PDA

View Full Version : A look at Mulligans



Pseudoradius
11-24-2013, 04:52 PM
Chance is an essential part of almost any TCG/CCG out there and Hex is no exception. The variety randomness provides turns every match into something new, maybe similar, but never the same. (Ok, there's a ridiculously low chance, that two matches will play out the same way but that's at max once in a millenium.)

However, something else also happens when randomness is introduced into a game. It becomes less consistent. This is bad because you can be the best player on the planet and still lose a game against someone who is way worse than you are, simply by chance. If you want to have any sort of meaningful gameplay, you need a mechanism to prevent this from happening too often.

This is where Mulligans come in, also known as the ability to draw a new opening hand. Being able to get rid of bad hands increases your chances of getting a good hand, therefore increasing the consistency of your deck.
The problem with simple redraws however is, that you can simply redraw your hand until you get the perfect one you want to have. In other words, simple redraws are too consistent and make for boring games because they eliminate too much variety.
This is why there is the drawback, that every time you Mulligan you have to draw one card less than you had before. You can't simply redraw until you stumble across the perfect hand, you have to take the playable ones and make them work, bringing back the variety, but also having more consistent gameplay.

Now there is still a problem with Mulligans, namely that they punish players for having bad luck. This is a necessary evil, but still it is an evil and since there have been suggestions for changing the drawback I thought why not go over all options I can come up and have a look at them.


Now before before I start I want to go over some criteria for comparing the different options and the only restriction I want to put on them.
First the restriction: The drawback only consists of manipulating a single aspect. As far as I am concerned "Easy to learn, hard to master." is what you should strive for when making competitive games and therefore I see it justified to only consider the simplest version of drawbacks.
On to the criteria:
Convergence: How much pressure to keep the hand does the drawback put on a player? How many Mulligans are reasonable before they accumulate to certain death? Too many Mulligans and you get too consistent and you lose variety, too less and they don't do their job of providing more consistency.
Equality: Does the drawback punish certain decks or playstyles over others? Only a balanced game is a good game, having inherent balance issues in the ruleset almost certainly is problematic.
Room for compensation: How can players mitigate the adverse effects of a Mulligan? How hard is it to come back from one or more Mulligans? They are supposed to give players more consistency, not ruin their chances of victory.


Ok, we know what criteria we are looking at, let's look at what we could manipulate to create a drawback.
The number of cards in the starting hand, Health, Charges, Cost of cards/powers or the Deck itself.
Also, why not make use of the scientific method and take a look at a fixed number of possible redraws as a pseudo control group, which doesn't have any drawbacks and also is a viable alternative to the current Mulligans.

In fact, let's start with it and work through the list from there.

Fixed number of possible redraws.
Convergence: Since the number is fixed players are forced to take a hand as soon as they run out, so there is no problem here.
Equality: There is no drawback, so no problems here.
Room for compensation: Again no drawback, no need to compensate.

Manipulating the deck.
Since there are some abusable interactions with the graveyard, voiding cards as a drawback looks like the only good option to me. Basically the drawback is that you get milled.
Convergence: Very bad. Players can put a lot of cards in their deck to get all the redraws they want to have. Alternatively it can be used to manipulate luck via thinning out the deck.
Equality: This should hurt everyone equally.
Room for compensation: Enough to be abusable.

Manipulating the cost of cards.
This comes down to messing either with the curve of your deck hurting you or the deck of your opponent helping him for one or a few turns.
Convergence: Very strong. You can hardly allow yourself to mulligan even once, if it gives your opponent some sort of cost advantage in the early turns.
Equality: Decks with a low curve are favored because they can maybe afford to mulligan once or punish an opponent for doing a mulligan.
Room for compensation: Not very much, cost advantages are hard to compensate, even if you are completely resource efficient.

Manipulating the cost of powers or Charges
This is from a post of havoc which is partially the inspiration for me posting this.
It involves increasing the cost of the chargepower of your hero. Alternatives would be giving your opponent charges every time you mulligan.
Convergence: Very bad. Chargepowers while being a nice aspect of Hex aren't neccessarily a centerpiece of a deck and it is easily possible to build decks which completely ignore them, making this a perfect candidate for infinite redraws through not caring about your champion.
Giving an opponent a lot of Charges on the other hand has less of this problem because some chargepowers are extremely dangerous when they can hit every turn. On the other hand you will have to play those champions if you want to prevent your opponent from abusing these kind of Mulligans.
Equality: This favors decks which rely less on their chargepowers or in the othe case Chamions with strong chargepowers.
Room for compensation: Since there is room for abusing the system there obviously is too much of this.

