PDA

View Full Version : One free re-draw



Terras
11-25-2013, 07:10 PM
I'm not gonna get into program randomization and all that.
I just think it would be best if the first time you re-draw your hand at the start of a game, you don't lose 1 card.

It's loved for those games

Terras
11-25-2013, 07:11 PM
where that first hand screws you out of a single resource, and then it all goes downhill.
Also, finding an edit button on this forum would be nice. lol

Willzyx
11-25-2013, 07:43 PM
Not a big fan of the free mulligan. I think it allows decks to exploit being starved for resources because it's easier to get a good hand--a leg-up for low-cost aggro decks.

The free mulligan isn't usually a feature of MTG either--Duels of the Planeswalkers arbitrarily added it to tilt the odds in the player's favor. Subtle game design trick; people like winning, so designers give players the advantage in single-player games to keep them happy.

If your deck build is solid, a double-mulligan should be very rare.

Xtopher
11-25-2013, 10:23 PM
I think a change like that would be great for a difficulty setting in PVE.

Vorpal
11-25-2013, 10:34 PM
One free mulligan if your initial hand contains no resources sounds fine to me.

Even if your deck is around 1/3 resources, you'll be seeing a hand of no resources every 20 ish games.

rcl
11-25-2013, 11:38 PM
Tonight I got a hand with 0 resources in a typical 26/60 deck. It happens. I'm strongly against any changes to the mulligan system.

Ronaldspiers
11-26-2013, 04:27 AM
I would only like to see this appear in PvE, with the ability to turn it on/off.

escapeRoute
11-26-2013, 04:38 AM
One free mulligan if your initial hand contains no resources sounds fine to me.

Even if your deck is around 1/3 resources, you'll be seeing a hand of no resources every 20 ish games.


statistically, make it 120... im not jocking

Vorpal
11-26-2013, 11:03 AM
statistically, make it 120... im not jocking

If your deck is 2/3 non resources, and you have a hand of seven cards.

Your chances of drawing zero resources are 40/60 * 39/59 * 38/58 * 37/57 * 36/56 * 35/55 * 34/54

Which works out to around 5%. Which is one per 20 games.

bootlace
11-26-2013, 12:06 PM
If you have the standard proportion of resources (so in limited thats like 40%-45%) and draw 0,1,6,7 resources - you should be granted a free mulligan, and if you accept your opponent should get a free one too if they wish. That's what I would propose.

RDarkfire
11-26-2013, 12:17 PM
I would propose something like this -- you have one free redraw you can use anytime if you get 0 or a full hand of resources, which doesn't count as a mulligan (forget about 1 or max hand - 1, that's too many edge cases, come on).

E.g. if you drew 1 resource the first hand, then choose to mulligan and pare down to 6... but on the 2nd draw you drew 6 resources, then you could use your free redraw to draw 6 once again. Then your freebie is gone and if you drew 0 resources in that next hand of 6, you're SoL and would have to use a standard mulligan to draw 5 (if you so desired).

But who are we kidding guys, they aren't going to change the rules on this.

Cheers...
-B.

Lawlschool
11-26-2013, 12:57 PM
One free mulligan would be great. But so would 2, or 3, or 4, etc. There are numerous ways to deal with the initial draw and with mulling, but there's a pretty good reason why it's set up the way it is. The main point of a mulligan is to get rid of an unplayable hand, not to attempt to draw a perfect hand. If you have a free mull, it encourages throwing away playable, but not perfect, hands with very little thought. Redrawing one card each time is supposed to make the decision to mull more difficult. Do you stick with a sub-par, but playable hand, or do you hope to get a better hand with fewer cards? If your deck is well constructed, you shouldn't have to mull often, and when you do, you should be able to get a playable 6 card hand. If you find yourself mulling a lot, you might need to retool your deck.

Remember, mulling to 6 is way better than being forced to keep an unplayable 7 card hand. And it could be possible to change the mull rules in player created tournaments.

Turtlewing
11-26-2013, 02:00 PM
One free mulligan would be great. But so would 2, or 3, or 4, etc. There are numerous ways to deal with the initial draw and with mulling, but there's a pretty good reason why it's set up the way it is. The main point of a mulligan is to get rid of an unplayable hand, not to attempt to draw a perfect hand. If you have a free mull, it encourages throwing away playable, but not perfect, hands with very little thought. Redrawing one card each time is supposed to make the decision to mull more difficult. Do you stick with a sub-par, but playable hand, or do you hope to get a better hand with fewer cards? If your deck is well constructed, you shouldn't have to mull often, and when you do, you should be able to get a playable 6 card hand. If you find yourself mulling a lot, you might need to retool your deck.

