PDA

View Full Version : A Brilliant Mulligan Improvement



YourOpponent
08-29-2013, 06:50 PM
So I got this great simple digital idea of how to improve Mulligan that I think the community could all agree is fair and doesn't give an advantage.

When you draw your 7 cards let's say it's only 2 resource but you want 3. Then you exchange: 2 of your non resource cards for one random resource from your deck. The same idea could be used if you're mana flooded for one non mana card...and you can do this as many times as you like!

That way even if a person had 1 mana in a starting hand they could still get it to 3 mana in their starting hand while having 5 cards (and of course KNOW they have their low CD cards)


Edit: Of course the cards you are exchanging from your hand get shuffled back into the deck. Also really I think this is the kind of Mulligan solution MTG would of considered if hasn't been a paper card game for so long.

Shadowelf
08-29-2013, 07:03 PM
The exchange of resources in your hand for cards in your deck could be abusive if the right cards are ever made available; a deck like mtg's lands for example or other combo decks that could combo out with a few cards.

Also the cards that you exchange for lands/cards have to be either reshuffled or removed from the game; allowing them to go to the graveyard might prove too powerful.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-29-2013, 07:13 PM
As I said to a similar idea in the other thread, it's dangerous and would require a fair amount of testing to see how it would impact archetype representation in the meta-game.

In terms of mitigating mana screw and flood it certainly works, but that's just one part of the puzzle. ;-)

Chiany
08-29-2013, 07:55 PM
This should never happen, it is far to easy to abuse it.

zadies
08-29-2013, 08:27 PM
Given this game uses a threshold system as opposed to magic's lands tap WAY to powerful in multicolor decks.

Xtopher
08-29-2013, 09:11 PM
So, I build a deck that works great with only 3 resources in play. I put 3 resources in the deck, the rest are spells. Worse case scenario, I end up with a starting hand of 3 resources and 1 non-resource. Every pick for the rest of the game will be a playable spell.

That's just one of many examples that break this proposal.

Corpselocker
08-29-2013, 10:15 PM
Good suggestion, but I must agree with the 'torch and pitchfork' crowd. Unless you specifically designed for it from beginning of development until the end, it is abusable and exactly what the devs wanted to avoid in Set 1. I have an extra pitchfork if you care to change sides.

funktion
08-29-2013, 10:30 PM
The only thing I see possible as far as mulligans go right now for adjustments is that you go from 7-6-6-5-4-3-2-1.

That does cut down a little bit of the sting of the mulligan, but honestly I don't think it's necessary.

Deepdigger
08-29-2013, 10:42 PM
If this would be implemented, wouldn't it change the amount of land somebody plays.
As somebody pointed out in another thread, in round 3 you should have 97% of 3 lands.
Now if i can get a guaranteed land, wouldnt this meant that less lands would find a way into to the deck. And then we are are the same starting point?

maniza
08-29-2013, 11:06 PM
So, I build a deck that works great with only 3 resources in play. I put 3 resources in the deck, the rest are spells. Worse case scenario, I end up with a starting hand of 3 resources and 1 non-resource. Every pick for the rest of the game will be a playable spell.

That's just one of many examples that break this proposal.

your deck will loose 90% of the time. how is that abusive?

maniza
08-29-2013, 11:14 PM
i like this idea, there are several other ways to improve mulligan in this game but ppl seem to be to afraid to want change anithing. they dont understand that the reason magic has its rigid mulligan sistem us because its a papaer game...

Gorgol
08-29-2013, 11:16 PM
Not everyone wants "an improvement", some of us just like it how it is.

YourOpponent
08-30-2013, 12:49 AM
I'm not against the idea of a mulligan...really I'm not. My first MTG game was 14 years ago and I still play a few games of it a couple of times a year. And I really did a lot of thinking on this idea before even suggesting it to not make it in a way that could be abused.

For example the person that says that somebody could use this idea to make a deck that works just fine with only 3 resources and the rest spells...If somebody wanted to do that idea...they could go for that idea with this deck sure, but chances are their starting hand wouldn't have any of those 3 resources in it...so if a person used this type of a mulligan and wanted those 3 resources they would have to exchange 6 of those cards to get 3 random resources (that were already in the deck) and of course be able to keep their 7th card.

Also what somebody said earlier about the cards being exchanged to get the random resource card (or non resource card) I intended for the exchanged cards to be shuffled back into the deck just like a regular mulligan. Because just having them in the graveyard or removed could both be abused.

Malicus
08-30-2013, 01:51 AM
I don't completely hate this idea since opening up the possibility but at a cost to play say a 10 land deck are interesting but the one non-negotiable for me would be that it be random, if you want to mull cards for resources or resources for cards you shouldn't be able to set something up.

