mulligans they are closer to 1% screw and flood than 6.3%. Thus this skill increases ones chances at winning games.

Plus this is why you always see tournaments go best 2 out of 3. Allowing an outlier to happen if you and your deck are superior to your opponent.

What ISN'T fun is predictable drops and knowing you will have the mana you need when you need it. It removes a fun part of the RNG and removes one of the top tier skills in all TCGs.

stiii
08-29-2013, 11:03 AM
I don't think the charge powers are really going to warrant pushing the mana base higher. Very few of them are impactful enough risk getting higher instances of flood.

Agree with this. Charge powers could be a good way of balancing flood but so far you seem to get half a 0/1 token

Diesbudt
08-29-2013, 11:03 AM
Why not apply this logic in the other direction and remove the ability to mulligan? If hex didn't currently have a mulligan rule and someone suggested adding it you could use this exact logic to say that it would be a bad idea. This stems from the idea that the current magic/hex rules are perfect and any change would automatically makes things worse no matter what it changed.

Because the mulligan, is a well used skill by top players by knowing if their hand of 7/6 cards are worth holding or not. This adds strategy and skill into the opening hand, instead of truly allowing RNG to run rampant.

stiii
08-29-2013, 11:09 AM
6.3% of the time, for amateurs yes. The top players are more around 1%. Why? Deck building skill, and hand "know when to hold them and know when to fold them" is an important skill.

Top players who can read cards (can and will mulligan up to 2 times) and in those 2 mulligans they are closer to 1% screw and flood than 6.3%. Thus this skill increases ones chances at winning games.

Plus this is why you always see tournaments go best 2 out of 3. Allowing an outlier to happen if you and your deck are superior to your opponent.

What ISN'T fun is predictable drops and knowing you will have the mana you need when you need it. It removes a fun part of the RNG and removes one of the top tier skills in all TCGs.

You are just pulling out numbers with nothing to support them, where are they coming from? We are back again to me asking you why YOU know better than people on the other side?

stiii
08-29-2013, 11:12 AM
Because the mulligan, is a well used skill by top players by knowing if their hand of 7/6 cards are worth holding or not. This adds strategy and skill into the opening hand, instead of truly allowing RNG to run rampant.

The most often suggested method for removing resource screw is to allow players to play any card face down as a resource. There is a lot of skill in working which cards you will need later and which you can afford to play as a resource. So the top players would be able to use their skills to do this better than bad players and gain an advantage.

This happened all the time with WoW TCG and to a less extent VS.

Diesbudt
08-29-2013, 11:15 AM
You are just pulling out numbers with nothing to support them, where are they coming from? We are back again to me asking you why YOU know better than people on the other side?

And where did you find the 6.3%? Again just a number. Even "studied numbers" are not usually correct. Because there were variables that were and were not studied.

However I can tell you, I used to be madly interested in Magic championships and would read the turn by turn moves on each game to "watch them" play out afterwards online. And it was extremely rare to see a player at that level lose to screw or flood. However if I was to walk to a close card shop, and watch people play. You see closer to I would estimate 10% mana screw and flood. Some of that is because the deck wasn't build very strategically (too much or too little resources) and others was because people would refuse to give up a 7 card hand, when it had 3+ 4 mana or higher drops, and only 1 mana in hand, because they didn't understand the importance or usefulness of the mulligan.

Diesbudt
08-29-2013, 11:17 AM
The most often suggested method for removing resource screw is to allow players to play any card face down as a resource. There is a lot of skill in working which cards you will need later and which you can afford to play as a resource. So the top players would be able to use their skills to do this better than bad players and gain an advantage.

This happened all the time with WoW TCG and to a less extent VS.

I played WoW. I didn't like it compared to Magic. Deck building was not as interesting. Why? Because you didn't have to build around the difficulty of mana issues. This makes the deck building process a bigger challenge, with to plenty of TCG people is a fun part of TCGs.

And in honestly I enjoy building proper decks more than even playing them.

houjix
08-29-2013, 11:21 AM
God, I love seeing stiii join the mana flood/screw discussions. Typically the highlight of these threads.

stiii
08-29-2013, 11:24 AM
And where did you find the 6.3%? Again just a number. Even "studied numbers" are not usually correct. Because there were variables that were and were not studied.

However I can tell you, I used to be madly interested in Magic championships and would read the turn by turn moves on each game to "watch them" play out afterwards online. And it was extremely rare to see a player at that level lose to screw or flood. However if I was to walk to a close card shop, and watch people play. You see closer to I would estimate 10% mana screw and flood. Some of that is because the deck wasn't build very strategically (too much or too little resources) and others was because people would refuse to give up a 7 card hand, when it had 3+ 4 mana or higher drops, and only 1 mana in hand, because they didn't understand the importance or usefulness of the mulligan.

I took the 6.3% from the person I quoted. It is pretty easy to calculate so I just assumed it was correct. Your numbers on the other hand aren't supported by thing you just made them up based on some anecdotal evidence of you watching games.

So your answer to my question of why are YOU right as opposed to people on the other side is you have watched some high level games? You've never played in them but you still know better?

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-29-2013, 11:34 AM
For games that have a "you don't need to include resources" system like WoW TCG or Infinity Wars, it creates the issue where instead of getting mana screwed you can get curve screwed, where you get to, say, turn 6 and have nothing relevant to play, but your opponent does, and they can because they haven't missed a resource drop beat (because, y'know, they can't unless they want to). Though Infinity Wars takes it one step further and also gives you three guaranteed cards. It's not a terrible game, but it does mean that in unfavorable matchups your odds go down even further than unfavorable matchups in a game like Magic or Hex.


I always wonder people feel that 6.3% of the time getting utterly screwed is perfectly fine? It also contains the idea that people who disagree just don't understand how magic or high level magic works. Maybe it is a bigger problem than YOU think it is? Why do YOU know better than the people on the other side of the argument?
Why is it not fine? are you honestly telling me you can't handle 6 games out of 100 where you get unlucky? Would you rather unbalance the game to get 3, 4, 5 games out of 100 instead?

And it's not even 6%. That's just 6% in a big ol' vacuum of draws without considering what cards you get. I mean, if you get, say, a Sensei of the Milky Eye in those draws before the end of your third turn, the odds get even better that you'll make that third drop (note that what is likely the majority of top tier mid-range decks in MTG standard atm run Farseek, as it both reduces the risk of mana-screw even further, and gets them to their stronger drops sooner).

I'll tell you something - if they were to introduce some sort of free mulligan system, you know what would likely happen (if they went with a 0 or 7 approach)? The short-range aggro decks get even better, as they can skimp further on lands, knowing that they have a get-out-of-jail-free card. All it does is push the metagame in a more aggressive direction. If it were a straight up free mulligan (which, IMO, would be fairer), then proper competitive deckbuilding would suggest that you include less resources to make up for the fact that you get 2 shots at your 7 hand, and then you'll see figures that are almost identical to what they are now.



Ultimately, imperfect deckbuilding skills + observation bias = a 'problem' that's not actually very significant.

stiii
08-29-2013, 11:36 AM
I played WoW. I didn't like it compared to Magic. Deck building was not as interesting. Why? Because you didn't have to build around the difficulty of mana issues. This makes the deck building process a bigger challenge, with to plenty of TCG people is a fun part of TCGs.

And in honestly I enjoy building proper decks more than even playing them.

Instead you had to build around faction and class and spec within your class and overall deck game plan (combo/aggro/control) You had to build around the fact your class can't deal with permanent type X so you need to pick a faction that can deal with it. Making things hard to do doesn't always make them better either. Magic/Hex could have zero non basic resources and it would certainly make it harder to build around mana issues but it would also make people get screwed even more.

There is also you keep brining up pro players as being the ones who matter in terms of working out if the game mechanic is acceptable, mana screw is fine because pros can avoid it. If this is true then you need to be both magic and wow pro to be able to tell which game benefits from skill more. A group of about five people.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-29-2013, 11:41 AM
It doesn't take a pro to know how to build a deck properly, but I've always believed that balance changes should not be made to games if the pro community doesn't sign off on them. For example, I laddered on SC2 for quite a while a couple years ago, when people would belly ache about this and that (usually X unit is overpowered, nerf it). Often, they were complaints about cheese units, like Banshees or DTs (I had a mate who would complain about DTs all the time - he'd complain that they're so devastating compared to how little investment they require, and my response was always "well, he had to rush hard to get them out so early, so that was his investment, and an investment from you into scouting or detection would have blunted him completely"). But the only time I ever recall pros complaining about anything was about the Protoss death ball at one point, where a Zerg army would pretty much have to make a wave of sacrificial Corrupters just to have a chance at beating it (remaxing from the sac with Roach/Hydra I believe). I can't recall if there were any changes made in the next patch after watching that vid...

I bring all that up because I actually looked into previous threads and articles in Magic circles about people advocating mulligan rule changes, and didn't find anything significant. Notably, I didn't find any articles about pros who thought the rule was bad or needed changing. In fact, the only pro-mulligan articles I found just highlighted how much strategy should go into mulligans, which is why I made my vid on the subject - it's a very overlooked aspect of the game.

stiii
08-29-2013, 11:48 AM
For games that have a "you don't need to include resources" system like WoW TCG or Infinity Wars, it creates the issue where instead of getting mana screwed you can get curve screwed, where you get to, say, turn 6 and have nothing relevant to play, but your opponent does, and they can because they haven't missed a resource drop beat (because, y'know, they can't unless they want to). Though Infinity Wars takes it one step further and also gives you three guaranteed cards. It's not a terrible game, but it does mean that in unfavorable matchups your odds go down even further than unfavorable matchups in a game like Magic or Hex.

And then the question becomes which of these problems is bigger. Which makes for a much more reasonable discussion than people just claiming that there isn't a problem at all. So yes in my opinion getting curved screw is a lot less annoying than getting mana screwed. You can also do thing about curve screw in game design. VS had a much bigger issue with it than wow. In wow control decks were often full of reactive cards and didn't try to curve out at all.



Why is it not fine? are you honestly telling me you can't handle 6 games out of 100 where you get unlucky? Would you rather unbalance the game to get 3, 4, 5 games out of 100 instead?

And it's not even 6%. That's just 6% in a big ol' vacuum of draws without considering what cards you get. I mean, if you get, say, a Sensei of the Milky Eye in those draws before the end of your third turn, the odds get even better that you'll make that third drop (note that what is likely the majority of top tier mid-range decks in MTG standard atm run Farseek, as it both reduces the risk of mana-screw even further, and gets them to their stronger drops sooner).

I'll tell you something - if they were to introduce some sort of free mulligan system, you know what would likely happen (if they went with a 0 or 7 approach)? The short-range aggro decks get even better, as they can skimp further on lands, knowing that they have a get-out-of-jail-free card. All it does is push the metagame in a more aggressive direction. If it were a straight up free mulligan (which, IMO, would be fairer), then proper competitive deckbuilding would suggest that you include less resources to make up for the fact that you get 2 shots at your 7 hand, and then you'll see figures that are almost identical to what they are now.

I don't see any reason to accept 6/100 games if you can remove it at a low cost. And that 6/100 is only counting not drawing lands at one exact time. In the same way you can count cards as making it worse I can count the game where you drew eight lands and four spells. Farseek reduces screw but increases flood as well. I do agree that giving a free mulligan is bad idea I@d much rather add something that makes more hands playable.



Ultimately, imperfect deckbuilding skills + observation bias = a 'problem' that's not actually very significant.

I mean this is just your opinion. I can easily say the opposite that your imperfect deckbuilding/play skills mean you don't understand how big of a problem it is. You have exactly the same observation bias. And no this doesn't mean I think it is a huge problem that will ruin the game but I do think it is big enough that the game would be better off if it were fixed.

stiii
08-29-2013, 11:51 AM
I bring all that up because I actually looked into previous threads and articles in Magic circles about people advocating mulligan rule changes, and didn't find anything significant. Notably, I didn't find any articles about pros who thought the rule was bad or needed changing. In fact, the only pro-mulligan articles I found just highlighted how much strategy should go into mulligans, which is why I made my vid on the subject - it's a very overlooked aspect of the game.

Well the OP didn't say he wanted the mulligan rule removed all he wanted was a free mulligan for 7/0 or 0/7, something which pretty much any skill level player would do already.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-29-2013, 11:52 AM
I don't see any reason to accept 6/100 games if you can remove it at a low cost. And that 6/100 is only counting not drawing lands at one exact time. In the same way you can count cards as making it worse I can count the game where you drew eight lands and four spells. Farseek reduces screw but increases flood as well. I do agree that giving a free mulligan is bad idea I@d much rather add something that makes more hands playable.
That's the thing - it's not a low cost. It changes a major part of the game drastically, and I don't think the people advocating any sort of free mulligan rule have thought it through thoroughly.

I'd look at cards which make hands more playable, not game rules, if I were a CZE employee and thought this was an issue.


I mean this is just your opinion. I can easily say the opposite that your imperfect deckbuilding/play skills mean you don't understand how big of a problem it is. You have exactly the same observation bias. And no this doesn't mean I think it is a huge problem that will ruin the game but I do think it is big enough that the game would be better off if it were fixed.
Sure it's an opinion, but I'm a very open-minded person and have yet to see some logical reasoning backed up with stats and figures of a post rule-change world that mean it would be a good change. If I'd seen enough convincing stuff, I'd probably switch sides.

If you want to change the minds of people, it's best to look into stats and figures about any proposed changes you're in favour of, in order to convince those of us that, you know, run off hard logic. :-P


Well the OP didn't say he wanted the mulligan rule removed all he wanted was a free mulligan for 7/0 or 0/7, something which pretty much any skill level player would do already.
That kind of mulligan system creates an unfair advantage for short-range aggro decks who can skimp even further on shards (thus increasing their odds of drawing gas), knowing that if they don't hit a shard in their opening hand they get two more rolls of the dice before they even have to consider going down to 5.

stiii
08-29-2013, 12:12 PM
Sure it's an opinion, but I'm a very open-minded person and have yet to see some logical reasoning backed up with stats and figures of a post rule-change world that mean it would be a good change. If I'd seen enough convincing stuff, I'd probably switch sides.

If you want to change the minds of people, it's best to look into stats and figures about any proposed changes you're in favour of, in order to convince those of us that, you know, run off hard logic. :-P


And you've provided no logical reasoning backed up with stats and figures why the current rules are correct. You talk about hard logic but your logic here seems to be current system must be correct unless you can prove otherwise, you ask for thing you haven't provided for your side.

stiii
08-29-2013, 12:13 PM
That's the thing - it's not a low cost. It changes a major part of the game drastically, and I don't think the people advocating any sort of free mulligan rule have thought it through thoroughly.



Also who is advocating this free mulligan? It certainly isn't me so why do you keep replying to my posts mentioning it?

nekoangel
08-29-2013, 12:20 PM
personally i think this sytem is fine, its pretty much MTG yes but the parts i like the most are where it differs.

each resource charges the champion

each resource produces colourless in theory after adding threshold meaning it can cast any card there on after.
eg: i get two blue sources and 1 white source so by the time turn three comes around i can play 3 one drops with say one white source needed where in mtg i couldnt, mana screw well be much less common i think in multicoloured decks as all sources lend to each other after adding threshold, in mono not at all but you get my point.

but i do like the wowtcg system it lead to much more deliberation over what to row in the event of not having a quest.

all the systems are fine in my eyes but the proof is in the pudding i guess.....

on te subject of mull's i feel one freebie is enough but that system probably doesnt work in this kind of game.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-29-2013, 12:25 PM
And you've provided no logical reasoning backed up with stats and figures why the current rules are correct. You talk about hard logic but your logic here seems to be current system must be correct unless you can prove otherwise, you ask for thing you haven't provided for your side.
You're kidding, right? Right? From page one:

But to put it simply, in a vacuum, the odds of not hitting your third resource drop on turn 3 on the play in a 24 resource deck are 6.3%, so in over 93% of games you'll get that crucial third land drop, and this doesn't even consider what cards you're actually running, such as ramp cards, extra dig and all that jazz, and doesn't factor in that those odds are even lower if you're on the draw.

Now, whether 6.3% of games is too much (keeping in mind that increasing to 25 or 26 reduces this slightly further while not having a major affect on flood chances) is a matter of opinion. However, I for one think it is fine. To actually find out if the majority of players think it's fine, you'd likely have to find unbiased groups of players to take surveys with.

Also, the other side of the argument (that the rule should be changed) has yet to provide any stats to say why it's a good idea. Sure, we can disagree on the one stat we have that I provided, but I don't think that's going to convince too many people that there's actually a problem.