Manipulating health.
Take damage for every redraw.
Convergence: Quite good. Since having no health means you lose, you can't redraw as you please but have to settle down at one point.
Equality: This favors decks which deal damage fast and early, since you are weakening yourself in advance. Also decks with lifegain are favored, since they can completely mitigate the drawback and therefore allow themselves to redraw more often.
Room for compensation: Incorporating ways to get the life back into your deck.

The standard Mulligans as we know them.
Convergence: Quite high. Less cards can deal with less stuff, so you have to settle down on a hand early.
Equality: This favors decks with a lot of card synergy/quality, since smaller hands which are drawn from these decks are still able to handle a lot of situations.
Room for compensation: This is mostly a question of making up the card disadvantage, which can happen in as many ways as there are possibilities for favorable exchanges or additional card draw. Also, since these favor decks with good synergy and/or cards, you can even compensate the effect of Mulligans via good deckbuilding.


If we throw away all the abusable drawbacks, we end up with the standard Mulligans, the lowered health Mulligans and giving players a fixed number of redraws.
Going further with those, the lowered health Mulligans are also not very desireable, because they favor aggressive playstyles and also any lifegain mechanic, which can turn out to have quite a limiting effect on how many viable decks there are.
This makes it come down to the question, whether having the standard Mulligans is better than just allowing players to redraw their hands a couple of times.
There isn't really a difference in terms of convergence, since both lead to players taking a hand fairly quickly, so we will have to look at the other points. What you get from there is, that the standard Mulligans favor good deckbuilding (or punish bad deckbuilding, take your pick from the two) additionally to a good deck on average beating a bad deck simply by being a better deck.
Now let me help you remember an earlier part of this post:

However, something else also happens when randomness is introduced into a game. It becomes less consistent. This is bad because you can be the best player on the planet and still lose a game against someone who is way worse than you are, simply by chance. If you want to have any sort of meaningful gameplay, you need a mechanism to prevent this from happening too often.
We want to prevent good players from losing against bad players through chance as much as possible. Since a part of being a good player is having a good deck, favoring these kind of decks helps achieving this goal.

With all that being said, my conclusion is, that if you restrict yourself to only having simple drawbacks to Mulligans, the standard Mulligans are the best we have. Of course I am open to criticism, so if you have any feel free to post it.

Malakili
11-24-2013, 05:16 PM
The other thing is that in competitive formats you will always be playing best of 3s or other multiple game formats. In other words that helps mitigate randomness .The game will likely never be 100% balanced for two random decks with no side boarding in a One-off format. But no game that matters will be played like that.

Pseudoradius
11-24-2013, 10:31 PM
The other thing is that in competitive formats you will always be playing best of 3s or other multiple game formats. In other words that helps mitigate randomness .The game will likely never be 100% balanced for two random decks with no side boarding in a One-off format. But no game that matters will be played like that.
How much a Best of 3 or other multiple games format mitigates randomness depends a lot on how much it is mitigated in single games.
Also, all games matter to a certain extent. Every match is a challenge for a player to overcome and if chance plays too much of a role players will feel like they don't have any influence on what's going on. In other words the gameplay will be bad.

Svenn
11-25-2013, 08:12 AM
I've got one more idea for you to analyze... The standard mulligan with 1 free mulligan allowed ONLY IF your entire hand has no resources or is all resources. It might be a way to mitigate getting completely screwed with a terrible starting draw, and it doesn't allow for exploiting for combos or anything.

Vorpal
11-25-2013, 08:24 AM
I feel like one free mulligan, where you dump your entire hand and get a new one of the same size, would not be terribly abuseable.

If you got a hand with no resources, despite having 28 of them in your deck, I see no particular reason to punish players.

With 1/2 of your deck being resources, you'll see a 0 resource 7 card hand every 128 games.

That's not a particularly huge number and it means everyone in beta will have had this happen multiple times already.

Now, if you include one free mulligan, you'll wind up with a hand of 7 cards and no resources only every 16384 games.

That's obviously a phenomenal improvement.

I see no reason to punish a player for having been screwed over by the RNG and getting 0 lands even with a decent amount of them in his deck.

SomeoneRandom
11-25-2013, 08:48 AM
I agree in general that I think the current system is best. I think we have addressed the free mulligan multiple times on this forum.