Remember, mulling to 6 is way better than being forced to keep an unplayable 7 card hand. And it could be possible to change the mull rules in player created tournaments.

I agree with this.

There's nothing that will be solved by 1 free mulligan. And if the standard were 1 free mulligan than all these threads would be about how you should get a second free mulligan.

Kaiba_Graysoul
11-26-2013, 02:06 PM
Yeah think lawlschool hit the nail on the head, u need a deck that should not need to be mulled more than once every so 20 or so games

bootlace
11-26-2013, 02:47 PM
Yeah think lawlschool hit the nail on the head, u need a deck that should not need to be mulled more than once every so 20 or so games

If you have 17 resources in a 40 card deck (the usual for limited play) - then you have around a 12% chance to get 0,1,6,7 resources (all of which you would mulligan pretty much every time). That's 1 in 8 games you're auto-mulling. If you add other factors like colors screw or 2/5 resource fringe situations then the number increases even more.

Lawlschool
11-26-2013, 03:31 PM
If you have 17 resources in a 40 card deck (the usual for limited play) - then you have around a 12% chance to get 0,1,6,7 resources (all of which you would mulligan pretty much every time). That's 1 in 8 games you're auto-mulling. If you add other factors like colors screw or 2/5 resource fringe situations then the number increases even more.

So? A large part of these type of games is about strategizing around unfavorable odds. The reason the mull exists in the first place is to combat the fact that a non-trivial number of hands will be barely playable.

Bloodiron
11-26-2013, 03:39 PM
A free mulligan would be a great thing to tack onto a piece of equipment, but in regular play/tournaments I think they should keep it the same.

bootlace
11-26-2013, 04:40 PM
So? A large part of these type of games is about strategizing around unfavorable odds.

Sorry but how do you 'strategize' around receiving all resources/no resources if you have already put in the optimal amount of resources in your deck? You're put at a serious disadvantage before the game even begins..and I'm not sure that's really required when there's already plenty of RNG in such a game.

Willzyx
11-26-2013, 07:21 PM
there's already plenty of RNG in such a game.

I.e. drawing cards, which includes your initial hand. ;)

Vorpal
11-26-2013, 09:56 PM
If you have a free mull, it encourages throwing away playable, but not perfect, hands with very little thought.

If you limit the free mulligan to if there are zero resources, then you aren't throwing away playable hands.

Vorpal
11-26-2013, 09:58 PM
I agree with this.

There's nothing that will be solved by 1 free mulligan. And if the standard were 1 free mulligan than all these threads would be about how you should get a second free mulligan.

It's easy to demonstrate mathematically why this need not be the case.

One free mulligan would make drawing zero resources out of 1/3 of your deck go from a once in 20 games occurrence to a once in 400 games occurrence.

Banquetto
11-26-2013, 11:48 PM
It's easy to demonstrate mathematically why this need not be the case.

One free mulligan would make drawing zero resources out of 1/3 of your deck go from a once in 20 games occurrence to a once in 400 games occurrence.
Except that if such a rule was in effect, sensible players would use less than 1/3 of their deck as resources, thus reducing the chance of mana flood.

N64Overclocked
11-27-2013, 02:41 AM
Sorry but how do you 'strategize' around receiving all resources/no resources if you have already put in the optimal amount of resources in your deck?

It depends on your deck. If I'm playing green ramp, it might not be the worst thing to keep an all resource hand (especially if i lost the coin flip). A good deck will be able to draw into a playable game almost every time. If you're playing a different kind of deck you may or may not be able to deal with an all-resource hand, but a good deck should be able to hold up with a 6 card hand. If your deck requires you to have card advantage, your deck should have draw cards to handle it. If you don't need card advantage then drawing to 6 is no big deal. A good deck can play off a poor draw.

Raykefire
11-27-2013, 05:37 AM
Strategic use of the mulligan at the pro level made the "Paris" mulligan standard. Perhaps it should be a hybrid, free first mulligan, down to 5 for the second and then the normal -1 after that. This allows a better statistical chance to recover from a resource starved/flooded, but still gives the ability to dig for pieces for the pro set. Just an idea.

escapeRoute
11-27-2013, 07:43 AM
the thing is u cant make the free mulligan a thing in sanctioned games... they could give u a chance to have it in a casual notsanctioned and notrated environment..

but hell, in any serious match or in any match where something is to be won (being it a prize or a rated elo system) things should stay the way they are

Lawlschool
11-27-2013, 08:17 AM
Sorry but how do you 'strategize' around receiving all resources/no resources if you have already put in the optimal amount of resources in your deck? You're put at a serious disadvantage before the game even begins..and I'm not sure that's really required when there's already plenty of RNG in such a game.