Also who is advocating this free mulligan? It certainly isn't me so why do you keep replying to my posts mentioning it?
A free mulligan for having 0/7 resources is, by definition, some sort of free mulligan. But on that note, are you saying you aren't in favour of a free mulligan rule then?

stiii
08-29-2013, 12:33 PM
You're kidding, right? Right? From page one:

But to put it simply, in a vacuum, the odds of not hitting your third resource drop on turn 3 on the play in a 24 resource deck are 6.3%, so in over 93% of games you'll get that crucial third land drop, and this doesn't even consider what cards you're actually running, such as ramp cards, extra dig and all that jazz, and doesn't factor in that those odds are even lower if you're on the draw.

Now, whether 6.3% of games is too much (keeping in mind that increasing to 25 or 26 reduces this slightly further while not having a major affect on flood chances) is a matter of opinion. However, I for one think it is fine. To actually find out if the majority of players think it's fine, you'd likely have to find unbiased groups of players to take surveys with.

Also, the other side of the argument (that the rule should be changed) has yet to provide any stats to say why it's a good idea. Sure, we can disagree on the one stat we have that I provided, but I don't think that's going to convince too many people that there's actually a problem.


A free mulligan for having 0/7 resources is, by definition, some sort of free mulligan. But on that note, are you saying you aren't in favour of a free mulligan rule then?

I guess you really are kidding.

What you provided are not facts and hard logic in your favour. They are just facts which on their own don't support or undermine your position at all. You took the 6.3% number and said it was fine. I said it was not fine. So my position is backed up by exactly the same amount of facts and figures as yours is.

So again you are asking me to provide something you aren't providing then claiming your position is backed up by facts and hard logic and ignoring the fact I can do exactly the same thing.

You claim to be opened minded but so far all I can see if you saying your opinion based off these figures is more important than my one based off the same figures.


And yes I already said I wasn't in favour of a free mulligan in a reply to one of your posts.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-29-2013, 12:42 PM
I guess you really are kidding.

What you provided are not facts and hard logic in your favour. They are just facts which on their own don't support or undermine your position at all. You took the 6.3% number and said it was fine. I said it was not fine. So my position is backed up by exactly the same amount of facts and figures as yours is.

So again you are asking me to provide something you aren't providing then claiming your position is backed up by facts and hard logic and ignoring the fact I can do exactly the same thing.

You claim to be opened minded but so far all I can see if you saying your opinion based off these figures is more important than my one based off the same figures.


And yes I already said I wasn't in favour of a free mulligan in a reply to one of your posts.
Why so aggressive? Can we not just have a civil conversation?
Fact: 6.3%, from one example of a deck which doesn't even consider cards to help mitigate screw further, and could go higher in source count.
Logic: that 6 out of 100 games is not a big number.

How is that illogical? How is stating that 0.06 is not a large number illogical? Sure, it is an opinion, as the notion of what is big and what is small is subjective, but we can make it even more logical.

If we define "large" relative to percentages as a figure of 20% or higher, then this is, by definition, not a large number of games affected by mana screw. If we define "small" relative to percentages as a figure of 10% or less, then this is, by definition, a small number of games affected by mana screw.

Again, it's an opinion, as this isn't science - it's a card game, where the "truth" is based on the difficult-to-quantify characteristic that is how much fun we have while playing it. However, the opinion is logical. It does not preclude other opinions though, but it'd be nice if people explained why they disagree if they do. Even if it's just "I don't agree that 6.3% is a small enough figure".

noragar
08-29-2013, 12:50 PM
Then what are you suggesting? Going back, this appears to be the last proposal you've made towards a solution.


The most often suggested method for removing resource screw is to allow players to play any card face down as a resource. There is a lot of skill in working which cards you will need later and which you can afford to play as a resource. So the top players would be able to use their skills to do this better than bad players and gain an advantage.


The result of this would be that nobody would ever include a resource card in their deck because it would be pointless to use a card that can only be used as a resource when all other cards can be used either as a resource or something else. So this is barely different than a resource free system. The only difference is that there would be a very small amount of skill applied in identifying the least useful card in your hand each turn.

stiii
08-29-2013, 12:51 PM
Why so aggressive? Can we not just have a civil conversation?

.

How exactly am I being aggressive by pointing out the logical problems with your posts? You asked for hard logic and you got it. You asked if I was kidding and I replied with almost exactly the same question to you. You are trying to paint a picture where I'm being unreasonable and you are so open minded and logical. If that is true you could point out the points were I was being aggressive. And as a note pointing out you are wrong a bunch of times isn't being aggressive. Nor is pointing out you can claim to be open minded and logical all you like it doesn't make it true.

noragar
08-29-2013, 12:53 PM
We differ on the amount of skill needed because in most cases, it will be obvious which card to use, and in the cases where it's not obvious, the impact of making a wrong decision won't be very large.

stiii
08-29-2013, 12:56 PM
Then what are you suggesting? Going back, this appears to be the last proposal you've made towards a solution.



The result of this would be that nobody would ever include a resource card in their deck because it would be pointless to use a card that can only be used as a resource when all other cards can be used either as a resource or something else. So this is barely different than a resource free system. The only difference is that there would be a very small amount of skill applied in identifying the least useful card in your hand each turn.

Except there is a huge amount of skill in working out what the least valuable card in your hand is. there are a huge number of factors involved with this. Do you need two removal spells for later? What about two card drawing spells? And a lot of this is based off what deck they are playing something you will have to work out based off a small number of plays early in the game. Yuo also have to figure out at what point to stop playing resources. If you draw a seven drop but skipped your 6th resource that would be bad but is that risk worth holding back another card in your hand?

I'd also suggest that these resources have no colour so you'd still need normal resources to play any spells

Mush
08-29-2013, 12:56 PM
If we define "large" relative to percentages as a figure of 20% or higher, then this is, by definition, not a large number of games affected by mana screw. If we define "small" relative to percentages as a figure of 10% or less, then this is, by definition, a small number of games affected by mana screw.

You getting to define what words mean is cute.

Also even by your definition and your 6.3% figure there are two players playing a game so for a game that is not decided by someone missing their third resource to happen they need to both fade this 6.3%, which means that 12.3% of games are actually affected by this. This is no longer "small", do you think it is a problem now.

stiii
08-29-2013, 12:57 PM
We differ on the amount of skill needed because in most cases, it will be obvious which card to use, and in the cases where it's not obvious, the impact of making a wrong decision won't be very large.

If things are so obvious why are other people saying missing lands drops can go from 6.3% to 1% based onp layer skill?

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-29-2013, 01:03 PM
How exactly am I being aggressive by pointing out the logical problems with your posts? You asked for hard logic and you got it. You asked if I was kidding and I replied with almost exactly the same question to you. You are trying to paint a picture where I'm being unreasonable and you are so open minded and logical. If that is true you could point out the points were I was being aggressive. And as a note pointing out you are wrong a bunch of times isn't being aggressive. Nor is pointing out you can claim to be open minded and logical all you like it doesn't make it true.

I guess you really are kidding.

What you provided are not facts and hard logic in your favour. They are just facts which on their own don't support or undermine your position at all. You took the 6.3% number and said it was fine. I said it was not fine. So my position is backed up by exactly the same amount of facts and figures as yours is.

So again you are asking me to provide something you aren't providing then claiming your position is backed up by facts and hard logic and ignoring the fact I can do exactly the same thing.

You claim to be opened minded but so far all I can see if you saying your opinion based off these figures is more important than my one based off the same figures.


And yes I already said I wasn't in favour of a free mulligan in a reply to one of your posts.
It's a pretty aggressive post. Besides, in my reply I did explain why my posts up to this point have been logical; the only 'logical' problem is that you made me actually spell out definitions for a "small" number.

Besides, most people wouldn't need to be convinced that 6.3% is a small number. Now, they may not believe that it is small enough, which is where this debate is coming from, but there also haven't been any suggestions posted with stats to convince anyone that they're superior.

LargoLaGrande
08-29-2013, 01:04 PM
That 6.3% figure being thrown around isn't the percent chance of being mana screwed. It's the chance that your deck will stumble on turn 3, but says nothing of what happens after. The chance of being stuck on 2 lands on turn 4, on the play, is 3%, and 1.2% on turn 5. This is an important distinction because stumbling on your third land drop is hardly the nail in the coffin, I've won games where I hit my third land the turn before my opponent tapped out to play Oona.

edit: I should mention, these percentages are including a mull to 6. Without mulligans you're stumbling on mana like 21% of the time on the play on turn 3.

noragar
08-29-2013, 01:05 PM
If things are so obvious why are other people saying missing lands drops can go from 6.3% to 1% based onp layer skill?

They're saying that because you can choose certain mixes of cards to include in your deck and apply a skillful mulligan strategy to reduce the percentage of the time you miss your third land drop from about 6.3% to about 1%.

I don't see what that has to do with identifying the least useful card in your hand.

stiii
08-29-2013, 01:07 PM
Fact: 6.3%, from one example of a deck which doesn't even consider cards to help mitigate screw further, and could go higher in source count.
Logic: that 6 out of 100 games is not a big number.

How is that illogical? How is stating that 0.06 is not a large number illogical? Sure, it is an opinion, as the notion of what is big and what is small is subjective, but we can make it even more logical.

If we define "large" relative to percentages as a figure of 20% or higher, then this is, by definition, not a large number of games affected by mana screw. If we define "small" relative to percentages as a figure of 10% or less, then this is, by definition, a small number of games affected by mana screw.

Again, it's an opinion, as this isn't science - it's a card game, where the "truth" is based on the difficult-to-quantify characteristic that is how much fun we have while playing it. However, the opinion is logical. It does not preclude other opinions though, but it'd be nice if people explained why they disagree if they do. Even if it's just "I don't agree that 6.3% is a small enough figure".

Fact: putting fact in front of things don't make them true

For example 6.3% ignores all the other ways you get can screwed, you can easily lose games other due to missing your 3rd land drop and be screwed.

Fact: if you included everything is is over 20%

(this is utterly made up but I put fact at the front there)

Same thing with logic:

Logic: 6/100 is a big number when it leads to such miserable games and could be prevented.

I can do exactly the same thing as you did

If we define large in this case as 6% then this is by definition a large number of games affected by mana screw. If we define small as a figure of 3% or less we can see that this doesn't doesn't fall under the definition of small.

So yeah I don't agree 6.3% is a small number. Something which I have already stated in my first reply to you. And this is the second time you've asked me a question I've already answered.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-29-2013, 01:07 PM
You getting to define what words mean is cute.
Apparently the concept of 6.3% being a small percentage needs backing up. Thus, backed up. If you think that's cute, cool, glad I could be cute for you. ;-)


Also even by your definition and your 6.3% figure there are two players playing a game so for a game that is not decided by someone missing their third resource to happen they need to both fade this 6.3%, which means that 12.3% of games are actually affected by this. This is no longer "small", do you think it is a problem now.
No. Gameplay balance, for the most part, should be focused around competitive gaming, and in a competitive game the opponent getting mana screwed or flooded rarely has a negative impact on you.

I'll take this moment to point out that I've never been against a free-mulligan rule for casual games. I don't think it's necessary, but if enough people want it, I wouldn't have any problem with it.

Also, it's not necessarily 12.3% (where'd you get that figure btw?) - between players there'll likely be some overlapped games where both get screwed.

Mush
08-29-2013, 01:08 PM
(post no longer relevant due to above post)

stiii
08-29-2013, 01:08 PM
That 6.3% figure being thrown around isn't the percent chance of being mana screwed. It's the chance that your deck will stumble on turn 3, but says nothing of what happens after. The chance of being stuck on 2 lands on turn 4, on the play, is 3%, and 1.2% on turn 5. This is an important distinction because stumbling on your third land drop is hardly the nail in the coffin, I've won games where I hit my third land the turn before my opponent tapped out to play Oona.

And you've probably lost games where you hit your 3rd land drop and drew far too many lands, it cuts both ways.

stiii
08-29-2013, 01:10 PM
They're saying that because you can choose certain mixes of cards to include in your deck and apply a skillful mulligan strategy to reduce the percentage of the time you miss your third land drop from about 6.3% to about 1%.

I don't see what that has to do with identifying the least useful card in your hand.

I am saying if player skill matters so much in deck construction why doesn't it matter when picking which card to row? Both require player skill.

Mush
08-29-2013, 01:10 PM
Also, it's not necessarily 12.3% (where'd you get that figure btw?) - between players there'll likely be some overlapped games where both get screwed.

0.063 chance of screw
0.927 chance of not screw
0.937^2 = 0.877 chance of 2 players not screw concurrently

I am very suspicious that your 6.3% figure was pulled from thin air if you aren't capable of doing this calculation.


No. Gameplay balance, for the most part, should be focused around competitive gaming, and in a competitive game the opponent getting mana screwed or flooded rarely has a negative impact on you.

Are you serious?! If you are trying to use stats to examine at how many games are affected by mana screw you have to consider both players. Obviously it doesn't have a negative impact on you but it is has a negative impact on whether the game is competitive and enjoyable, which is the point of making balance changes.

stiii
08-29-2013, 01:13 PM
It's a pretty aggressive post. Besides, in my reply I did explain why my posts up to this point have been logical; the only 'logical' problem is that you made me actually spell out definitions for a "small" number.

Besides, most people wouldn't need to be convinced that 6.3% is a small number. Now, they may not believe that it is small enough, which is where this debate is coming from, but there also haven't been any suggestions posted with stats to convince anyone that they're superior.

Again I asked where I was being aggressive and you can't point it out.

You got any evidence that most people wouldn't need to be convinced 6.3%? You keep making blanket statements with nothing to support them and claiming they are logical

LargoLaGrande
08-29-2013, 01:13 PM
And you've probably lost games where you hit your 3rd land drop and drew far too many lands, it cuts both ways.

Well, yes. Welcome to TCGs, one of the two ways to lose the game is to your deck.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-29-2013, 01:19 PM
Fact: putting fact in front of things don't make them true

For example 6.3% ignores all the other ways you get can screwed, you can easily lose games other due to missing your 3rd land drop and be screwed.

Fact: if you included everything is is over 20%

(this is utterly made up but I put fact at the front there)

Same thing with logic:

Logic: 6/100 is a big number when it leads to such miserable games and could be prevented.

I can do exactly the same thing as you did

If we define large in this case as 6% then this is by definition a large number of games affected by mana screw. If we define small as a figure of 3% or less we can see that this doesn't doesn't fall under the definition of small.

So yeah I don't agree 6.3% is a small number. Something which I have already stated in my first reply to you. And this is the second time you've asked me a question I've already answered.
Fact: being condescending doesn't make you smarter than anyone.

When I originally gave the 6.3% figure I stated how I came to it. If you try to be too complex with scenarios like this, it can be very hard to get any sort of figure. For example, I've been working on a PvE deck recently and getting the stats for it, and I've pretty much had to say "I'll win if I get X or Y, and lose if I don't" - even though that's a gross simplification. Trying to work out everything takes a lot of time, so we simplify. If you're not happy with that, feel free to get some figures of your own. ;-)

As for your over 20% line? Please give some figures to back that up. I'm not convinced. I'd be surprised if someone was able to work this out with any competitively built deck (for Magic; Hex lacks a few cards atm) and it ended up getting legitimately flooded or screwed more than 10% of the time (barring interference from the opponent, which is designed to screw with them).

So, your logic is that 6/100 relative to the impact it has on gameplay is a big number of games, correct? You should really state that. In any case, we both agree that while these statements aren't illogical they are still opinions, correct? I'm pretty sure my last reply stated that because fun is very difficult to quantify, the best we could hope for were intelligent opinions.

Ultimately, our definitions hinge on our opinions, so if we can't convince people of those, then there's a potential stalemate like we're facing right now.

You should have no problems repeating yourself if you actually want to convince anyone. Although perhaps that's just my method. ^^

stiii
08-29-2013, 01:20 PM
Well, yes. Welcome to TCGs, one of the two ways to lose the game is to your deck.

So your answer to any problem is to just suck it up? No point trying to change anything ever.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-29-2013, 01:26 PM
0.063 chance of screw
0.927 chance of not screw
0.937^2 = 0.877 chance of 2 players not screw concurrently

I am very suspicious that your 6.3% figure was pulled from thin air if you aren't capable of doing this calculation.
My stats were pulled via hypergeometric distribution theory. Apologies for not thinking it through; it seems I'm debating on multiple fronts here, and trying to keep up with how fast this thread is moving.