We want to prevent good players from losing against bad players through chance as much as possible. Since a part of being a good player is having a good deck, favoring these kind of decks helps achieving this goal.


I agree with this to some extent, but you have to still have that be a decent chance. Take a look at a card game called Spoils. It pretty much had as close to 0 luck as possible for a TCG and it died a miserable death because it couldn't keep players interested. It is just like Chess, games with 95%+ skill are not very popular because the casual players or semi-competitives have no chance. In MTG you could net deck something and luck your way to a top 8 PT with way less skill than people who got cut. Obviously skill will improve your chances, but this small chance drives semi-pro players to show up to tournaments. If you remove as much luck as possible you will lose players for sure.


I see no reason to punish a player for having been screwed over by the RNG and getting 0 lands even with a decent amount of them in his deck.

Again this has been addressed countless times, if the mechanic of a free mulligan with 0 resources is implemented it will trend the curve of resources lower to abuse that fact. This will end with close to the same amount of games lost to luck as before just with a tilt towards the aggressive decks because they can abuse this better than control decks.

There is always an element of "screw" in a game, the skill and strategy is preparing the best you can and taking the resources you have been given by the shuffler and making the best of them including planning for future draws.

Vorpal
11-25-2013, 08:55 AM
Again this has been addressed countless times, if the mechanic of a free mulligan with 0 resources is implemented it will trend the curve of resources lower to abuse that fact.

Why do you think that will happen with a free mulligan, but is not happening now?

Remember, you guys think one card is not a big deal.

You can already do a mulligan if your initial hand has zero resources. So why isn't the curve of resources already bent lower to abuse this?

ossuary
11-25-2013, 09:00 AM
I personally have no problem with the "1 free mulligan if it's actually a mulligan hand" rule... in fact, my friends and I all use it in our casual games. Beyond that one possible update, I'm fine with the existing rules.

That being said, even with 1 free mulligan on 0 or 7 lands, it WOULD allow for some small amount of abuse in specific cases. There have been successful tournament decks (combo decks, obviously) that run with only 2-3 lands, or only 3-4 non-lands in the whole deck... the idea being that you can mulligan all the way down to 2-3 cards and still have a potential wincon. Obviously, that kind of craziness doesn't happen in the first couple of sets of a TCG, but by the time you get as old as Magic and have 10 or 20 sets available to choose from, wackiness can ensue. :)

Svenn
11-25-2013, 10:09 AM
Again this has been addressed countless times, if the mechanic of a free mulligan with 0 resources is implemented it will trend the curve of resources lower to abuse that fact. This will end with close to the same amount of games lost to luck as before just with a tilt towards the aggressive decks because they can abuse this better than control decks.

There is always an element of "screw" in a game, the skill and strategy is preparing the best you can and taking the resources you have been given by the shuffler and making the best of them including planning for future draws.

I don't have time to mess with them, but I'd be curious to see the numbers on chances of getting resource screwed with the current trend of resources in a deck (about 40% Resources I think, that's what I run) versus a deck intentionally running low on resources with a single free mulligan for having no lands at all.

If you run low on resources that means there's a good chance that either your free mulligan won't get you a better hand which negates that whole thing or there's a good chance that you'll end up with a single resource in your hand and won't even get a free mulligan, and then all your following mulligans have low chances for a decent hand as well. It would still be very risky to run with less resources I think.

Also, "screw" is not fun for either side. It's not fun losing to it and it's not fun winning to it. I don't want to remove the randomness, I LOVE randomness. The skill in a card game comes from knowing how to use the cards in your hand. Getting screwed so you have no decisions isn't related to skill (other than the slight bit of knowing when to mulligan, but having a hand with no lands isn't some sort of skilled decision, it's just a straight up handicap).

Zomnivore
11-25-2013, 11:54 AM
I think there are flaws with the basic concept of shuffling, and I don't know where those problems seep into this problem.
==
Computers being not-random as far as I know...means that you literally can't get a random result, random as an expectation is probably not a realistic one.

Its not a ground breaking or game destroying concept, because actual real life shuffling has critical flaws conceptually too.

So, meh I don't really care about random as a concept in regards to this design space.

So in that regard...there's a lot of open space for design to kick this up a notch... lets hear as many options as possible random and non-random eh.

The only thing you've got to orient around is that there has to be high level-quasi randomness.

Banquetto
11-25-2013, 12:38 PM
I feel like one free mulligan, where you dump your entire hand and get a new one of the same size, would not be terribly abuseable.