That said I am content with the MtG Mulligan rules

Mindless
08-30-2013, 02:19 AM
How about having restrictions on always have at least X resource and X non resource card in your starting hand and 2 being the last mulligan? (X<_2). Just an Idea and based on what I understand of peoples opinion they want mulligans and they want to have skill in mulligans but on the same coin there is the new players and maybe all of the casual players that don't want to mulligan. As always this topic is heated and opinions differs.

Jinxies
08-30-2013, 02:36 AM
It could certainly work if the game was designed for this from the start. The game was not and therefore I think it's a terrible system that would get abused and swing the metagame in a direction that I don't like. I get that the "MTG system" for mana is a bit tricky to build decks around and those unfamiliar with tcg might struggle but the system works fine and you're trying to fix something that isn't really broken.

NaryaDL0re
08-30-2013, 04:29 AM
Xtopher already completely broke it.

Some knowledgebombs for deck consistency.

If I can build a 60 card deck with 3 resources... the way your propose it.

Almost every starting hand will consist of me having 3 lands and 1 spell.
(unless I was even luckier and naturally drew 1 land, than 3 lands and 2 spells).

This seems like a drawback to you guys? Well its not.

And average MTG deck plays 22-28 Manasources, we will say 40% for simplification.
That means 40% of the draws are "dead" (excluding manlands) on action.
All they do is "enable" the deck to play their cards, which they need to draw in
an appropriate rate.

Given how our 3 Manasources deck is build, we draw 100% action, every turn.
This means we draw 40% more "virtual" cards than any other deck EVERY turn.

Even if we start the game with 2-3 cards less... we are already "even" by turn 5~.

What this doesnt take into consideration, is that we build a 100% stable deck.
Sth thats otherwise impossible.

This deck can play every card in the deck at each appropriate turn 100% of the time.
It has all its threshold and resources available from round 1 of the game.
Which means it will NEVER get flooded or screwed in ANY way or form...
They only "bad" thing that could happen are wrong spells at the wrong time... but that
can be completely negated by noninteractive deckdesign. (Burn decks dont care which
card they draw because 100% of their cards fulfil the same role...)

Seeing as most decks dont play more than one spell per turn for the first 5 turns...
this deck has, if build correctly, NO drawback, but LOADS of upside over other decks.

Just to give another example of magic.
Most pros agree and have stated at multiple occasions.
"If the burn deck draws no more than 2-3 lands, it will almost always win".

And a burn deck could very well funktion at 2 lands, which would mean 2 land 3 spell starting hands.
Thats good enough to win every game except the most hatefull matchups for burn. Because
they will only draw spells for the rest of the game.


I love ideas to decrease the frustration in TCGs I really do.
But this idea has been proven abusable very quickly.

EDIT: I really dig the title of the thread though. At least you put your cohones out there.

Auriok
08-30-2013, 09:00 AM
maybe if the 2 cards are random? its actually too good if you can choose 2 x bad/dead card

Khazrakh
08-30-2013, 09:14 AM
maybe if the 2 cards are random? its actually too good if you can choose 2 x bad/dead card

As NaryaDL0re somewhat pointed out - if you build a deck around it there won't be any bad/dead cards. You just wouldn't care at all which cards you keep.

Turtlewing
08-30-2013, 09:25 AM
The OP's suggestion would (I think) be better if instead you could reshuffle 2 cards into your deck to draw 1 card (repeat as many times as you still have at least 2 cards to toss).

This would be similar to the existing mulligan rule, but with a bit more control.

Zophie
08-30-2013, 09:54 AM
How about something similar to Hearthstone: A one-shot mulligan where you select cards in your initial draw that you don't want to keep, they are shuffled back into the deck, then you draw exactly that many cards to replace them. After that you're done and no more mulligans.

KiraForce
08-30-2013, 10:16 AM
Or similar to EDH in MtG where you pick cards you don't want, set them aside, draw that many cards -1, and shuffle those excluded cards back in?

NaryaDL0re
08-30-2013, 11:13 AM
I would be very interested in hearing Cryptozoics response to the Hearthstone/EDH argument.

Because all their statements on screw/flood etc dont apply there.
You still get screwed, you still have risky keeps, you still have excitement at the drawstep...
You still need to build your manabases correct.

It adds another layer of complexity (which cards do I keep instead of do I keep all or mulligan).
However this seems like a very welcome form of complexity that new and old players would want.

Its cuts down on the high end of frustration... and still leaves "enough"(?) randomization.

The only real danger I see is "combo" decks profiting too much from this change, because
keeping individually important cards can be very strong in a deck that only cares about
a few cards.

However combo belongs to the most degenerative and usually non-interactive archtypes...
(I m talking 2 card combo kills... not synergy... or long term combos... I mean 1+1= win)
So in my honest opinion the "standard" of Hex shouldnt have any combo in it anyways,
just like magic. Combo can happen at older formats that appear over time though.