Well, you make sure you not only have enough resources, but that your cards curve nicely, even in the case of a mull to 6 (i.e. you have plenty of options for what to play). And you accept the fact that every few games you will undoubtedly be required to throw away an unplayable hand. Even the best player with the best deck will occasionally lose to the RNG. No one deck will ever win 100% of the time. I think you want to aim for about a 66% win rate, since most tournament matches are best 2 of 3. That's just how the game works.

Look, no one is saying that the free mull wouldn't be more advantageous to players than traditional rules. Obviously, a free mull is better than a mull to 6. And like I said earlier, so is a second free mull, or a third, or a fourth. Hell, the best way to avoid crappy hands would be to let you pick out your 7 cards from your deck. But eventually that seems somewhat absurd, or at the very least radically changes how the game is played.

The thing is, these rules aren't designed around what's "best" for players. Most games really aren't designed that way. Restrictive rules are there for a reason. It would be weird to argue that poker would be better if you could redraw your hand, or baseball would be better if it was 4 strikes for an out, or football have 5 downs instead of 4. Once again, and I don't get why people aren't focusing on the fact that having ANY mull is better than having NO mull. Luck is a big part of TCGs, it's just how the game goes.

wasichu
11-27-2013, 09:28 AM
What about one free one if you mulligan to 5 cards. If you mulli to 4 its pretty much a concede

Vorpal
11-27-2013, 09:55 AM
Except that if such a rule was in effect, sensible players would use less than 1/3 of their deck as resources, thus reducing the chance of mana flood.

You need to provide math to support this assertion. It doesn't work the way you think it does.

If you need to hit 6 resources on turn X, an additional mulligan if you have no resources is not going to significantly change the number of resources in your deck.

DeusPhasmatis
11-27-2013, 11:05 AM
Except that if such a rule was in effect, sensible players would use less than 1/3 of their deck as resources, thus reducing the chance of mana flood.

My knowledge of statistics says that the best deck for producing a good hand in one draw of seven cards is also the best deck for producing a good hand in two draws of seven cards.

The behavior of mulling away playable hands to get a better one exists even in the current mulligan system, it just has to account for the lost card. And while riskier decks end up getting more of an absolute benefit from a free mulligan, consistent decks still end up more consistent overall. And I'm not sure giving skilled players an opportunity to fish for a better hand (at the risk of getting a worse one) is actually bad for the game.

What adding a single free mulligan does more than anything else is convince inexperienced players to mull more often. Inexperienced players tend to have a hard time giving up anything, so they don't mulligan as often as they should. A free mulligan gets them to toss bad hands a lot more often. But it's all kind of moot, since PvP is balanced by symmetry; any advantage to you is an advantage to your opponent.

Svenn
11-27-2013, 11:06 AM
The thing is, these rules aren't designed around what's "best" for players. Most games really aren't designed that way. Restrictive rules are there for a reason. It would be weird to argue that poker would be better if you could redraw your hand, or baseball would be better if it was 4 strikes for an out, or football have 5 downs instead of 4. Once again, and I don't get why people aren't focusing on the fact that having ANY mull is better than having NO mull. Luck is a big part of TCGs, it's just how the game goes.
These aren't very good analogies. There's no randomness to strikes or downs. If you had a random number of strikes or downs every time, then maybe that would work. What if there was a random chance that every time you got up to bat you were just automatically out before the first pitch, or you started with 1 strike?


Except that if such a rule was in effect, sensible players would use less than 1/3 of their deck as resources, thus reducing the chance of mana flood.
Dropping the number of resources lower than 1/3 means a good chance at not drawing more than your 2-3 starting resources which isn't going to work well for most decks. I'd expect that most decks would not be better off with less resources as it becomes a larger gamble. Plus if you only get a free mulligan with 0 or 7 resources, then dropping resources from your deck increases your chances of getting a 1 or 6 resource hand and not having that free mull to fall back on. Not to mention with champion charge powers it is not a bad thing to get a couple extra resources.