If you got a hand with no resources, despite having 28 of them in your deck, I see no particular reason to punish players.

If you implemented such a rule, how many resources would you have in your deck?

Hint: if the answer is still "28", you're a bad player. The correct move would be to take fewer resources, reducing the risk of mana flood, whilst taking advantage of the free mulligan opportunity to keep the chance of mana screw roughly equal.

End result: your game change has done nothing except alter the optimum number of resources in a deck.

Vorpal
11-25-2013, 12:47 PM
If you implemented such a rule, how many resources would you have in your deck?

Hint: if the answer is still "28", you're a bad player. The correct move would be to take fewer resources, reducing the risk of mana flood, whilst taking advantage of the free mulligan opportunity to keep the chance of mana screw roughly equal.

Why would this be the correct move after a free mulligan where you got no resources, but not now?

How many fewer resources are you talking about? 1? 10?

Provide math to support your assertion.


End result: your game change has done nothing except alter the optimum number of resources in a deck.

Clearly and demonstrably incorrect. I've already demonstrated how it changes the chances of having your initial card hand with no resources from an occurrence that happens once in hundreds of games to one that happens once in thousands. This is true even if it *also* reduces the optimum number of resources in a deck.

If the optimum number of resources in a deck dropped by 1 or 2, but we almost completely removed the chances of people winding up with an opening hand of no resources in a properly constructed deck, I would consider that a win/win situation.

Svenn
11-25-2013, 02:05 PM
If the optimum number of resources in a deck dropped by 1 or 2, but we almost completely removed the chances of people winding up with an opening hand of no resources in a properly constructed deck, I would consider that a win/win situation.

This. I'd say if we reduced the chances of resource screw and flood, both of which are random elements that don't actually help the game or the strategy at all, then that is a good thing. Swapping out 1-2 resources for other cards leads to more strategy in the game while not really removing the randomness.

Also, 28 lands? o_O I run 23-24 in pretty much all of my decks.

SomeoneRandom
11-25-2013, 02:36 PM
Why do you think that will happen with a free mulligan, but is not happening now?

Remember, you guys think one card is not a big deal.

You can already do a mulligan if your initial hand has zero resources. So why isn't the curve of resources already bent lower to abuse this?

I am at work so I don't have time to crunch numbers and what not. Currently mulliganing is very cost-heavy. You don't want to do it more than once and three times is almost conceding the game. Because of this fact many people play higher amounts of resources to compensate, I personally play 25-29 depending on the speed of the deck, available ramp/fixing and card draw. By adding a free mulligan before Paris mulligans hit smart players will cut resources to use this fact. In slower decks this would probably only amount to 1-2 resources because you still need to hit high curve cards. However, in faster decks where you only need 1-3 resources to function you can probably cut down closer to 3-5 getting down to 18-22 resources instead. You now have 3 chances to hit the needed amount of resources before it really starts to hurt your game (first hand, free mulligan, Paris to 6).



This. I'd say if we reduced the chances of resource screw and flood, both of which are random elements that don't actually help the game or the strategy at all, then that is a good thing. Swapping out 1-2 resources for other cards leads to more strategy in the game while not really removing the randomness.

Also, 28 lands? o_O I run 23-24 in pretty much all of my decks.


It is fairly common in MTG for control decks to run 27-30 resources. This all comes down to letting the player mitigate randomness. Control decks and smart players can run more resources to lower the randomness and try to mitigate potential card value loss by outplaying their opponents.

Hieronymous
11-25-2013, 02:44 PM
I personally have no problem with the "1 free mulligan if it's actually a mulligan hand" rule... in fact, my friends and I all use it in our casual games. Beyond that one possible update, I'm fine with the existing rules.

That being said, even with 1 free mulligan on 0 or 7 lands, it WOULD allow for some small amount of abuse in specific cases. There have been successful tournament decks (combo decks, obviously) that run with only 2-3 lands, or only 3-4 non-lands in the whole deck... the idea being that you can mulligan all the way down to 2-3 cards and still have a potential wincon. Obviously, that kind of craziness doesn't happen in the first couple of sets of a TCG, but by the time you get as old as Magic and have 10 or 20 sets available to choose from, wackiness can ensue. :)

Yeah, I'd be fine with a "1 free True Mulligan if no resources/all resources" rule.