Are you serious?! If you are trying to use stats to examine at how many games are affected by mana screw you have to consider both players.
This is an opinion, is it not? While that's fine - this whole thread is based on opinion, after all - it's not one I share.
Edit: my stats weren't to highlight how many games were affected by mana screw. They were to highlight how many games of a single player are affected by mana screw. Apologies if that was unclear.


Obviously it doesn't have a negative impact on you but it is has a negative impact on whether the game is competitive and enjoyable, which is the point of making balance changes.
The point of making balance changes is to, y'know, keep things balanced. A change to the mulligan rule would likely unbalance things, depending on how it is implemented, as it would shift how the metagame exists (as I've mentioned before it would seem that a short-range aggro deck would gain an advantage with the proposed 0/7 free mulligan system, as they'd be able to shave a few shards off of their list and run more gas given that they'd have 3 rolls of the dice of hitting resources before considering a mull to 5 - but, I haven't done the stats for this, so could be wrong).

My opinion on my opponent getting mana screwed in a competitive environment is that it gets me further towards winning the game. It's not the most glorious way to win, of course, but at the end of the day, my competitive mindset is that you do whatever you legally can within the confines of the game to win. If my opponent happens to roll badly, then that furthers my chances of victory.

I should point out here that I'm not actually against any changes to the game, in any way, shape or form, if they're beneficial to the game. I'm just not convinced that a 0/7 free mulligan or a unconditional free mulligan are beneficial, and haven't yet seen anything to change my mind. I'm more than happy to be convinced though.

noragar
08-29-2013, 01:27 PM
I am saying if player skill matters so much in deck construction why doesn't it matter when picking which card to row? Both require player skill.

I'm saying that most of the time, the decision will fall into one of two situations:

1. The decision is clear cut. In that case, the skilled player and the unskilled player will make the same decision, so player skill has no effect.

2. The decision between two options is close. In that case, the skilled player will make the best decision and the unskilled player will make the second best decision. But since the decision was close, the impact in terms of probabilities for winning the game of making the best decision instead of the second best decision will be small. So player skill has little effect.

Just because two things both require skill, it's not enough to equate them if the level of the skill and the impact of the skills are totally different. It's like playing blackjack. Player A can accurately predict the value of the next card out of the shoe. Player B can accurately predict the suit of the next card out of the shoe. Both require skill, but the impact of the skill is very different.

stiii
08-29-2013, 01:29 PM
Fact: being condescending doesn't make you smarter than anyone.

When I originally gave the 6.3% figure I stated how I came to it. If you try to be too complex with scenarios like this, it can be very hard to get any sort of figure. For example, I've been working on a PvE deck recently and getting the stats for it, and I've pretty much had to say "I'll win if I get X or Y, and lose if I don't" - even though that's a gross simplification. Trying to work out everything takes a lot of time, so we simplify. If you're not happy with that, feel free to get some figures of your own. ;-)

As for your over 20% line? Please give some figures to back that up. I'm not convinced. I'd be surprised if someone was able to work this out with any competitively built deck (for Magic; Hex lacks a few cards atm) and it ended up getting legitimately flooded or screwed more than 10% of the time (barring interference from the opponent, which is designed to screw with them).

So, your logic is that 6/100 relative to the impact it has on gameplay is a big number of games, correct? You should really state that. In any case, we both agree that while these statements aren't illogical they are still opinions, correct? I'm pretty sure my last reply stated that because fun is very difficult to quantify, the best we could hope for were intelligent opinions.

Ultimately, our definitions hinge on our opinions, so if we can't convince people of those, then there's a potential stalemate like we're facing right now.

You should have no problems repeating yourself if you actually want to convince anyone. Although perhaps that's just my method. ^^

So your method is not not read the other person's post and ask them to repeat themselves endlessly? And you think this a good way to talking to people and being open minded? I put (this is utterly made) after the 20% but apparently you didn't read that either. I mean what is the point of me saying anything if you are only going to read half of it? You claim it is possible to persuade you with hard logic but then you just keep making things up and claiming they are logical just because you said so.

And yet more of you not reading my posts even the first one I made to you, which was "I always wonder people feel that 6.3% of the time getting utterly screwed is perfectly fine?" It is pretty clear from this that I do think that 6.3% is a big number relative to the impact it has on gameplay. The size of any number is relative to what it is measuring.

stiii
08-29-2013, 01:32 PM
I'm saying that most of the time, the decision will fall into one of two situations:

1. The decision is clear cut. In that case, the skilled player and the unskilled player will make the same decision, so player skill has no effect.

2. The decision between two options is close. In that case, the skilled player will make the best decision and the unskilled player will make the second best decision. But since the decision was close, the impact in terms of probabilities for winning the game of making the best decision instead of the second best decision will be small. So player skill has little effect.

Just because two things both require skill, it's not enough to equate them if the level of the skill and the impact of the skills are totally different. It's like playing blackjack. Player A can accurately predict the value of the next card out of the shoe. Player B can accurately predict the suit of the next card out of the shoe. Both require skill, but the impact of the skill is very different.

Have you ever played any games where you could row cards? Because what you are saying just isn't true. Bad players will pick the wrong card a huge amount and it will cause them to lose the game as a result a sizeable percentage too.

Mush
08-29-2013, 01:34 PM
My opinion on my opponent getting mana screwed in a competitive environment is that it gets me further towards winning the game. It's not the most glorious way to win, of course, but at the end of the day, my competitive mindset is that you do whatever you legally can within the confines of the game to win. If my opponent happens to roll badly, then that furthers my chances of victory.

You realise this is zero-sum right? Assuming you are just looking at game mechanics and not in player-made chocies to reduce variance, you and your opponent have equal chance of losing due to mana screw. So if you are purely looking at it from a "what helps me the most?" perspective then mana screw is basically irrelevant. More mana screw helps you if you think you are going to play consistently worse than your opponents since it decreases the proportion of games in which playskill matters.

Also neither me nor Stiii have said anything in favour of free mulligans so I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up. We just think that you are arguing very poorly.

LargoLaGrande
08-29-2013, 01:35 PM
So your answer to any problem is to just suck it up? No point trying to change anything ever.

That is definitely what I said.

stiii
08-29-2013, 01:39 PM
That is definitely what I said.

When you make condescending posts like welcome to TCGs you probably shouldn't expect to be taken seriously

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-29-2013, 01:39 PM
So your method is not not read the other person's post and ask them to repeat themselves endlessly? And you think this a good way to talking to people and being open minded? I put (this is utterly made) after the 20% but apparently you didn't read that either. I mean what is the point of me saying anything if you are only going to read half of it? You claim it is possible to persuade you with hard logic but then you just keep making things up and claiming they are logical just because you said so.
Apologies. We've had big posts, and I focused on the 20%, and missed the "made up" bit. That's fair enough. ^^

I guess I'm just the kind of person who, if I feel I'm right (or in this case, not-wrong, as there's rarely a single right when it comes to opinion), will want to prove something to the point of repeating myself. I've got to take a step back sometimes and realise that not everyone operates the same way.


And yet more of you not reading my posts even the first one I made to you, which was "I always wonder people feel that 6.3% of the time getting utterly screwed is perfectly fine?" It is pretty clear from this that I do think that 6.3% is a big number relative to the impact it has on gameplay. The size of any number is relative to what it is measuring.
You always wonder why (missing word, I think that's it) it's perfectly fine? Well I can't speak for anyone else, but in a different post I explained that my competitive mindset is that if my opponent gets mana screwed, that's good for me (meaning that 6.3% is a figure that I can roll with here, as opposed to the 12.3% figure that Mush gave which represents the odds of games being affected by mana screw if you consider both players, with the 24 resource deck and not considering any other cards or circumstances), and that when I think that in 94 games out of 100 my game is likely to be unaffected by mana screw, I'm perfectly fine with that.

That's not saying that it's not annoying when it happens, but if it's not obvious I like solid things like facts and figures, so if I do get annoyed I try to look at those figures and go "ok, I just rolled badly" (though I try to avoid coming to that conclusion if it's not the case, like I didn't make the correct mulligan or deck construction choices or something).

Mush
08-29-2013, 01:40 PM
That is definitely what I said.

It is what you said. When people are preventing real solutions to lower the frequency of and/or eliminate game-ending variance issues and your reply is "welcome to tcgs" you obviously don't think there is any solution other than to just suck it up and live with it.

noragar
08-29-2013, 01:42 PM
So your answer to any problem is to just suck it up? No point trying to change anything ever.

No point in trying to change anything if the changes will introduce problems that are worse than the problem they're fixing.

If there's a solution that won't create bigger problems, then what's the answer? If it exists, I'd be all for it. I think Jax said the same a while back.

LargoLaGrande
08-29-2013, 01:43 PM
When you make condescending posts like welcome to TCGs you probably shouldn't expect to be taken seriously

I don't know what you expected when you completely ignored the point of my original post.


It is what you said. When people are preventing real solutions to lower the frequency of and/or eliminate game-ending variance issues and your reply is "welcome to tcgs" you obviously don't think there is any solution other than to just suck it up and live with it.

Posts have context. That was specifically replying to stiii's post asking if I had ever lost to mana flood, not the thread in it's entirety.

stiii
08-29-2013, 01:45 PM
No point in trying to change anything if the changes will introduce problems that are worse than the problem they're fixing.

If there's a solution that won't create bigger problems, then what's the answer? If it exists, I'd be all for it. I think Jax said the same a while back.

Well why would allowing players to row cards as colourless resources create this huge problem?

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-29-2013, 01:47 PM
You realise this is zero-sum right? Assuming you are just looking at game mechanics and not in player-made chocies to reduce variance, you and your opponent have equal chance of losing due to mana screw. So if you are purely looking at it from a "what helps me the most?" perspective then mana screw is basically irrelevant. More mana screw helps you if you think you are going to play consistently worse than your opponents since it decreases the proportion of games in which playskill matters.

Also neither me nor Stiii have said anything in favour of free mulligans so I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up. We just think that you are arguing very poorly.
I disagree that I'm arguing poorly. I think I'm one of the only people that actually gave a figure to help explain why I'm ok with the rule as it is now, and have tried to explain everything that needed clarification. Having said that, I will tip my hat to you in that you do seem to have more solid grounding in debating this type of subject.

Sure, it's zero sum. If any change were made, good or bad, we'd be affected equally. However, actual deck archetypes are likely to be affected to different degrees, changing the make up of the meta game. Is this good or bad? We'll, that's another matter of opinion, and it's very hard to tell without knowing the meta game if it would be a positive or negative effect (just touching back on the 0/7 proposal by the OP, without doing the stats I'd imagine it'd benefit short-range aggro more than other archetypes due to being able to shave a few lands off the list and lean more on mulligans than other archetypes, but if the game isn't currently set up for short range to be very competitive, that could actually be a good thing).

I'll agree that mana screw is mostly irrelevant.

Mush
08-29-2013, 01:48 PM
I guess I'm just the kind of person who, if I feel I'm right (or in this case, not-wrong, as there's rarely a single right when it comes to opinion), will want to prove something to the point of repeating myself. I've got to take a step back sometimes and realise that not everyone operates the same way.

Telling someone who doesn't believe you the same thing over and over again doesn't actually do anything to make them believe you. Providing real reasons to back up your opinion does.


Well I can't speak for anyone else, but in a different post I explained that my competitive mindset is that if my opponent gets mana screwed, that's good for me (meaning that 6.3% is a figure that I can roll with here, as opposed to the 12.3% figure that Mush gave which represents the odds of games being affected by mana screw if you consider both players, with the 24 resource deck and not considering any other cards or circumstances), and that when I think that in 94 games out of 100 my game is likely to be unaffected by mana screw, I'm perfectly fine with that.

I don't understand how you can just disregard your opponent here. Like if we are talking about what % of games one player gets mana screwed is acceptable, would you be fine with 50%? This means that 25% of the time you get a free win because your opponent got screwed and you didn't! (Also free losses for the same reason 25% of the time)

The important number is not just how often "my game is likely to be unaffected by mana screw" but how often the game is decided. By saying you are ok with 6% you are saying that you are ok with each winning and losing 6% of the games you play without playskill mattering. Is 6% ok here? What about 10? 20? What would be ideal? I would assume zero but you seem to have some funny ideas so this is a real question.

stiii
08-29-2013, 01:48 PM
I don't know what you expected when you completely ignored the point of my original post.



Posts have context. That was specifically replying to stiii's post asking if I had ever lost to mana flood, not the thread in it's entirety.

Your post said you can win some of those 6.3% (which is true) But I pointed out that you will lose of the other 93.7% to flood/screw so it cuts both ways.

I directly responded to what you said, how is that ignoring the point? What you really mean is I didn't agree with what you said which is very very different.

Sholynyk
08-29-2013, 01:51 PM
Mana screw can be made to be completely irrelevant, one of my strongest decks in magic the gathering had only 12 mana in it, yet by turn 3 I could have access to 8 or higher mana virtually every game. In the WORST case scenarios for that deck I would have to mulligan once.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-29-2013, 01:53 PM
Well why would allowing players to row cards as colourless resources create this huge problem?
I'm not a fan of this kind of question - you're asking him to prove why a proposed idea would be bad, when IMO the person proposing said idea should initially try to demonstrate that it's a good one. :-P

However, just off the top of my head - this would mean that players would be able to reduce the number of non-shards in their deck, as they would only be needed for threshold requirements rather than the resource points themselves. This in turn leads to a situation where players on average have 2-3 more gas-cards in hand. Whether that's good or bad is anyone's guess, and which decks it'd help most is anyone's guess, but the thing is it would be a major change to make without investigating further, especially with a game that's about to have its alpha release.

stiii
08-29-2013, 01:55 PM
Sure, it's zero sum. If any change were made, good or bad, we'd be affected equally. However, actual deck archetypes are likely to be affected to different degrees, changing the make up of the meta game. Is this good or bad? We'll, that's another matter of opinion, and it's very hard to tell without knowing the meta game if it would be a positive or negative effect (just touching back on the 0/7 proposal by the OP, without doing the stats I'd imagine it'd benefit short-range aggro more than other archetypes due to being able to shave a few lands off the list and lean more on mulligans than other archetypes, but if the game isn't currently set up for short range to be very competitive, that could actually be a good thing).



Well the issue is it isn't zero sum.We would like to remove mana screw because it creates a negative play experience.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-29-2013, 01:57 PM
I don't understand how you can just disregard your opponent here. Like if we are talking about what % of games one player gets mana screwed is acceptable, would you be fine with 50%? This means that 25% of the time you get a free win because your opponent got screwed and you didn't! (Also free losses for the same reason 25% of the time)

The important number is not just how often "my game is likely to be unaffected by mana screw" but how often the game is decided. By saying you are ok with 6% you are saying that you are ok with each winning and losing 6% of the games you play without playskill mattering. Is 6% ok here? What about 10? 20? What would be ideal? I would assume zero but you seem to have some funny ideas so this is a real question.
In a nut-shell - I'm ok with having a 6/100 chance of losing a game to mana-screw, because I do not view it as a large number of games to be affected by screw, and my opponent is likely to have a similar chance to lose.

If we're looking at figures I'd be unhappy with - it's tough to quantify, but I'd imagine 10-15% would be borderline acceptable (to my mind) but should probably be reviewed, and 15%+ is probably too much.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-29-2013, 01:59 PM
Well the issue is it isn't zero sum.We would like to remove mana screw because it creates a negative play experience.
If you can remove it entirely without drastically altering other elements of play experience, I'm all for it. ;-)

I know you haven't suggested any ideas yourself (unless you count the playing a card as a colorless shard one as a suggestion), but some of the suggestions people put out don't understand just how much affect it could have on the game.

stiii
08-29-2013, 01:59 PM
I'm not a fan of this kind of question - you're asking him to prove why a proposed idea would be bad, when IMO the person proposing said idea should initially try to demonstrate that it's a good one. :-P

However, just off the top of my head - this would mean that players would be able to reduce the number of non-shards in their deck, as they would only be needed for threshold requirements rather than the resource points themselves. This in turn leads to a situation where players on average have 2-3 more gas-cards in hand. Whether that's good or bad is anyone's guess, and which decks it'd help most is anyone's guess, but the thing is it would be a major change to make without investigating further, especially with a game that's about to have its alpha release.

Well it starts from the position that getting mana screwed is a bad thing so we would like to remove it. Therefore as this other system does remove it then it is better unless the problems it creates are worse than mana screw. So what more do you want me to demonstrate?

