PDA

View Full Version : Mulligan



wasichu
10-11-2013, 06:01 AM
I know when I play peeps in magic most I meet and including myself wish you had one non penalized mulligan. I know in the Duels of the Planeswalkers they allow one free mulli and in two headed giant. I just don,t see it as game-breaking to allow that. Whats the most painful of the minus one card off first mulligan is when ya get another one land hand or no land. Sure the odds of the other guy winning are greater, but to me I enjoy a good battle not a stomping because someone got manna screwed but thats me.

Soul-of-Void
10-11-2013, 06:09 AM
as i seen many posts about that i agree there could be one free muligan when you have 0 or 7 resource cards draw.

SomeoneRandom
10-11-2013, 06:11 AM
I could see changing the mulligan rules for the more casual formats or best of 1 rooms, but I wouldn't want to change it for any of the competitive formats or best of 3 formats to preserve playtesting. Going down to 6 isn't that big of a hindrance.

Berkhtar
10-11-2013, 06:12 AM
The net is dark and full of cryers?

Remember GoT... think she mentioned it a few times ;)

ravushimo
10-11-2013, 06:15 AM
2 non-lands hands in row happen for one streamer yesterday... it sucked :D

keroko
10-11-2013, 06:21 AM
no free mulligans - it encourages under-landing and causes turn 4 deaths from acceleration.

residualshade
10-11-2013, 06:34 AM
mulligan rules have always been my biggest complaint in magic. while i dont aggree mulligans should have no penalty i think a penalty that doesnt increase the likely hood for a bad hand is the way to go. I remember a tcg where when you muliganed the opponent got to draw an extra card. this only worked though because your starting handed size was less then maximum handsize.

Jugan
10-11-2013, 06:36 AM
It is gamebreaking.

Grimthorn
10-11-2013, 06:51 AM
This probably should be moved to General Discussion.

I don't know enough on the topic, but it seems like it would be a good optional game/tournament/match setting that could be configurable. I don't like 1 free mulligan in general, but 1 free if you have 0 lands or all lands seems ok to me.

Or maybe make it a risky proposition. Choose regular mulligan, or 1 free full mulligan, but then you must play with the next hand no matter what it is.

Rhuidan
10-11-2013, 07:11 AM
no free mulligans - it encourages under-landing and causes turn 4 deaths from acceleration.

For something like swiss booster draft, sure why not for people learning the game. For competitive 8-4,4-3-2-2 shouldn't happen. For reasons like ^ and more, mulligan is part of the game and that's one of the core ideas behind proper deck building.

DanTheMeek
10-11-2013, 07:12 AM
This has been discussed ad nausuem in the general forums, and Cryptozoic has given us no reason to believe they are even looking into other options for dealing with bad draws. Personally, as I've stated before, I'd prefer if they took advantage of the fact they're a computer game to not remove luck entirely, but to reduce the amount of variance, so have the system evaluate how many resources you have in your deck before dealing your opening hand and lets say on average you should draw 2 to 3 resources in your opponent hand, have it sets it up so you can never have less then two or more then 3, but how often you get two instead of 3 is based on how many resources are in your deck and a little luck and after the opening hand all bets are off so if you draw 2 resource you could then go 5 turns of no resources if your unlucky. After that just allow them to mulligan like normal, so it'd be just like the game is now, just with out as much variance in just how bad an initial draw you might get.

To me that's better then a free mulligan as it removes the worst case outliers, its based on how many resources are actually in your deck so you can't cheat the system running an exceptionally low resource deck, but still ultimately functions like the current system does for those who do like mulligans.

Anyway it doesn't hurt to keep discussing it, obviously anyone knew to the game in particularly probably will as they haven't seen the tons of topics that came before, but a free mulligan is not my personal preferred way to deal with unlucky opening hands.

SomeoneRandom
10-11-2013, 07:13 AM
Or maybe make it a risky proposition. Choose regular mulligan, or 1 free full mulligan, but then you must play with the next hand no matter what it is.

Yeah this is how other games handle this, for the most part it is either 1 free mulligan and that is it or Paris style mulligans like we currently have. Personally I think Paris is better overall because it builds skill into players, while also allowing you to recover from multiple bad hands in a row while penalizing you for using a mulligan too aggressively.