Beyond that though -- if we get to that point where there are that many crazy cards ten years down the line, then they could always change the mulligan rules back. This gets back to the "Hex isn't Magic" thing -- rules that are necessary in Magic because of its lengthy history are part of the reason I'm playing Hex, not Magic -- I like having a fresh start in a new game without twenty year's worth of rules cruft. We can worry about the craziness and special exploits etc. when they happen down the road and change the rules then as appropriate. Hex is a living game and doesn't and won't need to have the exact same ruleset for its entire lifespan.

Vorpal
11-25-2013, 03:13 PM
I think dropping from 24 to 22 resources would be unambiguously better for the game. I would be completely fine with a drop from 24 to 20 as well.

If you have 24 resources in your deck, you'll face an opening hand of 0 resources roughly every 36 games. That's actually a really high rate of occurrence, IMO. Subjectively, you'll feel like it happens all the damn time.

Resources are boring cards. You only include them because you have to. I'd rather have more 'real' cards without going to something extreme like HEX where your mana curve is set in stone (which is boring in the other direction - everyone's deck plays the same way because they have the exact same mana curve and are all affording the same cards at the same time and have the same deck composition).

If mulliganing is currently very cost heavy in the form of a lost card, then that is an additional argument, IMO, to let you mulligan without dropping a card if you drew no resources.

The argument was made earlier that we don't need to do this because being down a card is not a big deal and players can just drop down to 6 cards and therefore the penalty for being screwed over by the RNG is not that big.

Now apparently we can't implement a free mulligan if no resources are drawn because people will reduce the number of resources in their decks in a way that they couldn't' before because they were unwilling to risk dropping to 6 cards if they had to mulligan because they drew no resources.

These two arguments are mutually exclusive.

Malakili
11-25-2013, 03:35 PM
Resources are only boring cards because there aren't many non-basic ones in yet. Once we begin to see more sets with more non-basic resources, they will be interesting cards, I suspect. Look at how many interesting lands there are in Magic.

SomeoneRandom
11-25-2013, 03:50 PM
Resources are only boring cards because there aren't many non-basic ones in yet. Once we begin to see more sets with more non-basic resources, they will be interesting cards, I suspect. Look at how many interesting lands there are in Magic.

We do lose SOME of that depth due to the fact that they aren't permanents. However, I agree in time there will be ones with cool effects.


stuff

Again, at work so won't go too heavily into the mathy details. However, with mulligans currently the chances of you hitting a 0 resource hand and then hitting it again are low enough that I am perfectly okay with that. As for the cost of mulligans it is all relative. For my skill level I feel like against MOST players I can play a game with 1 or 2 dead cards and still come out on top due to outplaying, outplanning and outthinking them(Again a reason I noted above for playing with more resources than others). Because of this I consider going to 6 cards not a big deal, it also doesn't decrease your chances too heavily of the proper resource curve and as long as I have some action for the first couple turns to keep myself in the game I can make up the loss fairly easily.

However, when you mulligan to 5 you disproportionally decrease your chances of a good hand by a lot. If you were aiming for 3 resources in your opener you better hope one of those two other cards is something to slow down your opponent otherwise it will be a rough place to claw back from.

Once you hit 4 I would consider that an auto-loss and play most of the game just to get intel on my opponent for subsequent matches, not reveal too much about my deck and learn what I can before losing. Sometimes you can come back from 4, but it is really rare in any sort of aggro matchup and requires your opponent to stumble in some way most of the time.

I have been playing various card games with various mulligan rules for over 17 years, and honestly I believe that Paris is the best rule for competitive play. In my opinion it isn't the most fun or interesting rule for new players, casual games or wacky formats. However, the current system is another tool in pros tool-belts to master and gives BIG depth to pre-gaming. If you have watched people pick up new decks right before a tournament you will see them stumble on mulligans even if they know the deck lists inside and out, there are situations that you need to see and learn through experience and discovery.

On a side note, if you want to talk about something more casual and how mulligans affect that I will talk about FNM a bit. FNM at my card shop is Draft, 4 rounds. When I play I expect 1 game of the night to be lost completely to luck. I straight up expect that, and I put it into all my considerations for the night. If I lose the next game to luck how does that affect my aggression this game, do I hold back card X because it is overkill and I want to save information for later games, etc etc. I personally think 1/12 games to luck is pretty damn good. I am including things like screw, flood, curve, etc. Things that I mitigate through deckbuilding, but in the end can't 100% control. Often times I won't have a game loss to something like that, but there is a luck factor in every game. Every mulligan system has its flaws, but I truly believe that the current system is the best in the long run for competitive play.