Svenn
11-27-2013, 11:29 AM
Except that if such a rule was in effect, sensible players would use less than 1/3 of their deck as resources, thus reducing the chance of mana flood.

Some math (numbers from here: http://community.wizards.com/forum/mtg-duels-planeswalkers/threads/3944651 ). Let's say a deck has 24 resources in it with the current system. There's a 30.8% chance of getting 3 resources. There's a 2.1% chance of no resources and a 12.1% chance of 1 resource (both of which you are probably going to mull).

Now let's say you get a free mull with 0 or 7 resources. You decide to drop to 20 resources in your deck. Now you have a 26.9% chance of 3 resources in your starting hand. There's a 4.8% chance of no resources (just over double the previous chance for a free mull) and a 19.8% chance of only 1 land.

You've decreased your chances at getting 3 resources by about 4%. You've also increased your chances of a 1 land hand by almost 8%. Meanwhile you've only increased your chances at a free mull by 2%. Is it really worth it to run less resources? You've also made it so that running a hand with less than 3 resources is more dangerous because you have even less chance to draw into them.

noragar
11-27-2013, 12:08 PM
But it's all kind of moot, since PvP is balanced by symmetry; any advantage to you is an advantage to your opponent.

But some types of decks and play styles would benefit more from a free mulligan than others would, so unless both players are playing the same deck, then it's not balanced. And it wouldn't be good for the meta to push players towards playing the same types of decks.

Further, if I have a well constructed deck and draw a hand that doesn't need to be mulliganed, then how is allowing my opponent to have a free mulligan an advantage to me? At a minimum, I would say that if my opponent gets a free mulligan, then I should be able to get a free redraw and then choose which of the two draws to keep.

But the current mulligan system is fine just the way it is and shouldn't be changed.

Svenn
11-27-2013, 12:24 PM
But some types of decks and play styles would benefit more from a free mulligan than others would, so unless both players are playing the same deck, then it's not balanced. And it wouldn't be good for the meta to push players towards playing the same types of decks.
And the current mulligan system is perfectly balanced for all deck types?


Further, if I have a well constructed deck and draw a hand that doesn't need to be mulliganed, then how is allowing my opponent to have a free mulligan an advantage to me? At a minimum, I would say that if my opponent gets a free mulligan, then I should be able to get a free redraw and then choose which of the two draws to keep.

But the current mulligan system is fine just the way it is and shouldn't be changed.
I think you misunderstood. You both have the opportunity for a free mulligan (and again, I'm only advocating free mulligans in the case of 0/7 resources in hand) so it's not an "advantage" to either side.

noragar
11-27-2013, 12:45 PM
And the current mulligan system is perfectly balanced for all deck types?


As perfectly balanced as it's going to get since the cards were balanced with the current mulligan system in place.


You both have the opportunity for a free mulligan (and again, I'm only advocating free mulligans in the case of 0/7 resources in hand) so it's not an "advantage" to either side.

If one style of play has an unusually low or unusually high percentage of resources in their deck, then they would have 0 or 7 resources in their hand more often than a "normally" constructed deck. Therefore, those decks would get to use the free mulligan more often than the other side. That would make it an "advantage" to that side.

DeusPhasmatis
11-27-2013, 01:06 PM
But some types of decks and play styles would benefit more from a free mulligan than others would
Only risky decks/strategies benefit more from a free mulligan, and they're still riskier after the extra mulligan. Consistent decks benefit more in a relative measurement.


Further, if I have a well constructed deck and draw a hand that doesn't need to be mulliganed, then how is allowing my opponent to have a free mulligan an advantage to me?
It isn't. Just like the Paris mulligan style isn't an advantage to you in the same situation. Any mulligan rule is of no advantage to you if you don't need/use it but your opponent does.

Svenn
11-27-2013, 01:10 PM
As perfectly balanced as it's going to get since the cards were balanced with the current mulligan system in place.



If one style of play has an unusually low or unusually high percentage of resources in their deck, then they would have 0 or 7 resources in their hand more often than a "normally" constructed deck. Therefore, those decks would get to use the free mulligan more often than the other side. That would make it an "advantage" to that side.

See my analysis with numbers above. Dropping from 24->20 resources as an example. You end up gaining a 2% chance (for a total 4% chance) at a free mulligan while simultaneously increasing your chances at a 1 resource hand by 7% (and NOT getting a free mulligan out of that) and reducing your chances at getting 3 resources in your hand by 4%. That's not an advantage.