LargoLaGrande
08-29-2013, 02:02 PM
Your post said you can win some of those 6.3% (which is true) But I pointed out that you will lose of the other 93.7% to flood/screw so it cuts both ways.

I directly responded to what you said, how is that ignoring the point? What you really mean is I didn't agree with what you said which is very very different.

I was trying to point out that half the time you miss on turn three hit your third land on turn four anyway, which isn't what I would count as mana screw, nor is something I think is a problem (it's pretty similar to getting curve screwed considering you don't keep 2 landers with multiple 4+ cost cards anyway). I wasn't very clear though, and that's not an excuse for my being a dick; I apologize. I think I'm trying to find excuses to be irritable today and I shouldn't have taken it out on you or in this thread.

Mush
08-29-2013, 02:02 PM
If we're looking at figures I'd be unhappy with - it's tough to quantify, but I'd imagine 10-15% would be borderline acceptable (to my mind) but should probably be reviewed, and 15%+ is probably too much.

10% seems ridiculous. This means that 18% of games aren't actually competitive (exactly one player is mana-screwed).

Presumably you would agree that in an ideal world all the games would be competitive? This is not the same as removing luck/variance but having games where only one person gets to play isn't a good experience for anyone involved.

stiii
08-29-2013, 02:02 PM
Mana screw can be made to be completely irrelevant, one of my strongest decks in magic the gathering had only 12 mana in it, yet by turn 3 I could have access to 8 or higher mana virtually every game. In the WORST case scenarios for that deck I would have to mulligan once.

No it didn't. You are just straight up making things up and/or cheating.

In the worst case you'd have to mulligan once is straight up impossible no deck ever has had that. You might have a low chance but saying it never happens just makes it clear what you are saying isn't true.

Facilier
08-29-2013, 02:05 PM
And why are they using rectangles to show cards on the field of play?

Games have recently completely solved this issue by having the creatures appear as ovals.

I hope they address this before the game launches.

stiii
08-29-2013, 02:07 PM
I was trying to point out that half the time you miss on turn three hit your third land on turn four anyway, which isn't what I would count as mana screw, nor is something I think is a problem (it's pretty similar to getting curve screwed considering you don't keep 2 landers with multiple 4+ cost cards anyway). I wasn't very clear though, and that's not an excuse for my being a dick; I apologize. I think I'm trying to find excuses to be irritable today and I shouldn't have taken it out on you or in this thread.

Yeah this is certainly one of the advantages magic has over the wow/VS system in that a player can get slightly screwed/flooded and it leads to a more interesting game.

stiii
08-29-2013, 02:08 PM
And why are they using rectangles to show cards on the field of play?

Games have recently completely solved this issue by having the creatures appear as ovals.

I hope they address this before the game launches.

Magic uses rectangles so we have to use them. Ovals are clearly worse because magic doesn't use them.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-29-2013, 02:09 PM
Well it starts from the position that getting mana screwed is a bad thing so we would like to remove it. Therefore as this other system does remove it then it is better unless the problems it creates are worse than mana screw. So what more do you want me to demonstrate?
From my point of view, the proof presented goes:
1. Getting mana screwed is bad and we'd like to remove it.
2. The proposed system eliminates mana screw.
3. Therefore, the proposed system is a better system.

But 3 doesn't follow unless you make another premise along the lines of "fixing mana screw is the only relevant part of game balance", or something like that. So unless you were to make a point like that, (IMO) you'd want to demonstrate that implementing this system wouldn't negatively affect other aspects of gameplay, or drastically alter them that the game requires significant efforts to rework (the cards atm are balanced around not having this system available, and could potentially need to be rebalanced).

At least, I know if I was trying to convince people that this new system were better, I'd be trying to demonstrate that it wouldn't have a significant negative impact.

noragar
08-29-2013, 02:12 PM
If playing a card only counted as a colorless resource and you'd still need to draw a regular resource for threshold, then that wouldn't eliminate mana screw.

People would include fewer resources in their decks up until to the maximum point where being stuck without drawing one was still at an acceptable level (maybe around 6.3% for Jax, probably less than that for Stiii)

stiii
08-29-2013, 02:23 PM
If playing a card only counted as a colorless resource and you'd still need to draw a regular resource for threshold, then that wouldn't eliminate mana screw.

People would include fewer resources in their decks up until to the maximum point where being stuck without drawing one was still at an acceptable level (maybe around 6.3% for Jax, probably less than that for Stiii)

So this system would allow me to constructed my deck in a way that increases the importance of play skill? This seems like a good thing to me. We already have this kind of thing in game with dual resources, this would just be an extension of that.

I'd also say that this would be colour screw rather than mana screw but that isn't hugely important.

stiii
08-29-2013, 02:28 PM
From my point of view, the proof presented goes:
1. Getting mana screwed is bad and we'd like to remove it.
2. The proposed system eliminates mana screw.
3. Therefore, the proposed system is a better system.

But 3 doesn't follow unless you make another premise along the lines of "fixing mana screw is the only relevant part of game balance", or something like that. So unless you were to make a point like that, (IMO) you'd want to demonstrate that implementing this system wouldn't negatively affect other aspects of gameplay, or drastically alter them that the game requires significant efforts to rework (the cards atm are balanced around not having this system available, and could potentially need to be rebalanced).

At least, I know if I was trying to convince people that this new system were better, I'd be trying to demonstrate that it wouldn't have a significant negative impact.

Well I can't predict what potential problems other people might have with my proposed system, that just isn't possible. Cards would become more or less powerful but I don't think it is such a huge change it would be impossible to rebalance them. I'd assume some will need to be rebalanced anyway with the current system.

funktion
08-29-2013, 02:32 PM
Well I can't predict what potential problems other people might have with my proposed system, that just isn't possible. Cards would become more or less powerful but I don't think it is such a huge change it would be impossible to rebalance them. I'd assume some will need to be rebalanced anyway with the current system.

You realize that set one is done, set 2 is in balancing right now and that they're already working on set 3. To change a core mechanic of the game would require rebalancing and possibly scrapping everything they've done. What you're describing sounds to me like it would make the game more bland... but that's not important to this point, you're underestimating the time required to make the change you suggest.

Go listen to any of the interviews with Ben or Cory where they talk about this. I think in Colin's hexvault interview with Ben @ gen con they discussed exactly what you're suggesting and he shoots it down for some very good reasons.

I can't believe this thread is still going...

stiii
08-29-2013, 02:42 PM
You realize that set one is done, set 2 is in balancing right now and that they're already working on set 3. To change a core mechanic of the game would require rebalancing and possibly scrapping everything they've done. What you're describing sounds to me like it would make the game more bland... but that's not important to this point, you're underestimating the time required to make the change you suggest.

Go listen to any of the interviews with Ben or Cory where they talk about this. I think in Colin's hexvault interview with Ben @ gen con they discussed exactly what you're suggesting and he shoots it down for some very good reasons.

I can't believe this thread is still going...

I disagree with those reasons. And there is little point in my arguing with them via a proxy. You are expecting me to just read/listen to these reasons and just make a 100% u turn?


On a practical side yes it probably is too late to do this but it doesn't mean magic/hex is using the correct system.

funktion
08-29-2013, 02:48 PM
I disagree with those reasons.

Then I'm glad that they're the designers and not you. The system works fine for me, there is no such thing as a "correct" system. Different games are different.

stiii
08-29-2013, 02:53 PM
Then I'm glad that they're the designers and not you. The system works fine for me, there is no such thing as a "correct" system. Different games are different.

So if I was the designer and used my system you'd have posted exactly the same thing? Saying that the current system (my system) works fine for you and there is no such thing as a correct system?

You haven't given any reason why their system is better other than it is the one they are using.

Leingod
08-29-2013, 03:07 PM
Well why would allowing players to row cards as colourless resources create this huge problem?

You mean besides forcing them to start the game's development over completely when they are close to alpha with a time tested resource system that also has factors in place to mitigate both screw and flood?

stiii
08-29-2013, 03:19 PM
You mean besides forcing them to start the game's development over completely when they are close to alpha with a time tested resource system that also has factors in place to mitigate both screw and flood?

Well yes.

The purpose of bringing up this other theoretical system was to answer people who were asking what is the alternative to getting mana screwed. Rather than to suggest they rebuild to a massive degree.

FracturedEgo
08-29-2013, 03:19 PM
Any argument that boils down to "this discussion is pointless because things are already happening (going to happen) a certain way" is fallacious in essence. That's similar to saying that segregation is alright because it's the way the system is.

Gwaer
08-29-2013, 03:23 PM
Any argument that boils down to "this discussion is pointless because things are already happening (going to happen) a certain way" is fallacious in essence. That's similar to saying that segregation is alright because it's the way the system is.
Of course! Why didn't I see hex's resource system is similar to racism and a construct to keep an entire population down. Riot pls fix this!

FracturedEgo
08-29-2013, 03:26 PM
Of course! Why didn't I see hex's resource system is similar to racism and a construct to keep an entire population down. Riot pls fix this!

I never argued that it was the case. I just argued that it was logically fallacious. I was under the impression that this had become a discussion of trying to find an optimal system to minimize negative play experiences (heretofore referred to as NPEs) and maximize player skill in game outcomes. Instead what has occurred is white-knighting a system because it's already in place or basing a viewpoint on a theory of "acceptable loss" without discussing the value (either positive or negative) of alternative systems. It's another case of people getting emotionally invested in an argument and confusing belief or blind faith for actual reasoning skill.

Mindless
08-29-2013, 03:29 PM
@Stii

You mean a permanent resource or a temp? At first I thought of the temp res and though that this could be something, offering card advantage to solve mana screw temporarily but the implications of this is beyond me and must there be rules like "if I have no shards in my hand I can do that"? I'm suprised however that there have been no more suggested solution other than 1 from you Stii. How about "lending" a card as a resource, say making a card be a resource for X number of turns and then be discarded/voided or put back into hand or whatever. I know its hard to change opinion when trying to prove a point but your intention is not to prove Jax wrong but to find a solution for the mana screw problem. I have to agree that mana screw is boring and that 6,3 % is worse than 0. However the benefits of having a system like this and not like Heartstone is opinions on the "fun" aspect. I think it is more fun having resources as cards and not just automatically gain more (even if I'll play heartstone too) and others finds it more fun because of the skill needed to build decks are increased.

@Mush

If both players are mana screwed the impact is less than if only 1 is beause the game should be generally longer for both. Ofc this is heavily dependent on deck type which Jax have been trying to point out as well I think.

Gorgol
08-29-2013, 03:30 PM
So if I was the designer and used my system you'd have posted exactly the same thing? Saying that the current system (my system) works fine for you and there is no such thing as a correct system?

You haven't given any reason why their system is better other than it is the one they are using.
I would not have went in on the kickstarter if it used your system in the first place.

Leingod
08-29-2013, 03:33 PM
Any argument that boils down to "this discussion is pointless because things are already happening (going to happen) a certain way" is fallacious in essence. That's similar to saying that segregation is alright because it's the way the system is.

Well so far we haven't really gotten anywhere. Neither side has gained any ground because this is, essentially, a purely opinion based argument. The whole 'row cards as colorless' has many side effects, and would likely just lead to pros cutting resource cards to the minimum they felt was needed to get 1 of each threshold quickly which would lead to some amount of threshold screw anyway. It may lead to less mana screw overall, but then you have to consider balance issues of giving every deck 5+ more spells. Not to mention that now control decks would be able to use the same mana base as speed decks since they both require the same thresholds in many cases assuming equal number of shards.

FracturedEgo
08-29-2013, 03:33 PM
@Stii

If both players are mana screwed the impact is less than if only 1 is beause the game should be generally longer for both. Ofc this is heavily dependent on deck type which Jax have been trying to point out as well I think.

Doesn't that add in for an even more NPE than if just one is? I mean, long periods of manascrew usually lead to the opponents staring grimly at each other waiting for something to happen that meaningfully affects the game state.

stiii
08-29-2013, 03:35 PM
As people seem to want something they could still do now I'd suggest this,

Massively increase the power of the hero charge powers. Currently they don't do very much at all so if you get flooded they won't be enough. If they were more powerful then you could reduce screw and make flood at less of an issue. Something like 2 charges: draw a card or 2: make a 2/2. That might be a bit too strong but you can see the idea.

stiii
08-29-2013, 03:36 PM
I would not have went in on the kickstarter if it used your system in the first place.

Why is it so terrible?

stiii
08-29-2013, 03:42 PM
@Stii

You mean a permanent resource or a temp? At first I thought of the temp res and though that this could be something, offering card advantage to solve mana screw temporarily but the implications of this is beyond me and must there be rules like "if I have no shards in my hand I can do that"? I'm suprised however that there have been no more suggested solution other than 1 from you Stii. How about "lending" a card as a resource, say making a card be a resource for X number of turns and then be discarded/voided or put back into hand or whatever. I know its hard to change opinion when trying to prove a point but your intention is not to prove Jax wrong but to find a solution for the mana screw problem. I have to agree that mana screw is boring and that 6,3 % is worse than 0. However the benefits of having a system like this and not like Heartstone is opinions on the "fun" aspect. I think it is more fun having resources as cards and not just automatically gain more (even if I'll play heartstone too) and others finds it more fun because of the skill needed to build decks are increased.



I meant it as a permanent resource. This was mostly means as an example of something the game system could do to prevent mana screw rather than the best way of doing it.

Mindless
08-29-2013, 03:44 PM
Doesn't that add in for an even more NPE than if just one is? I mean, long periods of manascrew usually lead to the opponents staring grimly at each other waiting for something to happen that meaningfully affects the game state.

Well if you see that your opponent is also mana screwed you might be relieved at your own current situation. Also it changes the statictics as this cannot be counted as mana screw but must at some point fall into the category of only 1 being mana screwed or no one being mana screwed (if mana is drawn on same turn for both) and not both at the same time. Ofc there is a difference depending on both deck type and on which resource you are stranded which is why I cannot say anything about how much it affects the numbers (but it sounds logical in my head).

In a digital space it would be awkward if someone stared at you.

Gwaer
08-29-2013, 03:46 PM
As stated earlier. It's terrible because it cuts the complexity in half. People will just complain about curve screw instead. It solves nothing. All of these arguments can be made about people not pulling their 6-7-8 drop creatures in a game with guaranteed resource gain. People will say that losing cause you don't draw a card is less fun. Nothing would change except the nouns.

I'm certain a percentage of the population will prefer a simpler game. They can play one. There are many options. Hex is designed by people who prefer a bit more depth and are looking to fulfill a different need. I wouldn't have backed this game if it used something closer to the wowtcg model either. I'm in love with their resource system. It's by far one of the best things that I've seen tcg wise. That's of course an opinion. The Hex designers and many others agree with that opinion. You of course don't have to.

stiii
08-29-2013, 03:47 PM
Well so far we haven't really gotten anywhere. Neither side has gained any ground because this is, essentially, a purely opinion based argument. The whole 'row cards as colorless' has many side effects, and would likely just lead to pros cutting resource cards to the minimum they felt was needed to get 1 of each threshold quickly which would lead to some amount of threshold screw anyway. It may lead to less mana screw overall, but then you have to consider balance issues of giving every deck 5+ more spells. Not to mention that now control decks would be able to use the same mana base as speed decks since they both require the same thresholds in many cases assuming equal number of shards.

Well this also applies to dual resource cards. A RB resource (with some drawback) allows you to cut some number of resources from your deck. So the existence of those types of cards within the game system has the same effect, why are people fine with those?

Magic decks can only get away with 24 lands because of those duals lands you couldn't build a RB with 12R and 12B sources.

Gorgol
08-29-2013, 03:48 PM
Why is it so terrible?

I never said it was terrible. It's just I don't want to play a game with that resource system. I like the current one. I didn't back Infinity Wars, or SolForge, or any other digital card games. I backed this one because I like MtG and this is similar.

Leingod
08-29-2013, 03:50 PM
As people seem to want something they could still do now I'd suggest this,

Massively increase the power of the hero charge powers. Currently they don't do very much at all so if you get flooded they won't be enough. If they were more powerful then you could reduce screw and make flood at less of an issue. Something like 2 charges: draw a card or 2: make a 2/2. That might be a bit too strong but you can see the idea.

I actually do agree with this idea. Though I think I might rather have those built into cards rather than into the champions. Think about a troop with the ability to eat charges for some effect. Having some variety in charge outlets would make flood less of a big deal. Charge uses on non-champ cards is something I see as an inevitability in the future anyway though.