Vorpal
11-25-2013, 04:03 PM
You may be completely right, SomeoneRandom, about the virtues of the current mulligan system for competitive play.

However, there's no reason different formats couldn't have different mulligan rules.

Casual players who just want to play a game after work are going to be way less forgiving of getting destroyed because they randomly drew zero resources than competitive, pro players who play dozens of games a night.

My own position is that either dropping down to 6 cards is a big deal, or it isn't.

If it is a big deal, asking players to mulligan when they draw 0 resources of a well constructed deck is asking them to just straight up lose the match because of RNG. People lose to RNG all the time - but people feel a loss like that much more keenly if they think they have lost from the beginning and never had a chance at all. If the end of a long hard fought game comes down to a coin flip whether they win or their opponent wins, they will feel much better about it than if the lost at the beginning because they had a bad hand, even though in both cases they are losing because of randomness. Most players will have a very different perspective on this than decades long TCG pros, as well.

If dropping down to 6 cards is not a big deal, then I see no reason to object that a free mulligan if no resources are drawn will somehow enable abusive behavior. That exact behavior could be taking place right now with a 6 card hand instead of 7, which is essentially the same thing.

Pseudoradius
11-26-2013, 07:41 PM
However, there's no reason different formats couldn't have different mulligan rules.
Yes there is. No matter the format it is still the same game. Having different Mulligan rules depending on the format introduces inconsisteny. Not to mention that it would enable stuff like "Lol, ur playing with sissy noob extramulls!". There will be enough annoyance by dickish players, no need to also provide some ammunition for them.

Also, if dropping down to 6 isn't a big deal then there is also no reason to not do it. Because as already said, it isn't a big deal. That kind of argument goes both ways.

On another note regarding this little bit here:

If it is a big deal, asking players to mulligan when they draw 0 resources of a well constructed deck is asking them to just straight up lose the match because of RNG.
First off, having one card less is by no means a big enough disadvantage that it makes you lose a game straight up. You are blowing this way out of proportion. Also keep in mind, that no matter whether players redraw 7 or 6 cards, the outcome of both cases will almost always be better than a 0 resource hand. Especially when you redraw from a well constructed deck, because those have plenty of playable 6 card hands, if not even quite a number of playable 5 card hands should the need arrive.
In other words, that part doesn't really make sense.

What it comes down to in the end is, that Mulligans are there to increase the chance of players having a playable hand at the start and they are doing their job the way they are now in a simple and understandable manner without any ifs and whens to complicate things. I doubt, that changing that is worth it.

SomeoneRandom
11-26-2013, 08:14 PM
If dropping down to 6 cards is not a big deal, then I see no reason to object that a free mulligan if no resources are drawn will somehow enable abusive behavior. That exact behavior could be taking place right now with a 6 card hand instead of 7, which is essentially the same thing.

It comes down to the fact that there is a disadvantage. I agree that I don't think going to 6 is a BIG deal. It definitely will matter if the game is super close and comes down to the wire; however, you can easily come back from 6. The point is though that it is a COST either way. Nobody wants to mulligan down to 6, but it is recoverable from which is why the current rule is good. If you end up going to free mulligans for no/7 resources it is just another way for people to abuse the system.

As for different mulligans in different formats, I don't really have an issue with that changing for anything that doesn't require an entry fee. I also don't have an issue with different mulligans for formats that might take entry fees, but are more/less forgiving. For example I think the EDH mulligan rules fit it perfectly. You are running a 99 card singleton deck so it is fine for the mulligan rules to be a bit more forgiving. Also honestly unless I am playing mock matches for playtesting I want to be at 7 cards after mulligan for play testing purposes most of the time.

That being said I could see it being slightly confusing to new players and a bit of a shock moving from something like a more casual/pve environment to drafting or competitive queues.

Vorpal
11-26-2013, 10:01 PM
Yes there is. No matter the format it is still the same game. Having different Mulligan rules depending on the format introduces inconsisteny


I'm afraid you're in for some rude surprises then. The rules for the different formats are going to be quite different. Different cardsets, different champions, different rules for equipment... there is going to be great inconsistency between the various formats.



What it comes down to in the end is, that Mulligans are there to increase the chance of players having a playable hand at the start and they are doing their job the way they are now in a simple and understandable manner

The proposed change is also simple and understandable. Eminently so.


I If you end up going to free mulligans for no/7 resources it is just another way for people to abuse the system.