Maphalux
10-11-2013, 07:32 AM
Free mulligans favor combo and fast beatdown decks that can capitalize on fishing for a perfect hand and an easy win. There is a good reason TCGs moved away from free mulligans.

Syeblaze
10-11-2013, 08:53 AM
This has been discussed ad nausuem in the general forums, and Cryptozoic has given us no reason to believe they are even looking into other options for dealing with bad draws. Personally, as I've stated before, I'd prefer if they took advantage of the fact they're a computer game to not remove luck entirely, but to reduce the amount of variance, so have the system evaluate how many resources you have in your deck before dealing your opening hand and lets say on average you should draw 2 to 3 resources in your opponent hand, have it sets it up so you can never have less then two or more then 3, but how often you get two instead of 3 is based on how many resources are in your deck and a little luck and after the opening hand all bets are off so if you draw 2 resource you could then go 5 turns of no resources if your unlucky. After that just allow them to mulligan like normal, so it'd be just like the game is now, just with out as much variance in just how bad an initial draw you might get.

To me that's better then a free mulligan as it removes the worst case outliers, its based on how many resources are actually in your deck so you can't cheat the system running an exceptionally low resource deck, but still ultimately functions like the current system does for those who do like mulligans.

Anyway it doesn't hurt to keep discussing it, obviously anyone knew to the game in particularly probably will as they haven't seen the tons of topics that came before, but a free mulligan is not my personal preferred way to deal with unlucky opening hands.

This is definitely the best solution, imo. Still a gamble, but at least it prevents 0 resource starts.

Yoss
10-11-2013, 09:43 AM
no free mulligans - it encourages under-landing and causes turn 4 deaths from acceleration.
So enforce deck minimums in order to qualify for the special mulligan.

Bluewolf
10-11-2013, 09:43 AM
This has been discussed ad nausuem in the general forums, and Cryptozoic has given us no reason to believe they are even looking into other options for dealing with bad draws. Personally, as I've stated before, I'd prefer if they took advantage of the fact they're a computer game to not remove luck entirely, but to reduce the amount of variance, so have the system evaluate how many resources you have in your deck before dealing your opening hand and lets say on average you should draw 2 to 3 resources in your opponent hand, have it sets it up so you can never have less then two or more then 3, but how often you get two instead of 3 is based on how many resources are in your deck and a little luck and after the opening hand all bets are off so if you draw 2 resource you could then go 5 turns of no resources if your unlucky. After that just allow them to mulligan like normal, so it'd be just like the game is now, just with out as much variance in just how bad an initial draw you might get.

To me that's better then a free mulligan as it removes the worst case outliers, its based on how many resources are actually in your deck so you can't cheat the system running an exceptionally low resource deck, but still ultimately functions like the current system does for those who do like mulligans.

Anyway it doesn't hurt to keep discussing it, obviously anyone knew to the game in particularly probably will as they haven't seen the tons of topics that came before, but a free mulligan is not my personal preferred way to deal with unlucky opening hands.

+1. Too often computer TCGs ignore the advantage of being digital over paper. Some type of known coding safeguard related to resources might indeed be best. Perhaps even a more conservative version of this (ie. guaranteed 1 resource in opening hand and no more than 5).

Regardless, I do personally think something needs to be done to correct hands where one feels like they can't do anything and penalizing someone for that type of horrible draw seems anti-fun.

Quasari
10-11-2013, 10:08 AM
Any sort of resource stacking shuffle that the computer does could easily be exploited by deckbuilders, so theres one reason not to do it. Also it takes out quite the amount of skill of tuning a deck and dealing with these situations. Honestly, I don't want the computer stacking my deck.

keroko
10-11-2013, 10:34 AM
Deck builders is everyone in hex, you'll be taught how in pve, I'd wager 2 set 1 Commons bet on it.

And yes, if we knew the comp would fix us up with lands we'd abuse the mechanic for pressure on opponent / mana ramp shift.

Rhuidan
10-11-2013, 10:46 AM
This has been discussed ad nausuem in the general forums, and Cryptozoic has given us no reason to believe they are even looking into other options for dealing with bad draws. Personally, as I've stated before, I'd prefer if they took advantage of the fact they're a computer game to not remove luck entirely, but to reduce the amount of variance, so have the system evaluate how many resources you have in your deck before dealing your opening hand and lets say on average you should draw 2 to 3 resources in your opponent hand, have it sets it up so you can never have less then two or more then 3, but how often you get two instead of 3 is based on how many resources are in your deck and a little luck and after the opening hand all bets are off so if you draw 2 resource you could then go 5 turns of no resources if your unlucky. After that just allow them to mulligan like normal, so it'd be just like the game is now, just with out as much variance in just how bad an initial draw you might get.