For mana screw problems, I think simply an expanded card pool will make it fine. A bit more cheap fetch/fixer/ramp cards will likely be good enough. Magic has been able to almost completely negate screw at a pro level thanks to deck manipulation cards, proper deck construction, and alternative mana sources (eg: elves and dual lands). Even very early magic had things like the Power 9 and a full set of dual lands. While Hex likely doesn't need things on that level thanks to a better base system, it's just an example that you can fix these issues with cards rather than huge mechanic changes. If we did want a mechanic change, then perhaps letting every champ be able to spend 2 charges as 1 colorless resource might be interesting. Though the speed increase that would become available when you didn't get screwed would possibly be a problem for the meta.

stiii
08-29-2013, 03:51 PM
As stated earlier. It's terrible because it cuts the complexity in half. People will just complain about curve screw instead. It solves nothing. All of these arguments can be made about people not pulling their 6-7-8 drop creatures in a game with guaranteed resource gain. People will say that losing cause you don't draw a card is less fun. Nothing would change except the nouns.

I'm certain a percentage of the population will prefer a simpler game. They can play one. There are many options. Hex is designed by people who prefer a bit more depth and are looking to fulfill a different need. I wouldn't have backed this game if it used something closer to the wowtcg model either. I'm in love with their resource system. It's by far one of the best things that I've seen tcg wise. That's of course an opinion. The Hex designers and many others agree with that opinion. You of course don't have to.

What exactly makes you fit to judge that the complexity in half? Do you have any support for this absurd claim?

Yoss
08-29-2013, 03:51 PM
I never argued that it was the case. I just argued that it was logically fallacious. I was under the impression that this had become a discussion of trying to find an optimal system to minimize negative play experiences (heretofore referred to as NPEs) and maximize player skill in game outcomes. Instead what has occurred is white-knighting a system because it's already in place or basing a viewpoint on a theory of "acceptable loss" without discussing the value (either positive or negative) of alternative systems. It's another case of people getting emotionally invested in an argument and confusing belief or blind faith for actual reasoning skill.
You're exactly right about the fallacious part. "It is therefore it should be" is not valid.

For the topic at hand, my personal preference is to keep the current system. I like luck in games, and I find that MTG has about the right amount of luck versus skill for my tastes. If Hex had used some other system, I would still have my $500 and wouldn't be posting here.

stiii
08-29-2013, 03:55 PM
I never said it was terrible. It's just I don't want to play a game with that resource system. I like the current one. I didn't back Infinity Wars, or SolForge, or any other digital card games. I backed this one because I like MtG and this is similar.

Well can't argue with that :)

Leingod
08-29-2013, 03:56 PM
Well this also applies to dual resource cards. A RB resource (with some drawback) allows you to cut some number of resources from your deck. So the existence of those types of cards within the game system has the same effect, why are people fine with those?

Magic decks can only get away with 24 lands because of those duals lands you couldn't build a RB with 12R and 12B sources.

To be fair, many magic decks also run 3+ colors as well as many cards that use multiple different colors in cost or activation costs. And we've already said why they are fine with it in Magic, because it happens infrequently enough that they feel it will not affect their overall performance at a tournament. This is professionals who make thousands of dollars saying the variance is small enough that they can count on it not being a big deal at multi-day tournaments. I don't see why I should be so unsatisfied with being able to achieve the same scarcity of variance.

Gwaer
08-29-2013, 03:57 PM
What exactly makes you fit to judge that the complexity in half? Do you have any support for this absurd claim?
Yep, and posted it much earlier.

stiii
08-29-2013, 03:59 PM
You're exactly right about the fallacious part. "It is therefore it should be" is not valid.

For the topic at hand, my personal preference is to keep the current system. I like luck in games, and I find that MTG has about the right amount of luck versus skill for my tastes. If Hex had used some other system, I would still have my $500 and wouldn't be posting here.

This is pretty much the perfect post. It states the posters opinion. It doesn't make up any numbers or facts. It brings up a real effect with changing the system (reducing luck).

stiii
08-29-2013, 04:03 PM
Yep, and posted it much earlier.

Yeah that post doesn't support you being fit to judge anything. You are just parroting back what some else said. That person might be fit to judge it and I'd be happy to debate it with him.

Gwaer
08-29-2013, 04:05 PM
Reducing luck is just an opinion as well. And is incorrect. In a guaranteed resource system luck is still a huge issue. I'd even say more so. Instead of multiple coin flips for people hitting resources. Using good mulligans and drawing both the proper land and cards its all reduced to just drawing the proper curve

I'm just as fit to judge as you are. In that I can do basic math and assume you can as well. Hex = Curve + Resource as draw concerns. Removing either makes it half as complex.

stiii
08-29-2013, 04:17 PM
Reducing luck is just an opinion as well. And is incorrect. In a guaranteed resource system luck is still a huge issue. I'd even say more so. Instead of multiple coin flips for people hitting resources. Using good mulligans and drawing both the proper land and cards its all reduced to just drawing the proper curve

I'm just as fit to judge as you are. In that I can do basic math and assume you can as well. Hex = Curve + Resource as draw concerns. Removing either makes it half as complex.

Yeah you really aren't. Your arguments are just terrible. Curve and resources are both exactly equal? and the only things that matter in terms of luck? So there is nothing other than those two thing in terms of luck? sometimes you really want to draw a three cost removal spell over a three cost creature and that is luck but doesn't come under either of your options.

Have you ever even played a card game in your life? I mean apparently you can't do basic maths or assume things correctly so I'm wondering.

Facilier
08-29-2013, 04:17 PM
This thread is mystifying in its ongoing (and incandescent) existence.

The design team have already made a decision to go with a certain design system, and specifically explained their reasons for doing so in their game. They have not created a poll to see which alternative people may prefer, as they have a clear design vision, yet based on no testing of this game people who are allegedly interested in it (possibly to the point of trusting them with pre-order payments) are demanding a change in core mechanics.

I don't really understand the how the idea of "Love your game, but now please change everything about it." comes about.

Gwaer
08-29-2013, 04:25 PM
They don't need to be exactly equal. Understanding how many resources to use is a major part of deck building. When you can cut down on the number because you have fixes, etc. it's a big enough issue that it's discussed constantly. I'm not speaking any less precisely than you. I never said all that matters in terms of luck, I said having guaranteed resource drops don't decrease the luck based element of the game. All the luck is just focused in one place rather than spread out where you have more potential options to mitigate or correct for it.

Your need to fall back on personal attacks and turn a minor issue into a huge problem is just the same I see. Still not regretting having you on the ignore list. You were my first ya know.

Unhurtable
08-29-2013, 04:25 PM
This thread is mystifying in its ongoing (and incandescent) existence.

The design team have already made a decision to go with a certain design system, and specifically explained their reasons for doing so in their game. They have not created a poll to see which alternative people may prefer, as they have a clear design vision, yet based on no testing of this game people who are allegedly interested in it (possibly to the point of trusting them with pre-order payments) are demanding a change in core mechanics.

I don't really understand the how the idea of "Love your game, but now please change everything about it." comes about.

Its not the same people who argue for the exact same things. Some people create threads asking for A, some for B, and in the end changing "everything" is a combination of multiple peoples opinion.

Its essentially "Love your game, but maybe we could change this?" In some cases it hardly affects the game and in some cases (such as this case) it fundamentally changes how the game is played. I've never come across a game where I didn't want to change something, and I'm guessing this is a very rare event for most.

stiii
08-29-2013, 04:30 PM
This thread is mystifying in its ongoing (and incandescent) existence.

The design team have already made a decision to go with a certain design system, and specifically explained their reasons for doing so in their game. They have not created a poll to see which alternative people may prefer, as they have a clear design vision, yet based on no testing of this game people who are allegedly interested in it (possibly to the point of trusting them with pre-order payments) are demanding a change in core mechanics.

I don't really understand the how the idea of "Love your game, but now please change everything about it." comes about.

This would make more sense if this game wasn't almost identical to magic. I have played magic I know how it works. I have played other games with other resources systems so I know how they work. Therefore I know pretty well how Hex will work and roughly what effect making these kinds of changes would have.

I'm not sure how people having already paid means they can't wish anything would be changed about the game in any sense. If someone posted saying they wish they guild system was different would they also be "demanding" a change?

Demanding is also a very loaded word. You seem to be at the other extreme of despite knowing nothing about how the game will work in practise everything about it must be perfect.

stiii
08-29-2013, 04:40 PM
They don't need to be exactly equal. Understanding how many resources to use is a major part of deck building. When you can cut down on the number because you have fixes, etc. it's a big enough issue that it's discussed constantly. I'm not speaking any less precisely than you. I never said all that matters in terms of luck, I said having guaranteed resource drops don't decrease the luck based element of the game. All the luck is just focused in one place rather than spread out where you have more potential options to mitigate or correct for it.

Your need to fall back on personal attacks and turn a minor issue into a huge problem is just the same I see. Still not regretting having you on the ignore list. You were my first ya know.

Personal attacks being me saying your arguments are terrible? If you don't want me to explain how you are wrong then stop replying to my posts with utter drivel.

And back to that. They do need to be exactly equal if removing one halves the complexity. If there is some other ratio it isn't getting halved. You keep making statements about game design and having nothing to back them up. If you can't support what you are saying then you aren't speaking precisely. You claim guaranteed resource drops don't decrease the luck, why doesn't it? you can't get resource screwed. You keep talking about this curve screw thing and just parroting back what other people said without any understanding. Have you ever even played a game with guaranteed resource drops in it?

Gwaer
08-29-2013, 04:50 PM
Once again. You're not explaining how I'm wrong. You're making assumptions about me not understanding things. Explain to me how I'm wrong please. I understand the concept of getting screwed on on your curve rather than by resources. It's impossible to declare resources as exactly 50% of the complexity of deck building. But I'm comfortable enough assigning it in the neighborhood of 50% even if it were more like 30, that's a huge chunk of the depth of the game you've removed for no clear reason. You like to simplify it to 'resource screw is bad' that's an opinion statement. I disagree. Back up that stance while you're explaining how my opinion is wrong. Because in my opinion that's an ignorant stance to take.

Variance adds much more to the game than it takes away. Making it a net positive. Which is good.

stiii
08-29-2013, 05:01 PM
Once again. You're not explaining how I'm wrong. You're making assumptions about me not understanding things. Explain to me how I'm wrong please. I understand the concept of getting screwed on on your curve rather than by resources. It's impossible to declare resources as exactly 50% of the complexity of deck building. But I'm comfortable enough assigning it in the neighborhood of 50% even if it were more like 30, that's a huge chunk of the depth of the game you've removed for no clear reason. You like to simplify it to 'resource screw is bad' that's an opinion statement. I disagree. Back up that stance while you're explaining how my opinion is wrong. Because in my opinion that's an ignorant stance to take.

Variance adds much more to the game than it takes away. Making it a net positive. Which is good.

You keep talking about curve and resources as the only two options for screw. I gave you an example that wasn't either. So obviously you ignored it and repeated yourself. When you replace your 24 resources with 24 spells how does that make thing simpler? you have 24 cards with very little text or synergy replaced with a bunch of real cards. And then this somehow makes deck building easier?

All your response make me think you are a MMO player who has never played a TCG in their life. You never bother answering any of my question of this nature.

Gwaer
08-29-2013, 05:09 PM
Now I wonder if you've ever played a game with a wowtcg esque system. Your big argument to me being wrong is that you're laughably replacing your sources with only cards with little text or synergy? You're still a joke. It's obvious this isn't going to go anywhere.

stiii
08-29-2013, 05:13 PM
Now I wonder if you've ever played a game with a wowtcg esque system. Your big argument to me being wrong is that you're laughably replacing your sources with only cards with little text or synergy? You're still a joke. It's obvious this isn't going to go anywhere.

That doesn't parse quite right so I've edited it.

I have played a lot of high level wowtcg events thanks. I also notice you have ignored my very similar question, have you ever played any TCG? Any high level TCG play?

And well obviously this isn't going to go anywhere because you just ignore or evade every question I ask you while displaying no knowledge of what you are talking about.

Gwaer
08-29-2013, 05:21 PM
It's funny. Because you're doing exactly what you accuse me of. You've not once explained how not drawing your drops in a resources system isn't like not drawing your resources. How that doesn't because the unfun thing that needs fixed. I can say I've been in a number of high level tournaments as well. I don't believe you when you say it. So I don't see how it would be any different going the other way. Furthermore, if my qualifications is the best straw you can grasp for you're failing miserably, as usual. I'm going into dragon con now. So good luck.

Dropbear
08-29-2013, 05:36 PM
Could you turn three cards in your hand into a resource (as a choice)? You lose card advantage horribly but it may be worth it during mana screw.

stiii
08-29-2013, 05:41 PM
Could you turn three cards in your hand into a resource (as a choice)? You lose card advantage horribly but it may be worth it during mana screw.

Yeah I thought about this a bit. I think two is enough for it to be a big hit, even with two I don't think I'd cut resources from my deck. You could add more restrictions like two cards of the same colour to make that colour, which would help mono colour decks more.

stiii
08-29-2013, 05:47 PM
It's funny. Because you're doing exactly what you accuse me of. You've not once explained how not drawing your drops in a resources system isn't like not drawing your resources. How that doesn't because the unfun thing that needs fixed. I can say I've been in a number of high level tournaments as well. I don't believe you when you say it. So I don't see how it would be any different going the other way. Furthermore, if my qualifications is the best straw you can grasp for you're failing miserably, as usual. I'm going into dragon con now. So good luck.

You are such a classic troll it is unreal.

You complain about me not responding to question and continue to evade my questions. If you really were trying to have a discussion you'd answer them while complaining I'm not doing the same. I asked you over and over if you've ever event played a TCG with endless evasions so I can only conclude that you haven't. At which point anything you say is meaningless you simple have no clue what you are talking about.

How it is a strawman for me to ask if you have the slightest clue about the subject at hand? I notice you never responded to my question about personal attacks, if it really happened why didn't you respond?

So to sum it up

1) evades questions
2) calls others trolls (personal attacks/strawman)
3) ignores answers to questions
4) assumes things that are about him are true about em (he would lie about high level tcgs so I must be too)

kirkwb
08-29-2013, 05:59 PM
Now I wonder if you've ever played a game with a wowtcg esque system.

This is the funniest thing I've read regarding Stuart...

Is Gwaer the Hex equivalent of Izhrumbul?

stiii
08-29-2013, 06:02 PM
This is the funniest thing I've read regarding Stuart...

Is Gwaer the Hex equivalent of Izhrumbul?

I did play some high level VS :)

Xenavire
08-29-2013, 06:18 PM
When I first saw this thread, I honestly couldn't care, after seeing at least 10 other threads over the last 2-3 months with the exact same topic and suggestions for fixes. And suddenly it is 15 pages long. Why is this such a big issue? If you don't like the system, don't play the game, end of story.

Some people enjoy (people enjoying something, it seems like a myth) the risk vs reward of high level play in MTG and similar resource based TCG's, and they learn how to mitigate the mana issues through good deck building and mulligan habits. Why bother arguing about how it sucks? MTG survived for around 20 years regardless of any issues with how the mana system worked. And it isn't dead even now, and yet everyone is acting like this is some sort of armageddon.

So I leave you with an interesting picture.

https://sphotos-b-ams.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/q92/557408_161011737426302_1939885053_n.jpg

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-29-2013, 06:22 PM
Could you turn three cards in your hand into a resource (as a choice)? You lose card advantage horribly but it may be worth it during mana screw.
It's possible, but it still runs some risk in the future of combo decks that only need one or two resources in order to function (like that Blistercoil Weird modern deck a little while ago). Still, the drawback is pretty significant that it could well be balanced.

The major issue with most presented ideas is that while they may fix what some people consider to be a problem, they in turn change the mechanics of the game, so even a pretty balanced idea like this needs to be considered very carefully in the context of the game as a whole, as well as the cards they've made thus far (and future cards).

noragar
08-29-2013, 06:24 PM
You know what I really hate? I hate losing a game to a bunch of flying creatures when I don't have any troops that can block them. It only happens about 6.3% of the time, but when it does it's no fun at all. How about this for a solution? Just make a rule so that we can play any card face down to act as a 1/1 creature with Flying.

YourOpponent
08-29-2013, 06:26 PM
An easy way to avoid mana screw is to just have their be 2 separate decks....one deck is all mana...the other deck everything else. Start the game by drawing 3 cards from the mana deck and 4 cards from the other deck. Then have it be shuffled afterwards...