Xtopher
08-30-2013, 11:17 AM
Well, if the Mulligan rule were to be changed, I'd prefer one mulligan allowed only, with no penalty. That aside, allowing players to construct their opening hands by adding resources or keeping and discarding would be too powerful of a change. It would be interesting, though, to play a game that was designed with those ideas from the beginning.

Diesbudt
08-30-2013, 11:29 AM
How about something similar to Hearthstone: A one-shot mulligan where you select cards in your initial draw that you don't want to keep, they are shuffled back into the deck, then you draw exactly that many cards to replace them. After that you're done and no more mulligans.

I think a better system in this way would be:

1) As said you get -1 card as penalty to taking the mulligan (must discard at least 2 to be useful mulligan)[1 mulligan per game]

2) The cards discarded are removed from the game. Not discarded. Not put back into the deck. Removed permanently until the game is over. Thus giving a massive decision and possibly a deck construction backlash to doing such a mulligan. Sure people could game it to put cards in purposely to remove, but if they don't get them on the opening draw, then it better be a useful card in your deck. [1 mulligan per game]

neither of these specifically target a resource or non resource. Just other draws. And a penalty decent enough to where you have to be sure it is worth it, and pro's with more skill will better utilize it than novices. Thus keeping it a skill part of the game opening.

wurtil
08-30-2013, 04:33 PM
I actually remember talking to Ben Stoll about mulligans at the Dragon Lord dinner. Basically, he said they wouldn't move away from the basic mulligan mechanics because anything else is just too difficult to teach to the new and novice level players. WoW TCG made up some crazy mulligans rules that took entire pages of comprehensive rules just to teach to people, and while it mathematically was more fair it also just was too complex for most people that looked at it without digging through long explanations of how to perform it. CZE wants HEX to be extremely casual friendly, meaning decisions like how to mulligan are going to err on the side of making things easier for the "never-seen-a-TCG-before" crowd to understand.

He also discussed how he disliked the "One-free-mulligan" rule, as it encouraged players to both take chances in deckbuilding to exploit it and it created an additional skill to learn regarding mulligans that might be "This hand is good, but my free random 7 statistically would be better..."

TL;DR - MTG style mulligans are here to stay.

kirkwb
08-30-2013, 04:56 PM
WoW TCG made up some crazy mulligans rules that took entire pages of comprehensive rules just to teach to people, and while it mathematically was more fair it also just was too complex for most people that looked at it without digging through long explanations of how to perform it.

I'm not sure what you're talking about regarding the WoW TCG, the mulligan since the release in Heroes of Azeroth was, "If you don't like your first 7 cards, shuffle them back in and draw a new 7."

Jarric
08-30-2013, 05:04 PM
I actually remember talking to Ben Stoll about mulligans at the Dragon Lord dinner. Basically, he said they wouldn't move away from the basic mulligan mechanics because anything else is just too difficult to teach to the new and novice level players. WoW TCG made up some crazy mulligans rules that took entire pages of comprehensive rules just to teach to people, and while it mathematically was more fair it also just was too complex for most people that looked at it without digging through long explanations of how to perform it. CZE wants HEX to be extremely casual friendly, meaning decisions like how to mulligan are going to err on the side of making things easier for the "never-seen-a-TCG-before" crowd to understand.

He also discussed how he disliked the "One-free-mulligan" rule, as it encouraged players to both take chances in deckbuilding to exploit it and it created an additional skill to learn regarding mulligans that might be "This hand is good, but my free random 7 statistically would be better..."

TL;DR - MTG style mulligans are here to stay.


While this is great to hear a second hand response from Ben, I still feel the answer is a cop out. Hex is CZE's game. It's the game of the NEXT GENERATION as it's all digital. Lets face it the next generation is smarter then we were at thier age. They have grown up with technology we never had. I really feel they could figure out a new way of doing mulligans. The fact that they are aware of the comprehensive rules for explaining how mulligans worked should speak miles. Don't make those mistakes. But saying we're gonna use the original way ... the old way ... the way that made us as "players" not get headaches, is weak. The old way had it's issues. If you want mulliganing to be something the casual gamer will be able to understand and not take away from the enjoyment of the game, then think about it from a casual gamer's perspective.

As a casual gamer (short burst attention span) what would drive you away from a game fast. Losing. No one wants to lose. Esspecially over and over again. Is it gonna happen yes. Getting Mana Screwed/Flooded over and over and over again (extreme example) would cause a casual gamer to say "this sucks I'm done". So instead of keeping a mulligan rule that doesn't really fix that issue at all, is again a cop out imo.

There are lots of other options. And as someone pointed out even more since it's digital. You can still keep the ability to not stack a deck there while solving the issue too.