To me that's better then a free mulligan as it removes the worst case outliers, its based on how many resources are actually in your deck so you can't cheat the system running an exceptionally low resource deck, but still ultimately functions like the current system does for those who do like mulligans.

Anyway it doesn't hurt to keep discussing it, obviously anyone knew to the game in particularly probably will as they haven't seen the tons of topics that came before, but a free mulligan is not my personal preferred way to deal with unlucky opening hands.

The current situation is the best situation for professional levels. By giving guaranteed resources at the beginning of the hand, this is just asking for floods of weenie decks with no answer to them, this mechanic would be broken and abused. In my experience, having a hand with 0 lands is quite rare if you have built your deck properly.

Luck is however luck, you have the same chance as your opponent getting a resourceless first hand.

keroko
10-11-2013, 10:53 AM
It really doesn't happen unreasonably often if you build a deck right.

I know that statement offers little solace when your staring at a screw/flood.

Deciphered
10-11-2013, 10:53 AM
So strange how many people come in to say that if we changed mulligan rules, the game would be hurt, but never acknowledge the fact that you're going to lose some percentage of your games to mana screws also hurts the game.

You say that people would change how they build decks to take advantage of a new rule? I say they already change how they build decks to mitigate the risk of mana screw. How if your theoretical deckbuilding environment any better or worse than the extant one?

You say that it would remove the skill aspect of building in the correct number of lands? I say that it would just open up a different set of deckbuilding skills. (And honestly, how exciting is it really to figure out your mana ratios?)

Not saying that the people arguing against the OP are wrong. I'm saying that they aren't making their cases very well that the changed environment would somehow be worse than the existing one.

keroko
10-11-2013, 10:55 AM
It's different because you can run less lands than you might normally and depend on a mechanic to give you a particular form of starting hand.

Its a form of card advantage through deliberate manipulation of the resource guarantee.

Rhuidan
10-11-2013, 11:08 AM
So strange how many people come in to say that if we changed mulligan rules, the game would be hurt, but never acknowledge the fact that you're going to lose some percentage of your games to mana screws also hurts the game.

You say that people would change how they build decks to take advantage of a new rule? I say they already change how they build decks to mitigate the risk of mana screw. How if your theoretical deckbuilding environment any better or worse than the extant one?

You say that it would remove the skill aspect of building in the correct number of lands? I say that it would just open up a different set of deckbuilding skills. (And honestly, how exciting is it really to figure out your mana ratios?)

Not saying that the people arguing against the OP are wrong. I'm saying that they aren't making their cases very well that the changed environment would somehow be worse than the existing one.


If you wanted to run a more expensive deck, requiring long term play to get it going, this idea will be impossible if your opponent had 5 1/1+ troops on the field before your deck gets going. In the case of a deck like this you do have little fodders to chump block and limp your way to the 4/5/6 creatures

houjix
10-11-2013, 11:09 AM
It's different because you can run less lands than you might normally and depend on a mechanic to give you a particular form of starting hand.

Its a form of card advantage through deliberate manipulation of the resource guarantee.

One which everyone would have the same access too.

The point is though that would requires cards to be balanced in a whole different way. Being guaranteed to be able to pay for a 1 drop on turn 1 greatly changes the game dynamics.

loopholist3
10-11-2013, 11:23 AM
Any sort of resource stacking shuffle that the computer does could easily be exploited by deckbuilders, so theres one reason not to do it. Also it takes out quite the amount of skill of tuning a deck and dealing with these situations. Honestly, I don't want the computer stacking my deck.

Can you give an example? I know several ideas that have been suggested before have had problems with them, but if the only stacking you do is the number of lands in your opening hand, and that number is based off what would be in your opening hand on average, I really don't see how that can be abused.