Or have it be the 2 separate decks still and at the beginning of your draw phase choose a card to draw from one of those decks...It'd be interesting that way (but I prefer my first suggestion) then the same way for the rest of the card drawing....or even for the rest have those 2 decks be like every other one on the drawing.

stiii
08-29-2013, 06:29 PM
You know what I really hate? I hate losing a game to a bunch of flying creatures when I don't have any troops that can block them. It only happens about 6.3% of the time, but when it does it's no fun at all. How about this for a solution? Just make a rule so that we can play any card face down to act as a 1/1 creature with Flying.

I mean this isn't a real thing. There are however a huge number of players who don't like losing to screw/flood.

You know what I hate. People unable to back their arguments up with logic

iscariotrex
08-29-2013, 06:30 PM
I know this is pointless on the interwebs, or any forum that has ever existed, but can we all try to be a little less combative? I think people on both sides of the issue have weighed in, and both sides are firmly entrenched where they are going to stay. If there is no sway all the arguing is a null sum. Lets try not to be assholes to each other on top of it. We have a good community here, exceptional considering we have no game here yet, and lets keep it that way. Pages of harassing text back and forth proves nothing, but it can cause bad blood we don't need.

The person who posted originally obviously has some very passionate opinions about the resource system which he vented. Aside from that he was basically calling for ideas that might be viable alternatives to the current resource system. Lets try to have constructive answers to his thread and not argue about if he is right or not; or some third, fourth, fifth party that has also decided to vent is right or not. If someone makes it personal, just let it go.

See you guys in game...

stiii
08-29-2013, 06:31 PM
When I first saw this thread, I honestly couldn't care, after seeing at least 10 other threads over the last 2-3 months with the exact same topic and suggestions for fixes. And suddenly it is 15 pages long. Why is this such a big issue? If you don't like the system, don't play the game, end of story.

Some people enjoy (people enjoying something, it seems like a myth) the risk vs reward of high level play in MTG and similar resource based TCG's, and they learn how to mitigate the mana issues through good deck building and mulligan habits. Why bother arguing about how it sucks? MTG survived for around 20 years regardless of any issues with how the mana system worked. And it isn't dead even now, and yet everyone is acting like this is some sort of armageddon.

So I leave you with an interesting picture.

https://sphotos-b-ams.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/q92/557408_161011737426302_1939885053_n.jpg

Subtle. People who disagree with me are stupid. No refuting the issue or even pretending to read them. So who is the stupid one again?

Xenavire
08-29-2013, 06:35 PM
Subtle. People who disagree with me are stupid. No refuting the issue or even pretending to read them. So who is the stupid one again?

I am not arguing with anyone, I am just stating, that despite what ANYONE here says, some people find it fun, because of, or despite of flood and screw. Also, that no-one is forcing anyone to play.

Forgive me for using examples, I thought it might clarify my feelings, but let me be absolutely crystal here. I simply do not care about the resources - they are improved from MTG, which is enough to please me. I just find it amusing how this same thread has been hashed out repeatedly, especially when this is the core of the game and will never be changed directly.

The only thing I can ever see happening is having some resources (non-basic) with cycle effects or other things to make them more interesting, but I wouldn't expect them soon. But that is about the only hope of change.

This thread is simply silly, like all the others that came before it.

noragar
08-29-2013, 06:45 PM
I mean this isn't a real thing. There are however a huge number of players who don't like losing to screw/flood.


They're equivalent things. Actually, I don't like losing regardless of the reason. If I lose too often because I can't block flying creatures, then I make an adjustment and add more Flying defense to my deck. If I lose too often because of mana screw, then I make an adjustment to add more resources or some other way to alleviate the problem.

If you really don't like losing to mana screw so badly, then just make the necessary adjustments to your deck to make it happen less often. You might lose more frequently for other reasons, but you said you were ok with that.

stiii
08-29-2013, 06:48 PM
They're equivalent things. Actually, I don't like losing regardless of the reason. If I lose too often because I can't block flying creatures, then I make an adjustment and add more Flying defense to my deck. If I lose too often because of mana screw, then I make an adjustment to add more resources or some other way to alleviate the problem.

If you really don't like losing to mana screw so badly, then just make the necessary adjustments to your deck to make it happen less often. You might lose more frequently for other reasons, but you said you were ok with that.

Those adjustments would just make me lose to flood more which is hardly better. These things you are comparing aren't even close.

stiii
08-29-2013, 06:49 PM
I am not arguing with anyone, I am just stating, that despite what ANYONE here says, some people find it fun, because of, or despite of flood and screw. Also, that no-one is forcing anyone to play.

Forgive me for using examples, I thought it might clarify my feelings, but let me be absolutely crystal here. I simply do not care about the resources - they are improved from MTG, which is enough to please me. I just find it amusing how this same thread has been hashed out repeatedly, especially when this is the core of the game and will never be changed directly.

The only thing I can ever see happening is having some resources (non-basic) with cycle effects or other things to make them more interesting, but I wouldn't expect them soon. But that is about the only hope of change.

This thread is simply silly, like all the others that came before it.

Yeah and this is why I didn't bother addressing your point because you clearly have no interest in listening. Why exactly did you post in this thread in the first place?

Xenavire
08-29-2013, 06:57 PM
Yeah and this is why I didn't bother addressing your point because you clearly have no interest in listening. Why exactly did you post in this thread in the first place?

The topic is pointless, really. It is finalised, and there is no chance of them changing the core of the game. If you change how the mana base works, you unravel years of work. Also, people enjoy it, people hate it - big surprise. Nothing is universally loved or hated. So someone will always complain. If the roles were reversed, you would be the one defending your playstyle - and the fight would be the same.

This thread just needs to die off, as nothign good will come of it. We have been over this repeatedly, nothing has ever come out of it. I am sorry, but it is just creating more problems, and has no chance to ever solve any.

So rather than trying to mediate an impossible situation, I want the thread to be abandoned. That is my whole reason for posting, and I hope we are all intelligent enough to see what problems this topic is creating.

noragar
08-29-2013, 06:58 PM
Those adjustments would just make me lose to flood more which is hardly better. These things you are comparing aren't even close.

There will likely be cards in the set (if not Set 1, then a future set) that would help lessen the probability of mana screw without directly adding more resources to your deck. I can't say what they are because the whole set isn't out yet.

The proposed solution of playing a card face down to act as a resource would also cause you to lose to mana flood more often. So does that make it "hardly better" as well?

stiii
08-29-2013, 07:03 PM
There will likely be cards in the set (if not Set 1, then a future set) that would help lessen the probability of mana screw without directly adding more resources to your deck. I can't say what they are because the whole set isn't out yet.

The proposed solution of playing a card face down to act as a resource would also cause you to lose to mana flood more often. So does that make it "hardly better" as well?

Wait what? How can playing cards face down result in your losing to mana flood more?

Xenavire
08-29-2013, 07:06 PM
Wait what? How can playing cards face down result in your losing to mana flood more?

I think in this specific instance I think he means playing cards face down, with the current system of resources. It would lead to more flooding, as you would be sacrificing cards for mana, and then drawing dead cards (sources) later.

It would end up balanced in deck making, but it wouldn't fix the problem unless you went full WoWTCG.

noragar
08-29-2013, 07:12 PM
Wait what? How can playing cards face down result in your losing to mana flood more?

If you play a non-resource card as a resource, you now have one more resource in play and one fewer non-resource card in your hand than you would have if the rule didn't exist. Further, your remaining deck is going to have a higher than optimal proportion of resources in it (because you've drawn too few resources up to that point, otherwise you wouldn't have needed to play the non-resource as a resource).

So the combination of having extra resources in play on the board and extra resources in your deck makes it more likely to mana flood.

stiii
08-29-2013, 07:19 PM
If you play a non-resource card as a resource, you now have one more resource in play and one fewer non-resource card in your hand than you would have if the rule didn't exist. Further, your remaining deck is going to have a higher than optimal proportion of resources in it (because you've drawn too few resources up to that point, otherwise you wouldn't have needed to play the non-resource as a resource).

So the combination of having extra resources in play on the board and extra resources in your deck makes it more likely to mana flood.

Yeah this isn't even slightly true.

You don't have to play something face down so it is impossible for you to be worse off. If it is worse to play something face down than miss a resource drop you just don't play one. All it does is give you another option, an option which you'd only use if you have zero resources in your hand. So if on turn four you have no resources in your hand and you use this ability it is pretty hard for later on in the game to be flooded as you'd have to draw nothing but resources.

And this ignoring the fact you would play less resources in your deck in the first place

noragar
08-29-2013, 07:36 PM
OK, I'm out too. If you're not interested or capable of following even that far then there's no hope for the more complicated things.

stiii
08-29-2013, 07:57 PM
OK, I'm out too. If you're not interested or capable of following even that far then there's no hope for the more complicated things.

Have you considered that reason you are hard to follow because you are wrong? You haven't managed to explain how giving players the option to do something can make them worse off, they can still just not use that option.

ericsche21
08-29-2013, 08:22 PM
How is this thread still going? Whether or not you like or agree with them, the resource mechanics are the resource mechanics. There is also really no need to defends those mechanics either: Crypto made their design choice and built the cards around that choice, so I do not imagine they'll change it.

I cannot imagine what impression a new forum visitor leaves with seeing the same 10 people spit vitriol at one another and finely dissect arguments to the point of word definition in almost every thread. It's unfathomable the amount of man hours sunk into trying to prove why someone's opinion is wrong in these threads, trying to beat down one another instead of trying to bring together the community.

I rarely come by these forums anymore because it's the same garbage in almost every single thread. Part of the problem is crypto hasn't released anything worth really discussing, but that argument only goes so far.

Ugh, I feel like I'm preaching from my soap box at this point, but whatever. The attitude of the forums right now generally sucks, and I'd think it a turn off if I was a newcomer.

Grumph
08-29-2013, 08:25 PM
Yeah this isn't even slightly true.

You don't have to play something face down so it is impossible for you to be worse off. If it is worse to play something face down than miss a resource drop you just don't play one. All it does is give you another option, an option which you'd only use if you have zero resources in your hand. So if on turn four you have no resources in your hand and you use this ability it is pretty hard for later on in the game to be flooded as you'd have to draw nothing but resources.


What was said is absolutely true. In a 60 card deck with 24 resources if you draw 6 spells and 1 resource you have a 43.3% chance to draw another resource on your first draw. If you do not draw a resource and decide to turn 2 cards into one you now have a 44.2% chance of drawing a resource on your second draw and you are down 2 spells. Every time you do not draw a resource your chances for actually drawing one increases, making it slightly more likely every turn that you will draw one. Since this is true your chances also increase for drawing two in a row, three in a row etc. Should you start drawing several in a row and you have turned 2 spells into a resource you certainly won't lose to resource screw but your chances for flood have definitely increased.


And this ignoring the fact you would play less resources in your deck in the first place


Why exactly would you play less resources in your deck? So that you could change 2 of your spells into resources putting you at a card disadvantage?

The two spells for one resource would be a horrible option, especially for new/inexperienced players who don't know the value of card advantage and having a one spell for one resource would completely throw the first set out of balance due to being able to play 3 or 4(maybe even 5) color decks.

I think the addition of charge powers to an already well liked resource system was all the tweaking that was needed. I played at gencon and I can say that the charge powers were instrumental in many of my victories.

funktion
08-29-2013, 10:34 PM
So if I was the designer and used my system you'd have posted exactly the same thing? Saying that the current system (my system) works fine for you and there is no such thing as a correct system?

You haven't given any reason why their system is better other than it is the one they are using.

I don't need to give a reason, like I said, different games are different. Neither is better, but I can tell you which one I personally like more. The resource system in magic is higher variance (and to me FAR MORE DEEP) than the one in WoWTCG, I would have liked to play the WoWtcg more but I couldn't get over it's resource system. It turned me off.

If you were the designer and used your system, I wouldn't be playing your game. That system does not interest me in any way.

Mindless
08-30-2013, 02:05 AM
How about locking this thread or is there no one able to do that on this forum? There have been personal assults of several people and that is often not tolerated. Also as a Mana screw thread it is very bland as the opinions are scattered along many many posts making it very hard for new players to read all through and comment something relevant. Maybe make a sticky new thread with composed info in the first post (so everyone understand the concepts) and a poll so people won't have to post to vent. If this turns out to be such a big deal than maybe crypto can work in some solution in a future set.

d00dz
08-30-2013, 02:07 AM
I can't believe I waded through all 18 pages of this thread. I swear its giving me a migraine with all the mudslinging and stubborn ideas.

Seriously, you guys are just going in circles. This thread is not going anywhere besides the post and page count. I agree with many recent posters that this NEEDS TO DIE.

The reality of the situation is that the Hex designers have already decided on a system and its moot to even discuss this when you realize that they WON'T be changing it. If you feel too passionately against the system and believe that it breaks the game, then it probably is not for you.

I'm not a big fan of thread-locking but I think this thread deserves it based on the direction its been heading and all the heated arguments it has generated, with neither side wanting to give way with one side being particularly stubborn and resorting to tons of attacks against everyone to accentuate a perceived point.

I understand that there really is not much to talk about since there have only been trickles of information since the KS ended but I think everyone is better served by discussing more productive subjects. Yes, this thread is not productive because Hex's resource system won't change anyway regardless of anyone's opinion here.

Turtlewing
08-30-2013, 09:46 AM
Yeah this isn't even slightly true.

You don't have to play something face down so it is impossible for you to be worse off. If it is worse to play something face down than miss a resource drop you just don't play one. All it does is give you another option, an option which you'd only use if you have zero resources in your hand. So if on turn four you have no resources in your hand and you use this ability it is pretty hard for later on in the game to be flooded as you'd have to draw nothing but resources.

And this ignoring the fact you would play less resources in your deck in the first place

The problems with that concept are:

1. you basicly make resources obsolete. so including any of them becomes a noob trap
(unfriendly to new players and bad for the games survival)

2. you create cases where the choice of "what card to ditch for resources" become deciding factors in games between mid-level players
(this is frustrating because it is both just as random as land draws (best choice is usually based on ability to predict likelihood of future draws), but it makes losses feel like your fault)

3. you don't actually eliminate the random element because drawing a hand full of high cost cards results in the same "not doing anything" loss as a hand full of all sources/no sources.
(doesn't really solve the problem it intends to solve, just re-formats it)

4. more deterministic does not necessarily equal a better play experience.
(people like to feel like the "have a chance" or to blame their failures on "bad luck". Since games are meant to be fun it's not always ideal to proceed from the assumption that the winner must be the "better player", as at the large scale people often have more fun when there are surprise upsets from time to time)

5. Lots of people just don't like throwing away their cards.
(people are loss averse and "throwing away" cards as part of standard gameplay can easily rub people the wrong way, or lead to analysis paralysis where a weaker player juts can't decide which card to turn into a source)

stiii
08-30-2013, 10:14 AM
I don't need to give a reason, like I said, different games are different. Neither is better, but I can tell you which one I personally like more. The resource system in magic is higher variance (and to me FAR MORE DEEP) than the one in WoWTCG, I would have liked to play the WoWtcg more but I couldn't get over it's resource system. It turned me off.

If you were the designer and used your system, I wouldn't be playing your game. That system does not interest me in any way.

So let me get this straight you have never played wow tcg but you know how deep the system is despite never playing it?

Seems like half the thread is full of posts like this. If there are two things and you have never done one of them don't tell me the other thing is better!

stiii
08-30-2013, 10:20 AM
What was said is absolutely true. In a 60 card deck with 24 resources if you draw 6 spells and 1 resource you have a 43.3% chance to draw another resource on your first draw. If you do not draw a resource and decide to turn 2 cards into one you now have a 44.2% chance of drawing a resource on your second draw and you are down 2 spells. Every time you do not draw a resource your chances for actually drawing one increases, making it slightly more likely every turn that you will draw one. Since this is true your chances also increase for drawing two in a row, three in a row etc. Should you start drawing several in a row and you have turned 2 spells into a resource you certainly won't lose to resource screw but your chances for flood have definitely increased.



Why exactly would you play less resources in your deck? So that you could change 2 of your spells into resources putting you at a card disadvantage?

The two spells for one resource would be a horrible option, especially for new/inexperienced players who don't know the value of card advantage and having a one spell for one resource would completely throw the first set out of balance due to being able to play 3 or 4(maybe even 5) color decks.

I think the addition of charge powers to an already well liked resource system was all the tweaking that was needed. I played at gencon and I can say that the charge powers were instrumental in many of my victories.