How? Provide details.

Pseudoradius
11-27-2013, 05:50 AM
I'm afraid you're in for some rude surprises then. The rules for the different formats are going to be quite different. Different cardsets, different champions, different rules for equipment... there is going to be great inconsistency between the various formats.
Which are all rules regarding deckbuilding, but none of them change how the game works at a basic level. Since players will have different decks no matter the format, deckbuilding restrictions are also hardly changing anything, except that the decks may look a little bit weird or unusual.

And as I already said, there are going to be toxic people at some point and I bet that they will start raging as soon as someone gets one of those free 0/7 resource redraws, because it is a reason and that's all these people need.


The proposed change is also simple and understandable. Eminently so.
True, but if you go through changing from one system to an other, there has to be a good reason to do so. And I don't really see one. With the current mulligans you really have to think about whether the hand you got is good or not, while a free redraw can lead players to going down the risk-vs-reward route and try to get a better hand, which certainly isn't what the mulligans are there for. There is enough randomness involved already, so you don't want to give players the room to go down a gambling route.

Vorpal
11-27-2013, 09:54 AM
With the current mulligans you really have to think about whether the hand you got is good or not, while a free redraw can lead players to going down the risk-vs-reward route and try to get a better hand, which certainly isn't what the mulligans are there for. There is enough randomness involved already, so you don't want to give players the room to go down a gambling route.

Mulligans are absolutely there to give you a better hand.

I fail to see how a free mulligan if you have zero resources is going to lead players to go down a gambling route. And even if it did, that wouldn't necessarily be a problem for me. You gamble all the time in CCGs, usually that your opponent doesn't have the counter card he needs or that he doesn't realize you are completely bluffing.

Svenn
11-27-2013, 11:11 AM
With the current mulligans you really have to think about whether the hand you got is good or not, while a free redraw can lead players to going down the risk-vs-reward route and try to get a better hand, which certainly isn't what the mulligans are there for. There is enough randomness involved already, so you don't want to give players the room to go down a gambling route.

How many times do you consider keeping a 0 resource hand? Or a 7 resource hand? One of the proposed changes is to only give a free mulligan in those circumstances. There is no "abusing it" for a better hand... you're going to mull those hands every time anyway.

DeusPhasmatis
11-27-2013, 01:12 PM
How many times do you consider keeping a 0 resource hand? Or a 7 resource hand? One of the proposed changes is to only give a free mulligan in those circumstances. There is no "abusing it" for a better hand... you're going to mull those hands every time anyway.

Low/High resource decks are much more likely to enable such a free mulligan, disproportionately favoring combo decks based around absurd resource ratios. Limited use no-condition mulligans let reasonable decks fish for a better hand, which is more balanced among deck types.

Svenn
11-27-2013, 01:25 PM
Low/High resource decks are much more likely to enable such a free mulligan, disproportionately favoring combo decks based around absurd resource ratios. Limited use no-condition mulligans let reasonable decks fish for a better hand, which is more balanced among deck types.

Okay, but a Low/High resource deck is still going to end up worse off on average than a regular resource deck even with the free mulligan. They still aren't going to be as good.

noragar
11-27-2013, 01:30 PM
Okay, different question. I draw an unplayable hand with 0 resources and get a free mulligan. You draw an unplayable hand with 1 resource (or 2, or 3, or 4, or 5, or 6) and don't get a free mulligan. How is that fair?

Edit: I actually meant to post this in the other mulligan thread where Svenn was specifically proposing limiting the free mulligans to 0 or 7 resource hands.

Vorpal
11-27-2013, 02:05 PM
Low/High resource decks are much more likely to enable such a free mulligan

Decks with extremely poor construction such that they are likely to enable this 'free mulligan' will simply draw a bad hand the second time around as well. They haven't gained anything from it.

It's like you think taking a mulligan somehow confers a magical advantage. It really doesn't.

Moreover combo decks can already mulligan if they need to do so. This argument would make sense only in a context where there was NO mulligan.

wasichu
11-27-2013, 02:26 PM
Since the actual person isn't shuffling his/her deck and it's left to a computer I see no harm at all letting it do a check before cards are shown if its a 0 or 7 resource hand to auto mulligan for free. No harm no fowl. I mean even when playing mtg tourneys a win against someone who had to mull down to 3 or 4 cards or only got 1 mana the whole match if not fun at all for either parties. Sure it a win but not a competitive win. Even if I ran a 20 mana goblin deck there is no abuse from mulling a no land hand.