About the only way I can see it getting abused is if you use it along side of mulligans, and you have a deck with only 4 creature cards in it and they are all the same, and you are willing to mulligan as many times as possible to get that creature. Then the suggested method would result in you getting said card 3.5% more often, that is only 1 in 28.6 games that it mattered. And that is assuming that the math that they use to determine if you get 6 mana instead of 7 is the same as mine. With a little bit of effort, that percentage could probably be brought down.

loopholist3
10-11-2013, 11:34 AM
On the other side you could put only 9 mana in your deck and try to play a deck based off 1 drops, it would affect 30% of games, which is a significant number. But then you are planning to play 1 1 drop every turn, and win. But this number could be greatly reduced if you made the rigging formula allow for 3 different results instead of 2, but then the math starts getting complicated, and my confidence of finding the outliers becomes reduced.

SomeoneRandom
10-11-2013, 11:53 AM
I don't want a computer pre-selecting cards for me. That should be a deck-building choice, everyone is comfortable with different land counts at different play levels. I am fairly certain I can outplay most of my opponents and because of that I want to lower the chances that something like mana screw comes into play. Because of that I play 25-28 in most decks (also rarely play aggro) and in limited I tend to run 18 or 17 with 2 mana sources.

When you have the computer pre-select things it lowers variance and lowers the affect you have on the outcome of the game. Even if it is small and you may think it is positive, it is just a type of restriction and a design choice. Every resource system has one, if its not screw, then its curve, if its not curve, then its card advantage... Hex just decided to go with the tride and true screw which has been shown to be the most consistent and allows for the best quality of high level play.

Jinxies
10-11-2013, 12:04 PM
I was going to post a reply but SomeoneRandom said it well.

keroko
10-11-2013, 12:13 PM
It's a 'luck' press, it'd lead to being wtfpwned - I think that worse than having to learn to build a deck around screw/flood avoidance..

Its exactly the same principle as including draw cards in a deck - you are effectively trying to make a 'smaller' than minimum deck size deck in play.

I'm not explaining that well at all.

SomeoneRandom
10-11-2013, 12:18 PM
It is a matter of consistency, you want the best card at any given moment. So you want to play with the fewest dead cards as possible. In the case of aggro decks, after lands 3 or 4 they are usually dead cards. Hence why with a system that automagically gives you 2-4 land you will abuse it to make your deck have the highest quality cards possible. Same principle why you play 40 cards or 60 cards in a deck (the minimum) highest chance to draw your best cards.

loopholist3
10-11-2013, 12:30 PM
I don't want a computer pre-selecting cards for me. That should be a deck-building choice, everyone is comfortable with different land counts at different play levels. I am fairly certain I can outplay most of my opponents and because of that I want to lower the chances that something like mana screw comes into play. Because of that I play 25-28 in most decks (also rarely play aggro) and in limited I tend to run 18 or 17 with 2 mana sources.

When you have the computer pre-select things it lowers variance and lowers the affect you have on the outcome of the game. Even if it is small and you may think it is positive, it is just a type of restriction and a design choice. Every resource system has one, if its not screw, then its curve, if its not curve, then its card advantage... Hex just decided to go with the tride and true screw which has been shown to be the most consistent and allows for the best quality of high level play.

So just numbers no sides, with 27 mana in your deck (had to choose a number), in the current system you would have the following (and these numbers are rounded):

Amount of mana: odds
0:2%
1:9%
2:21%
3:29%
4:23%
5:12%
6:3%
7:0%

So in the suggested system with 2 possible outcomes, 47% of games have been affected. With 3 possible options 26% of games have been affected. And at 4 possible result 14%.

I personally really want to eliminate mana screw, but the number of games affected is to high until you reach 4 possible results. Now 4 possible results might sound like a lot, but that number being so large does do a good job at eliminating almost every hand who is a auto-muligan. At 27 mana it eliminates <=1 and >=6, and at 22 it eliminates <= 0 and >= 5.

SomeoneRandom
10-11-2013, 01:09 PM
It is always good to see math like that which matches about what I expect, but never verified. I would just caution all those who want to completely eliminate luck by getting rid of things like Mana Screw, it is core to a game that worse players have a chance to win against better players.

Take a look at a game called Spoils which basically was MTG, but with all luck removed. It was destroyed super quickly because why would players who were sub-par bother to continue playing.