You seem to have combined all of the suggest systems into one. It is pretty hard for me to say anything when you reply to some hybrid system no one has suggested.

He also said more than just drawing less lands early means you will draw more later. He said thing A which leads to thing B. It doesn't matter if thing A is correct if the conclusion is still wrong, I'm not going to go through posts picking out the parts that are correct when the whole is wrong.

You seem to have picked up bits of many different posts and mashed them together which obviously makes everything incoherent, which is hardly my fault.

stiii
08-30-2013, 10:27 AM
The problems with that concept are:

1. you basicly make resources obsolete. so including any of them becomes a noob trap
(unfriendly to new players and bad for the games survival)

2. you create cases where the choice of "what card to ditch for resources" become deciding factors in games between mid-level players
(this is frustrating because it is both just as random as land draws (best choice is usually based on ability to predict likelihood of future draws), but it makes losses feel like your fault)

3. you don't actually eliminate the random element because drawing a hand full of high cost cards results in the same "not doing anything" loss as a hand full of all sources/no sources.
(doesn't really solve the problem it intends to solve, just re-formats it)

4. more deterministic does not necessarily equal a better play experience.
(people like to feel like the "have a chance" or to blame their failures on "bad luck". Since games are meant to be fun it's not always ideal to proceed from the assumption that the winner must be the "better player", as at the large scale people often have more fun when there are surprise upsets from time to time)

5. Lots of people just don't like throwing away their cards.
(people are loss averse and "throwing away" cards as part of standard gameplay can easily rub people the wrong way, or lead to analysis paralysis where a weaker player juts can't decide which card to turn into a source)

1: No you still need them to get threshold. So not what I suggested at all

2: Not even slightly true. There is a huge amount of skill in picking which card to row. It makes loses feel like your fault because they are you misplayed.

3: Also not true. It solves the problem it is trying to solve. It is not trying to remove all the randomness from the game just this one thing. The old game still has the draw all high cost cards issue. And you also get it less because you'd run fewer resources and more spells. Meaning you'd have more early and late game drops.

4: I can say the reverse too. Some people want it to be more random but some want it to be less random. There is also the issue why is this the perfect level of randomness? Why not more?

5:Lots of people don't like getting mana screwed either. Magic forums are full of people complaining about it.

ericsche21
08-30-2013, 10:32 AM
Can you edit one post instead of making three?

Turtlewing
08-30-2013, 10:50 AM
1: No you still need them to get threshold. So not what I suggested at all

2: Not even slightly true. There is a huge amount of skill in picking which card to row. It makes loses feel like your fault because they are you misplayed.

3: Also not true. It solves the problem it is trying to solve. It is not trying to remove all the randomness from the game just this one thing. The old game still has the draw all high cost cards issue. And you also get it less because you'd run fewer resources and more spells. Meaning you'd have more early and late game drops.

4: I can say the reverse too. Some people want it to be more random but some want it to be less random. There is also the issue why is this the perfect level of randomness? Why not more?

5:Lots of people don't like getting mana screwed either. Magic forums are full of people complaining about it.

if playing a card face down doesn't grant threshold than it solves nothing as you'll just get the same people bitching about "threshold screw" as you want to run a few sources as you can and still have a good chance of getting enough threshold, and random draws will mean sometimes you draw an outlier and don't get enough. I assumed you were more on the ball than that based on your previous posts (sorry for not having read far enough back to see otherwise)

As to your other points. As I've told you in previous discussion on the matter, in the end it's a judgment call. What specific sets of tradeoffs are you willing to accept. I respect that you like a more deterministic game than I do, and I'm not calling the core concept fundamentally bad. I am however saying that you can't just bolt it onto a game that wasn't designed around it from the ground up (which makes it a bad call for Hex), and that I personaly dislike the set of tradeoffs it requires.

funktion
08-30-2013, 11:02 AM
So let me get this straight you have never played wow tcg but you know how deep the system is despite never playing it?

Seems like half the thread is full of posts like this. If there are two things and you have never done one of them don't tell me the other thing is better!

I never said I never played it, you're making assumptions. The resource system in hex / mtg is dramatically deeper than the one in WoWTCG, saying anything otherwise is just ignorant. The rest of the game can still have tremendous depth but that's not what I was talking about at all was it?

I'm done with this thread though. There are so many vitrolic threads on the front page of general right now I'm concerned what people coming here for the first time might think. Everyone is so ravenous for new information that every week on wednesday-friday that we start tearing eachother apart here : (

Vorpal
08-30-2013, 11:16 AM
In a game with random elements there will always be the chance to lose because of the random elements. Players of games with random elements will need to accept that.

I realize it's not fun when it happens, and hopefully it will happen as little as possible. I wouldn't be adverse to CZE trying some tweaks to make it less likely to happen, but it will always be a possibility.

stiii
08-30-2013, 11:16 AM
Can you edit one post instead of making three?

You want me to reply to three different people in one single post? Seriously?

Fleckenwhatever
08-30-2013, 11:18 AM
The resource system in hex / mtg is dramatically deeper than the one in WoWTCG, saying anything otherwise is just ignorant.

...what.

stiii
08-30-2013, 11:19 AM
I never said I never played it, you're making assumptions. The resource system in hex / mtg is dramatically deeper than the one in WoWTCG, saying anything otherwise is just ignorant. The rest of the game can still have tremendous depth but that's not what I was talking about at all was it?

I'm done with this thread though. There are so many vitrolic threads on the front page of general right now I'm concerned what people coming here for the first time might think. Everyone is so ravenous for new information that every week on wednesday-friday that we start tearing eachother apart here : (

The classic accuses me me of making things up but but also tries to stop me replying by saying you are done with the thread.

What you said, "I would have liked to play the WoWtcg more but I couldn't get over it's resource system. It turned me off."

Sounds to me like you never played it. Seems like you looked at it and didn't like it. Which is fine. Then you magically worked out how deep it was, which isn't fine.

Blitz1775
08-30-2013, 11:22 AM
I personally think as far as it goes allowing the 1 free mulligan then losing a card for each mulligan is the best way to go. It helps the casual player a lot while the professional doesn't gain a Huge advantage for it. As an aside Stii no offense, but I've seriously read most of this thread and in almost every page you've come off hostile and ready to rip off everyone's head that dare doesn't share the same opinon.

To contribute on this topic I personally feel that hex does a huge amount with the way the cards are designed (at least for 2 or more color decks) utilizing threshold and that mana is colorless. Normally with a magic deck is done you could have a bunch of land but not have the necessary resources to play the deck now obviously as long as you meet the threshold (which seems to be only 1 type of color, don't know if there are ones with higher threshold). Course in that vein also makes your land distribution more likely to be even (closer to 12/12 for dual colors though more likely to be 14/10, instead of 16/8). All those subtle changes can obviously have huge impacts. Finally the big key is those supposed drawing percentages are only a problem if you run nothing to help you get more land or card draw or anything. That is frankly a choice of deck design and how you want to design your resource ramp. On the same flipside you are totally free to design a deck that can't be resourced screwed but will likely be resourced flooded.

Lastly while Skill is a major part of the game, luck is always a factor. You can remove luck, but at some point if you do so only the hard core players will continue playing and you will lose a huge market of players. Yes timmy's deck is bad, yes it screws itself really often, but as long as his deck occasionally pulls out his unstoppable 12 resources card and kicks your face in he doesn't care and thinks he designed a monster of a deck. Without out any forms of screw timmy's deck is likely to never see a win and he would quit.

stiii
08-30-2013, 11:28 AM
if playing a card face down doesn't grant threshold than it solves nothing as you'll just get the same people bitching about "threshold screw" as you want to run a few sources as you can and still have a good chance of getting enough threshold, and random draws will mean sometimes you draw an outlier and don't get enough. I assumed you were more on the ball than that based on your previous posts (sorry for not having read far enough back to see otherwise)

.

More on the ball just means agrees with you right? I disagree with what you are saying. Something doesn't need to solve 100% of issue for it to be worth doing.

Saying sorry for my "mistake" is a nice touch what exactly is the purpose of this other than to antagonise me?

stiii
08-30-2013, 11:29 AM
...what.

I do like the complaining about vitrolic threads while in the same post calling anyone who disagrees ignorant

Xenavire
08-30-2013, 11:47 AM
The classic accuses me me of making things up but but also tries to stop me replying by saying you are done with the thread.

What you said, "I would have liked to play the WoWtcg more but I couldn't get over it's resource system. It turned me off."

Sounds to me like you never played it. Seems like you looked at it and didn't like it. Which is fine. Then you magically worked out how deep it was, which isn't fine.

Can I just say that making the assumption that he did not try it (based on nothing but your opinion) is plain wrong.

I tried WoWTCG, as did many others in my general area. At least half of the hardcore magic players converted (or at least played it on the side) but the other half, who gave it a fair try, did not enjoy it.

It would be the same as me saying 'You don't like MTG's resource system? You obviously never played it." Even I know thats not true, and you have a good reason for disliking the resource system. So why should you make that assumption about other people?

It comes down to personal preference. You can't deny someone what they enjoy. They will enjoy it regardless of what you enjoy, and there is no way for you to change that.

stiii
08-30-2013, 11:58 AM
Can I just say that making the assumption that he did not try it (based on nothing but your opinion) is plain wrong.



No you can't. Because that isn't what happen or what he said. He said something I replied to it.

I notice you aren't replying to him where he says Magic's system is deeper and anyone who disagrees is just ignorant.

Turtlewing
08-30-2013, 12:00 PM
More on the ball just means agrees with you right? I disagree with what you are saying. Something doesn't need to solve 100% of issue for it to be worth doing.

Saying sorry for my "mistake" is a nice touch what exactly is the purpose of this other than to antagonise me?

No i mean I figured that since you are usually pretty astute about what the consequences of a rules change would be, you would see that running a deck with 10 sources and not drawing the second one you need for your 2 threshold card is exactly the same problem as running a deck with 25 sources and not drawing enough to play your 4 drop on turn 4. This is what I mean when I say it would replace "resource screw" with "threshold screw".

The apology was that I didn't read your original description before commenting on it which is my bad. Had I rad it I wouldn't have bothered with the other points (which are much more subjective and we've argued back and forth over them previously) and just told you it won't do what you want (assuming you want to prevent resource screw/flood from happening) and as such it isn't a good idea.

The core concept of "turn any card into a resource" is a pretty good one, but it does have some down sides that you don't mind but I think are worse than resource screw/flood. I'm not calling you opinion wrong, just "wrong for Hex" based on the expectation that Hex wants to appeal to both casual and competitive players not just to competitive players, and because Hex wasn't balanced with the mechanic included and tacking it on after the fact will cause issues.

stiii
08-30-2013, 12:07 PM
No i mean I figured that since you are usually pretty astute about what the consequences of a rules change would be, you would see that running a deck with 10 sources and not drawing the second one you need for your 2 threshold card is exactly the same problem as running a deck with 25 sources and not drawing enough to play your 4 drop on turn 4. This is what I mean when I say it would replace "resource screw" with "threshold screw".

The apology was that I didn't read your original description before commenting on it which is my bad. Had I rad it I wouldn't have bothered with the other points (which are much more subjective and we've argued back and forth over them previously) and just told you it won't do what you want (assuming you want to prevent resource screw/flood from happening) and as such it isn't a good idea.

The core concept of "turn any card into a resource" is a pretty good one, but it does have some down sides that you don't mind but I think are worse than resource screw/flood. I'm not calling you opinion wrong, just "wrong for Hex" based on the expectation that Hex wants to appeal to both casual and competitive players not just to competitive players, and because Hex wasn't balanced with the mechanic included and tacking it on after the fact will cause issues.

I guess I shouldn't assume the worse, sorry.


I think in practise this system would result in less mana screw because you couldn't cut back that much and still get threshold. So you'd only ever get threshold screwed which is less of an issue. This is all very subjective as I@ve never played a game with this system so I can only really guess.

I'd be happier with the wow tcg system with resources having an extra effect when you play them (quest/locations/stash) but this would require a huge change. The play cards face down was only meant to be an example of a basic system that removes mana screw rather than the best way of doing it, anything more complicated is hard to use in examples.

Xenavire
08-30-2013, 12:14 PM
No you can't. Because that isn't what happen or what he said. He said something I replied to it.

I notice you aren't replying to him where he says Magic's system is deeper and anyone who disagrees is just ignorant.

He specifically said, and I quote, "I never said I never played it, you're making assumptions." So your reply of "Sounds to me like you never played it. Seems like you looked at it and didn't like it. Which is fine. Then you magically worked out how deep it was, which isn't fine." is completely wrong.

As for his short sighted comment about the resources, I have no opinion beyond it being short sighted, and felt no need to spam the thread with such a useless comment.


Also, thank you kindly for ignoring the bulk of my post. I really appreciate it when I am being reasonable and get ignored completely.

nicosharp
08-30-2013, 12:19 PM
Interesting that the card preview today has a lot to do with mitigating resource screw for multi-colored decks. It's good to see this mechanic, although of minimal power, introduced in the first set of this game, further promoting dual-color decks and splashing for bombs.

Xenavire
08-30-2013, 12:27 PM
That is a very nice card. In MTG terms, it would be a tap land that produces any colour (but limited to the colours you actually play, which is clever and a nice way to stop people loopholing combo cards into a deck that doesn't run that colour normally.)

I think that should be at least a band-aid to the concerns people here are having, and given that it is a common, it will be widely available.

http://hextcg.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ShardsOfFate-213x300.png

nicosharp
08-30-2013, 12:38 PM
It's just a glorified fetch land that does not allow you to reshuffle. It is smart design that can not be exploited by information control decks. (that are very popular in MTG)

stiii
08-30-2013, 12:41 PM
He specifically said, and I quote, "I never said I never played it, you're making assumptions." So your reply of "Sounds to me like you never played it. Seems like you looked at it and didn't like it. Which is fine. Then you magically worked out how deep it was, which isn't fine." is completely wrong.

As for his short sighted comment about the resources, I have no opinion beyond it being short sighted, and felt no need to spam the thread with such a useless comment.


Also, thank you kindly for ignoring the bulk of my post. I really appreciate it when I am being reasonable and get ignored completely.

The reason I ignored the bulk of your post was it had nothing to do with the part I disagreed with. What is your reason for ignoring the thing of his I quoted exactly? You rumble in here and only read half the posts he and I made then give out your opinion on what happened.

He also said " "I would have liked to play the WoWtcg more but I couldn't get over it's resource system. It turned me off." This is what I was replying to, in fact I quoted it in response to the "I never said" part to show this just wasn't true. All this shows is you didn't read all the posts we both made before forming your opinion on what happened.

The reason you are getting ignored is because you aren't being reasonable. Simply claiming you are reasonable doesn't make it so. you are the second person in this thread I've had to point this out to. If you are so reasonable shows us with your actions don't tell us.

Turtlewing
08-30-2013, 12:42 PM
It's just a glorified fetch land that does not allow you to reshuffle. It is smart design that can not be exploited by information control decks. (that are very popular in MTG)

It also doesn't actually fetch the resource, which is a significant part of why fetch lands are so popular (they reduce your effective deck size by replacing themselves with a land pulled from the deck).

On the whole I think it's weaker than a fetch-land.

nicosharp
08-30-2013, 12:48 PM
It also doesn't actually fetch the resource, which is a significant part of why fetch lands are so popular (they reduce your effective deck size by replacing themselves with a land pulled from the deck).

On the whole I think it's weaker than a fetch-land.
Exactly. Did not put it so well, but was trying to illustrate that same point. I like that it's weaker. Part of the thing that made MTG so frustrating was the power of drawing the correct lands.. Fetch and key dual lands provided so much more utility to players, that could lead to making games based on land draw, even more one sided.

Xenavire
08-30-2013, 12:51 PM
The reason I ignored the bulk of your post was it had nothing to do with the part I disagreed with. What is your reason for ignoring the thing of his I quoted exactly? You rumble in here and only read half the posts he and I made then give out your opinion on what happened.

He also said " "I would have liked to play the WoWtcg more but I couldn't get over it's resource system. It turned me off." This is what I was replying to, in fact I quoted it in response to the "I never said" part to show this just wasn't true. All this shows is you didn't read all the posts we both made before forming your opinion on what happened.

The reason you are getting ignored is because you aren't being reasonable. Simply claiming you are reasonable doesn't make it so. you are the second person in this thread I've had to point this out to. If you are so reasonable shows us with your actions don't tell us.

I did not half-read or ignore anything, I just did not have anything I felt needed to be said on the rest of the quote.