Pseudoradius
11-27-2013, 02:52 PM
The problem with a free mulligan just in case of 7/0 Resources is simply, that you divide the unlucky players into those who are deemed unlucky enough to get a redraw and those who are not.
Additionally if you get 7/0 resources you hardly suffer from it, after all it is obvious that you have to mulligan. The non-obviously bad hands are where you actually get shafted by being unlucky, since you may keep one of them.
In other words, you got unlucky that you drew a really bad hand, but you are lucky enough that you don't even have to consider playing it.

escapeRoute
11-27-2013, 03:06 PM
Since the actual person isn't shuffling his/her deck and it's left to a computer I see no harm at all letting it do a check before cards are shown if its a 0 or 7 resource hand to auto mulligan for free. No harm no fowl. I mean even when playing mtg tourneys a win against someone who had to mull down to 3 or 4 cards or only got 1 mana the whole match if not fun at all for either parties. Sure it a win but not a competitive win. Even if I ran a 20 mana goblin deck there is no abuse from mulling a no land hand.

there is, u have an increased risk at drawing no lands hands and u are abusing the fact that ur deck can live with 2 mana for a long time dealing huge damage to ur opponent... it is an abuse and if u want to get the good part of it u gonna get the bad part (the mulligans)

rcl
11-28-2013, 11:53 AM
Last night I had a hand I wasn't crazy about and I mulligan'd and got 6 resources

I kept it just for fun and ended up winning the game with room to spare and it was against a very decent deck

The point is that a resource flood or a mulligan don't mean you can't win!

If anyone cares to see it, PM and I will highlight it on my twitch (I will prob do so anyway)

Lawlschool
11-28-2013, 03:45 PM
Last night I had a hand I wasn't crazy about and I mulligan'd and got 6 resources

I kept it just for fun and ended up winning the game with room to spare and it was against a very decent deck

The point is that a resource flood or a mulligan don't mean you can't win!

If anyone cares to see it, PM and I will highlight it on my twitch (I will prob do so anyway)

I won a game with just 2 shards for all but the last couple of turns. It's definitely possible to win even at a disadvantage!

Too many starting shards means you have fewer to draw, too few means you have more to draw. The game can definitely balance out as it progresses, your starting hand is very important, but it's not the whole thing.

chunky04
11-28-2013, 07:25 PM
What about doing the standard Mulligan, but add in a chargeless and/or threshholdless mana card for every card the hand would now be short? That would boost the equality more while still having Convergence.

Malakili
11-28-2013, 07:26 PM
I won a game with just 2 shards for all but the last couple of turns. It's definitely possible to win even at a disadvantage!

Too many starting shards means you have fewer to draw, too few means you have more to draw. The game can definitely balance out as it progresses, your starting hand is very important, but it's not the whole thing.

This is part of what people don't seem to be realizing. A deck isn't a great deck if it's only great when you get a perfect hand. A player isn't great when he or she can only win with a good hand. Part of what makes the skill ceiling high, and what makes the game interesting is building decks that can win from bad positions, and learning to be a player that makes good decisions to stay in games that aren't going well.

Sure, SOMETIMES you just can't possibly do anything and you lose. But that needs to be the LAST place you arrive at after trying to figure out why you lost a game, not the first.

Lawlschool
11-28-2013, 10:06 PM
This is part of what people don't seem to be realizing. A deck isn't a great deck if it's only great when you get a perfect hand. A player isn't great when he or she can only win with a good hand. Part of what makes the skill ceiling high, and what makes the game interesting is building decks that can win from bad positions, and learning to be a player that makes good decisions to stay in games that aren't going well.

Sure, SOMETIMES you just can't possibly do anything and you lose. But that needs to be the LAST place you arrive at after trying to figure out why you lost a game, not the first.

Exactly. Learning to play well isn't particularly difficult, the hard and fun part of these kind of TCGs is in the deck building. Building a good deck that can win semi-consistently (because even bad luck can screw a great deck) against other good decks is the challenging part. While opening hands are definitely important since it sets up your plays for the next few turns, it's not the be all and end all of the games. There are plenty of other turns and plenty of other cards to draw to help balance a bad opening hand. It's also why card draw is so important to have.

It doesn't matter how great your opening hand is if your deck can't follow through. Changing the mull rules won't fix bad decks, and you can't completely negate the luck aspect of TCGs since it is a fundamental part of the game.