There is a reason every game has some element of chance, shuffling and seeing only a portion of your deck is part of the chance and skill involved in this game. Learn to optimize what you have instead of trying to change the game to eliminate all bad luck. Or you could always just go play Chess and never worry about luck again!

wasichu
10-11-2013, 02:39 PM
My thing is when I shuffle my own decks I know they are random, I have been watchin the computer shuffler in alpha and its like all computer shufflers even in mtgo some times you get a hand that would be darn near impossible with real life shuffling. This is why I would like a free first mulligan. Heck you could even make it a penalty to reveal your hand so the opponent would have advantage of knowing your deck and also showing you have no land what so ever. Or you could have the computer auto mulli if it was to give a no land hand.

Hooloovoo
10-11-2013, 03:12 PM
My thing is when I shuffle my own decks I know they are random, I have been watchin the computer shuffler in alpha and its like all computer shufflers even in mtgo some times you get a hand that would be darn near impossible with real life shuffling...

I don't mean to be negative, but the two pieces of your statement here make me very suspicious that your own shuffling method makes the deck randomly shuffled. I don't know that large-scale data tests for randomness have been done with the Hex shuffling system yet, but the MTGO one has been tested to death.

If your deck has 27 land/resource out of 60, then you should get a 7-card hand with no land/resource cards about 1 out of every 91 hands. If you push the boundary lower, the no land/resource hand count should be higher -- with only 24 land/resource cards, you should get a 7-card hand with no land/resources about 1 out of every 46 hands or so. This may still be a bit too abstract -- if you play an evening of games where you end up drawing 12 7-card hands, with the 27 land deck you will have about a 12.5% chance that at least once in that evening you will get a hand with no land/resources, and with the 24 land deck you will have about a 23% chance that at least once in that evening you will get a hand with no land/resources.

If you are regularly playing 12 game sessions with land ratios like these, and don't get hands with no land/resources that often, then your shuffling is not really random.

Aldazar
10-11-2013, 04:01 PM
When you have the computer pre-select things it lowers variance and lowers the affect you have on the outcome of the game.

Not sure about this... Reducing variance, or in this case, reducing the randomness of draws, reduces the element of luck or chance, and thus increases the amount you affect the game, not the other way around as you suggest...

Put simply, less variance/luck/chance -> more of effect from players

bangari
10-11-2013, 04:29 PM
If 1 free mulligan is the standard, then running less land would also be standard since it would be the optimal choice. Your chance of needing the mulligan thus increases and nothing changes at the end of the day.

Another explanation. You have X land because you believe that its the optimal amount. With X land, you will get your land drops correct 90% of the time (lets just assume thats the optimal % to strive for) while minimizing land numbers. If you get a free mulligan, you still want land drops to be correct at 90% of the time. Since "chance of correct land drop rate" is now higher because you get a free redraw, the optimal choice is to remove land so you get back to the 90% rate and add other playable cards.

At the end of the day, after players adjust, an optimized deck under "no free mulligan rules" and "free mulligan rules" will pretty much have the exact same chance of drawing a bad hand before game starts.

Free mulligan rules only work to improve consistency of the decks (relative to each player) between friends as a house rule because no one is changing their decks. In Hex, people will do so and there will be zero gains.

Aldazar
10-12-2013, 01:16 AM
If 1 free mulligan is the standard, then running less land would also be standard since it would be the optimal choice. Your chance of needing the mulligan thus increases and nothing changes at the end of the day.

Another explanation. You have X land because you believe that its the optimal amount. With X land, you will get your land drops correct 90% of the time (lets just assume thats the optimal % to strive for) while minimizing land numbers. If you get a free mulligan, you still want land drops to be correct at 90% of the time. Since "chance of correct land drop rate" is now higher because you get a free redraw, the optimal choice is to remove land so you get back to the 90% rate and add other playable cards.

At the end of the day, after players adjust, an optimized deck under "no free mulligan rules" and "free mulligan rules" will pretty much have the exact same chance of drawing a bad hand before game starts.

Free mulligan rules only work to improve consistency of the decks (relative to each player) between friends as a house rule because no one is changing their decks. In Hex, people will do so and there will be zero gains.

Hmm if it becomes optimal to run less land, but deck size minimums are unchanged, that means it is optimal to run more non-land cards. Presumably non-land cards are more interesting than land cards (generally speaking), so decks may become more interesting? Just a thought... Haven't done any rigorous analysis around my "theory"...=)

escapeRoute
10-12-2013, 02:07 AM
No... It just becomes optimal to run small aggro decks and u end up making control/combo/hugecreaturestimmydecks less optimals...