The things I said were directly related however, to the first part of the quote. I feel at this point you are being deliberately antagonistic while I am attempting to be reasonable - I am not attacking you, I am simply asking you to not attack people needlessly after they have already told you that something you were assuming was in fact wrong.

I have already agreed with you that the comment about the resources was innaccurate (and I have no strong feelings about which has proved to be better), so I don't see why you are being so belligerent.

Xenavire
08-30-2013, 12:55 PM
Exactly. Did not put it so well, but was trying to illustrate that same point. I like that it's weaker. Part of the thing that made MTG so frustrating was the power of drawing the correct lands.. Fetch and key dual lands provided so much more utility to players, that could lead to making games based on land draw, even more one sided.

It does have one benefit over fetch lands in that it charges your champion (although, in Hex, it would technically happen anyway if fetched) but the fact it does something on it's own is a slight improvement over a basic fetch land in MTG. I think it is right on par with the rest of the first set though, so I have no complaints about it being weak in comparison to something in MTG.

stiii
08-30-2013, 02:08 PM
I did not half-read or ignore anything, I just did not have anything I felt needed to be said on the rest of the quote.

The things I said were directly related however, to the first part of the quote. I feel at this point you are being deliberately antagonistic while I am attempting to be reasonable - I am not attacking you, I am simply asking you to not attack people needlessly after they have already told you that something you were assuming was in fact wrong.

I have already agreed with you that the comment about the resources was innaccurate (and I have no strong feelings about which has proved to be better), so I don't see why you are being so belligerent.

Back to this again. I disagree with you and explain exactly how you are wrong. you quote things I've already replied to because you haven't read even the most recent part of the thread containing the person I was replying to.

And yet I'm being belligerent being I'm point out where you are wrong but you are being reasonable. You don't supply any logic or reason why my posts are antagonistic and yours are reasonable, you just state it as a fact. Because obviously you are right and I'm wrong and there is no need to show that.

Yoss
08-31-2013, 10:29 AM
General comment and warning:

Please remove the flames from your posts and instead try to compliment the good things (seriously, find SOMETHING good to agree about in every post if you can) while treating disagreements delicately. This thread makes for ugly reading. (I'm well aware how hard this can be from personal failures in this area.)

chi
09-01-2013, 02:47 AM
My gut feeling is that free mulligans will be much more beneficial for combo decks that need a specific combination of cards to win on turn 2-4. Even if you limit the free mulligan to 0 or 7 resources, decks like Charbelcher or Lands will benefit significantly more than any other deck.

Ofiach
09-01-2013, 08:48 AM
I have to admit to a TL:DR for alot of this post. I also pretty much gave up when it turned into a total flame war about half way through with no one trying to make a point. It just turned into people arguing to win an argument.

I personally hate being mana screwed but it does happen and is part of the TCG game style. I feel it is a testament to deck building if you can create a deck that severely limits the chances of mana screw/flood. I know it still happens to me sometimes in games I've played for years. I accept that the nature of a Card game though has a base in chance. Proper deckbuilding limits the chance but it should always still be a factor. I think it is a good mechanic and adds a layer of depth. Those are my personal feelings on the subject so take that as you will.

Now allow me to address the issues brought up in your post Maniza

This game has a free reshuffle at the start of each game does it not? I've seen the option in multiple vids.

Also (I know this was mentioned before) having draw cards that draw specific types of cards helps limit this.

I have played a few TCG's where resource cards sometimes had a draw creature ability. I haven't seen these in this game yet but I have to believe later on we will see some sort of summoning ability from rare shards.

I really think alot of these conversations are great for theory crafting but you can't get too hung up on any one aspect because (at least to my knowledge) most of us don't have access to most of the cards or a way to play with the ones we do have.

@Maniza I personally don't like the idea of "Free mulligans" because then you can build a deck with low res pools (2-3 res cards on the absurd end) and just reshuffle for combos. As Chi stated above.

I will end this on my theory of how this situation will develop/be balanced later on. Starting out they might not have alot of specialized draw cards in the game, I'm sure within the first block and early in the second we will start seeing alot more cards that are specialized in this way. The game will be slightly bland (for lack of a better term) for the first year, this is simply because they can't cover every possibility and launch the game at any point in the next two years. I for one want to let it grow and develop and see what kind of ride these Devs take us on. ( no I don't want to ride the man in the blonde wig and pink shirt! :P)

Xerma1
09-05-2013, 05:16 AM
First, I'll propose an idea for a pregame mana screw fix.

Would it be reasonable to give all Champions a pregame ability - lets call it Cost of Victory - (at no cost) <Champion's name> puts itself in harms way to ensure success. After you draw, you may give your champion permission to choose a non resource card in your hand. That card is permanently removed from the game and your champion finds a resource of that card's shard/color in your deck and puts it into your hand. Your champion becomes drained by its search, preventing <Champion's name> from being charged for <three> turns. Additionally, you may not win until the beginning of your fourth turn. Your champion only has the strength to search once a game.

Going over the Archetypes:
Combo: First, the fast combo decks should require a full hand to win. An example would be a resource, four or five enablers and the win condition with maybe a disrupt. Obviously Cost of Victory would prevent a combo deck from taking advantage of perfect hands every game by giving your opponent time to set up and the removal of one of your enablers. Aggro decks might be able to take advantage of this, so it's up to the player to take a regular style mulligan or attempt a CoV. The slower combo decks tend to be more combo-control and so would lose a significant disruption/enabler spell.

Aggro and Midrange: While aggro would suffer more without the chance of a turn three or four win - which should be fastest aggro could win - Aggro could still out pace midrange over the course of four or five turns. Midrange isn't heavily impacted by this decision, except with the loss of a major threat.

I recommend that the AI be programmed to take one of the top three threats in an Aggro deck for the resource substitution, and the greatest threat in midrange.

Control: Arguably, receives the lowest impact from the decision as it is the typical control motif to hold onto the game for as long as possible, until reaching a card advantage plateau and taking the game.

Of course, this should be tested...but that's what Alphas and Betas are for!

Now, with a more general regard to the game, I don't want them to set the bar low even for the first set.

I'm a fan of the SoF - however, there's still room for other non-basics in a 'core' set. Using Magic as an example, there was a long period of time where it was possible to generate competitive lists with a third to a half of your resource base as non-basics using only the advanced set lands. This is where I'd like to see Set 1 and Set 2, with the Shard of Fate with another possible genre of non basics.

I've suggested Conflagration Stones, which help both multi-shard decks and single shard decks. It's rare to see 'dead' non-basics in a monocolor MtG deck (of course manlands are still popular, but tend to be colorless or one color). Revelation isn't a very digital mechanic in its current incarnation, but it can be changed if necessary. Even still, not every card has to be active in the digital-dynamic space.

Despite liking my own idea, I think there are other ideas regarding multiple-shard resource cards which I could fully embrace. Something as simple as painland clones, would sate my desire for multi-shard options.

Shadowspawn
09-05-2013, 08:09 AM
Isn't RNG part of the game? RNG is your friend AND enemy over the long haul. TCG's are partially random. Let's not dumb this down please.

Turtlewing
09-05-2013, 09:34 AM
Isn't RNG part of the game? RNG is your friend AND enemy over the long haul. TCG's are partially random. Let's not dumb this down please.

Yes but in TCGs there are competing schools of thought regarding how much RNG should be in the game.

In general competitive players want less RNG (a more deterministic game means the better player wins more often), and casual player want more (a less deterministic game is less predictable which means it's easier to get emotionally involved). No one wants a completely deterministic or completely random game, but there are as many opinions on the optimal balance as there are players.

Manna flood/screw is a major target for reducing RNG because it can paralyze a player who otherwise had a reasonable deck just because of an outlier shuffle. Where opinion varies is how much to reduce the random element in order to fix the issue.

Some will argue that a mulligan with reducing hand size is good enough (If your deck is well built the odds of maligning to 5 without seeing one keepable hand should be extremely low). Others will argue that resources should be completely deterministic and RNG should exist in other areas of the game.

Personally I like the look of Hex's resource system, and I think a more deterministic system would come at the cost of accessibility to new players. I don't really have a horse in the game on the mulligan debate as all I really want out of a mulligan system is that it let me trash a hand and draw a new one in the event that I get an extreme undesirable outlier, but prevent me from "fishing" for the perfect hand. I think most of the "free mulligan on X condition, loose a card otherwise" suggestions are bad ideas because they will create an incentive to design around the mulligan rule (which makes the game less accessible to new players who don't know the tricks yet), but other than that things like "first mulligan is free, subsequent ones loose a card", "you get exactly 3 'free' mulligans and no more", "draw 3 hands of 7 choose one or draw 2 hands of six and choose one of those", or other variations that don't make certain hands "special" are all pretty much OK by me.

knightofeffect
09-05-2013, 06:22 PM
I really love the way Ben put it: Aces get busted in poker, but there are still pro players there that are very consistent. MTG is even more susceptible to mana screw/flood with its system than Hex yet there are still players like Kai Budde.

The best players overcome the RNG of draws with skill over a sufficient sample size. MTG's resource system has shown it serves well as a strategic system for game curve pacing and built balance/diversity. Hex took that system, streamlined and improved it. I personally don't think there is a much better way to do it.

Tonier
09-05-2013, 06:38 PM
The best players overcome the RNG of draws with skill over a sufficient sample size. MTG's resource system has shown it serves well as a strategic system for game curve pacing and built balance/diversity. Hex took that system, streamlined and improved it. I personally don't think there is a much better way to do it.

It's a mistake to attribute Magic's success to its mechanics.

knightofeffect
09-05-2013, 10:45 PM
Every TCG/CCG borrows from Magic; it created the genre. Its not a mistake to attribute the success of TCGs to the success of MTG.

I'm not saying that magic's resource system is the best, but the complexity and flow that it gives the game is very approachable and familiar. Having played Magi Nation, SW, LotR, and VS system; I know there are a ton of ways you can do it, and some of those systems even felt "liberating" compared to MTG's resource mechanics. Having a split(color)-resource system that can be manipulated by player effects simply gives a lot of elbow room for the development. It allows designers to maintain pace, balance, and flow by compartmentalizing synergies while allowing for cross-over complexity.

It simply seems like the best way to maintain the stability from set-to-set while allowing designers the room to create more complexity in the meta.

As I mentioned in the previous post, the RNG of mana screw/flood is not significant enough to prevent consistent pro performance and Hex will lessen it even further.

keroko
09-05-2013, 11:59 PM
sometimes the winds of magic do not blow your ways. its a thing. you gotta be aware of it, have a feel for how its happening as you play - observe your mana ramp in action and consider that as engine in your decks performance that you absolutely have control to overflood or underpower by mistake or inexperience. or sometimes blind bad luck ,ucks with you, you cost your cards in deck to take that possibility into account.

honestly, just play about with decks with the general guidelines for 'how many resources, how many actions, how many crits...' that theorycrafters here have determined. hell you can use a 60 card magic deck as a superficial comparison of form.

dont ruin the importance of what resources are and how they must be managed.

Tonier
09-06-2013, 11:52 AM
Every TCG/CCG borrows from Magic; it created the genre. Its not a mistake to attribute the success of TCGs to the success of MTG.

Of course, but that's not what I said.

Miwa
09-06-2013, 01:51 PM
The resource system isn't going to change, that ship sailed 2 years ago when they developed the game originally.

It's also telling that they didn't use something like wowtcg's system, given that they have more knowledge about it than anyone else.

In the end, I'll trust the professional TCG developers' choices on this one. They have a lot of experience developing games, and they know what they are doing. There's been lots of interesting ways to generate resources created in MtG over the years, and certainly some of those mechanics will be borrowed by Hex.

Arguing about mulligan rules makes sense here (while still being pointless), but arguing about using some different sort of resource system is completely OT.

Aruken
09-06-2013, 03:28 PM
But to put it simply, in a vacuum, the odds of not hitting your third resource drop on turn 3 on the play in a 24 resource deck are 6.3%
That seems like a aweful lot to me.
Even though I haven't really played MTG myself I witnessed this problem when I saw other people play. Coming from the wow tcg, in which you can put any card you want face down as a ressource, I am used to the choice you have to make if you have no 'quests' (the wow 'mana'). I like it that way, the choice have to be meaningful and add an other layer to the game, you don't lose games out of randomness as much, and you don't have to account for ressources getting almost half of your deck maximum size (16 is fine).

It leads to a tcg more balanced around the ressource race in my opinion. And even though I don't see CZE replacing mana by quest equivalents (which helped you draw too) or something else, I wish they'd take a little bit more from wow as there is already a lot coming from mtg (one unique attack turn, 20hp, etc.).

But again I don't know much about MTG and how long games lasts usually. WOW had 9 drops hitting consistently for control decks for exemple. And I don't know how CZE plan on balancing HEX, I just hope it is not a straight up MTG port.

Xenavire
09-06-2013, 04:55 PM
That seems like a aweful lot to me.
Even though I haven't really played MTG myself I witnessed this problem when I saw other people play. Coming from the wow tcg, in which you can put any card you want face down as a ressource, I am used to the choice you have to make if you have no 'quests' (the wow 'mana'). I like it that way, the choice have to be meaningful and add an other layer to the game, you don't lose games out of randomness as much, and you don't have to account for ressources getting almost half of your deck maximum size (16 is fine).

It leads to a tcg more balanced around the ressource race in my opinion. And even though I don't see CZE replacing mana by quest equivalents (which helped you draw too) or something else, I wish they'd take a little bit more from wow as there is already a lot coming from mtg (one unique attack turn, 20hp, etc.).

But again I don't know much about MTG and how long games lasts usually. WOW had 9 drops hitting consistently for control decks for exemple. And I don't know how CZE plan on balancing HEX, I just hope it is not a straight up MTG port.

The deck type matters a lot with resource screw, and you plan accordingly. Some decks win with 2-3 mana, while others just hoard mana and stall or accelerate to the amount they need.

So not every game turns into a resource race, and in fact, I saw many good players turning games around on turn 8/9 when they finally drop their 4th or 5th resource, and end up winning. Strategy does make up for luck in a lot of cases.

No-one will ever claim that you will never see a loss due to luck, but any TCG has that risk. And if you are that unlucky to mulligan repeatedly with no resources, you might get a single loss, but matches are best of three. You might be looking at a hard time getting back in the lead, but it isn't an automatic loss.

NULL_VALUE
09-15-2013, 04:49 PM
hi, i am a new player and i didn't play mtg, i did play some scrolls however and am very interested in hex (why i purchased the slacker backer) my opinion on this matter is only my subjective opinion and since there are so many guys having fights on this, i probably won't reply to anybody ;)

so this is it:
i like the idea of having mana cards as a ressource like it will be in hex
if you're familiar with the rules of scrolls, then you know that you were able to sacrifice one card every turn, either for mana or for drawing 2 other cards
that system worked pretty well though, but tbh it wasn't really that funny after some time
one of the major problems in scrolls (only in my opinion) was that there was no graveyard, so that every discarded card and every dead creature went back in your deck and it could be drawn even right the next turn
so there are two i learned out of that:
1.) even if the pool of my cards always stayed at around 50 cards, there was still a great chance of drawing even a combination of two cards the next turn (partly because i could sacrifice one card for another draw, but therefore in hex the pool of your cards will decline as longer the game goes)
2.) i like the fact that we have a free mulligan (or more than one?) at the start of the game, but what i would like to see is that you cannot draw the same cards you just discarded by any chance (these should be out of the pool) so that if you had not a single ressource card in your hand, your chances for the mulligan will be higher

maybe you could even go as far as getting as many mulligans as you want until you don't have a card left in your deck (that way it would still be random, but it is nearly impossible to not have enough/too much ressources at least once AND it wouldn't change the ressource system completely nor would it need much effort to change it that way), but this is up to the devs and i don't think that i can fathom the effects of something like that

keroko
09-16-2013, 08:22 AM
^ we'll have a bunch of ways of cycling our decks, peppering opponents decks with junk and pebbles and all sorts.

we'll monkey with each others mana curves to get a card advantage etc etc. all while trying to execute a collection of plans to end the other player before our deck expires.

resources flowing into play based on allocation by the player or game in (automated) deck construct is part of building a deck as much as the other cards in it. its not as glamerous, and if you mess up it feels worse than carrying that 9 cost card in your hand from the games start.

hopefully the deck editor will be very clear on things like percentages to craw a card next, and allow the player to simulate what going some resources heavy or light when compared to their deck card cost curves would mean for those values.