Anyway still madly looking forward to the game, even if it's not gonna have every detail optimized. You can't please everyone everytime. If you don't want people screaming MTG clone ... stop copying MTG mechanics.

Xenavire
08-30-2013, 05:52 PM
I just want to make a point here - the mulligans need to be balanced, and drop one is the most balanced kind. It is balanced because there is a penalty involved, but it is an option you can use - learning to use it well is a high level skill. So just practice, it helps.

You don't want to argue about mulligans, or CZE might just take them away, and we will be stuck with what we get. (Much like Yugioh, no mulligans there either. I know the systems are wildly different, but imagine MTG without mulligans, and you will see my point.)

Just be thankful they let you have a mulligan at all. I know I am.

Grumph
08-30-2013, 05:55 PM
The differences between MTG's land system and hexes resource system are subtle bbut very well thought out. The sting to mana flood screw/flood has been mitigated very well with the combination of threshold/resource pool and charge powefs.powers. out of the 20 or so games i played at gencon there only one or two matches uere i won or lost to resource issues.

Xenavire
08-30-2013, 06:14 PM
The differences between MTG's land system and hexes resource system are subtle bbut very well thought out. The sting to mana flood screw/flood has been mitigated very well with the combination of threshold/resource pool and charge powefs.powers. out of the 20 or so games i played at gencon there only one or two matches uere i won or lost to resource issues.

For premade decks that is a good ratio. Even if thats just a good day.

Chark
08-30-2013, 06:21 PM
Something to remember about mulligan rules, resource systems, generic card draw, hero mechanic powers, and best-of-one matches: players will always clamor to adjust those in such a way as to reduce randomness in the game. There is a very self-serving reason for that. They think they will benefit way more from less randomness, because more game outcomes come down to skill. Unfortunately, most players tend to think that they are better then average (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority).

So you have a large number of players that think they are better then average. Combine this with the negativity bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias) of remembering only when they were resource screwed during the game and of course almost everyone will scream to remove the randomness from the game.

However when you do remove random elements from the game, you reduce the chance that a less skilled player will win any given match. And those wins are important to have. It allows average and below average players to both attribute those random wins to themselves and to have a scapegoat (the game system) for when they lose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-serving_bias). I.e. "I just beat a Hex pro, I am awesome!" and "I only lost to that guy because I stumbled on a resource on turn 3--I am way better than him."

The game designers can't actually tell you this, or they risk alienating you as a customer. The sad reality is that most people just aren't as good as they think they are. These systems exist to protect them from themselves.

Terras
08-30-2013, 07:20 PM
Brilliant just ain't what it used to be.

Mindless
08-31-2013, 02:05 PM
Something to remember about mulligan rules, resource systems, generic card draw, hero mechanic powers, and best-of-one matches: players will always clamor to adjust those in such a way as to reduce randomness in the game. There is a very self-serving reason for that. They think they will benefit way more from less randomness, because more game outcomes come down to skill. Unfortunately, most players tend to think that they are better then average (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority).

So you have a large number of players that think they are better then average. Combine this with the negativity bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias) of remembering only when they were resource screwed during the game and of course almost everyone will scream to remove the randomness from the game.

However when you do remove random elements from the game, you reduce the chance that a less skilled player will win any given match. And those wins are important to have. It allows average and below average players to both attribute those random wins to themselves and to have a scapegoat (the game system) for when they lose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-serving_bias). I.e. "I just beat a Hex pro, I am awesome!" and "I only lost to that guy because I stumbled on a resource on turn 3--I am way better than him."

The game designers can't actually tell you this, or they risk alienating you as a customer. The sad reality is that most people just aren't as good as they think they are. These systems exist to protect them from themselves.

I think that this (the scapegoat part) have been said alot of times. Especially in the mana screw threads. People like having a scapegoat. At the same time it is kinda stupid to have bad luck as a factor in the game if it's easy to avoid. Many people see the system that is currently used as something they are both familiar with and content with and thus see no need for change. In the end all that matters is that the game uses a system that isn't thought to be useless or straight up bad but rather interesting (but no need for it to be optimal) and that attact certain people but maybe not all. I'm not saying we should be content with the current system rather I encourage all to voice their opinion regardless of what side they are on but in the end that will not "fix" things instantly nor in any time soon. It might give the developers ideas for future sets or even games/game modes but that is most likely all.

Also self-serving bias is something that needs to go away in gaming and in some cases sports as well. Playing dota (2) or lol and it is more obvious what you wrote in your whole post can be applied to gamers. People need to learn that they can make mistakes and that it's their fault. When they realize their mistake they can make improvements, even if its hard and sometimes not understandable. Also if they do it it builds a far better community as people might also learn sportmanship.