PDA

View Full Version : resource idea



malloc31
12-27-2013, 08:04 PM
I have read many suggestions to prevent resource screw. I am against any major changes to other resource systems, and also understand that giving people a minimum starting resources independent of deck set up allows many ways to "cheat the system".

With all that in mind I had an idea, what if at the start of each duel, the computer calculates the percent of your deck that is resources and then translates it to a fraction over 7 (always rounding down, ie: 1/7, 2/7, 3/7, ... It would use this number to deal you that many resources. Then in every opening hand you would be dealt the right fraction of resources, and then the other cards would be completely random (both resources and spells possible).

So for example you play a deck with 24 resources and 60 total cards. Your opening ratio is 2.8/7, the 2.8 is rounded down to 2. You are dealt 2 resources and then 5 random cards.

Still some randomness, less chance of total screws, and no real way to take advantage of the system. What do you think?

Handsofevil
12-27-2013, 08:11 PM
In that case I'll run 26 resources (guaranteeing 3) and keep my highest cost at 3, maybe 4. Or I'll run 18 resources, still guaranteeing 2, and keep my highest cost at 2, maybe 3, and run an aggro deck. There is always a way to exploit any sort of a fixed system.

DackFayden
12-27-2013, 08:23 PM
You know what, its an idea. Personally I like ideas.

You know what, there are ways to take advantage. Yeah it favors aggro/combo decks that only need 2/3 resources to function (You can run 18 resources and still get 2).

But with all ideas that have been presented how do you plan on holding up your idea against "This favors a certain deck type" or "Encourages poor deckbuilding". As with *most* other ideas it all comes down to what people prefer. And I'm sorry to say people are too polarized on the topic, meaning status quo will probs prevail, so good luck OP.

My verdict on your idea:

I think to make people the happiest the screw/flood problem would need to be solved without affecting deckbuilding at all/minimally (hard standard to meet). Your idea favors decks that don't want to draw resources too much. If I'm a control and I want to draw resources, I'll probably run 25 resources. So I will be guaranteed 2 in my opening hand, the problem here is that guarantee is also forcing 2 of my cards to be resources, you're more likely to flood. However the larger problem is how good low resource decks would become. Those decks would be... wild

malloc31
12-27-2013, 08:37 PM
In that case I'll run 26 resources (guaranteeing 3) and keep my highest cost at 3, maybe 4. Or I'll run 18 resources, still guaranteeing 2, and keep my highest cost at 2, maybe 3, and run an aggro deck. There is always a way to exploit any sort of a fixed system.

Sure but those are normal numbers of resources, and things you can do right now. Not to mention both players have the same options.

Handsofevil
12-27-2013, 08:39 PM
You know what, its an idea. Personally I like ideas.

But with all ideas that have been presented how do you plan on holding up your idea against "This favors a certain deck type" or "Encourages poor deckbuilding". As with *most* other ideas it all comes down to what people prefer. And I'm sorry to say people are too polarized on the topic, meaning status quo will probs prevail, so good luck OP.


I like ideas too. This has nothing to do with what I prefer, it has to do with what type of deck it favors. Complete randomness (by that I mean no stacking) means it's all on luck and deck building, which TCGs should be. I haven't heard an idea that doesn't significantly impact deck balance that also doesn't require a complete overhaul on the system.


Sure but those are normal numbers of resources, and things you can do right now. Not to mention both players have the same options.

18 is not a normal number... 26 can be, but is higher than most right now. And yes both players have the same options, but it HIGHLY favors aggro decks over control/combo decks that require 4+ resources.

malloc31
12-27-2013, 08:45 PM
You know what, its an idea. Personally I like ideas.

You know what, there are ways to take advantage. Yeah it favors aggro/combo decks that only need 2/3 resources to function (You can run 18 resources and still get 2).

But with all ideas that have been presented how do you plan on holding up your idea against "This favors a certain deck type" or "Encourages poor deckbuilding". As with *most* other ideas it all comes down to what people prefer. And I'm sorry to say people are too polarized on the topic, meaning status quo will probs prevail, so good luck OP.

My verdict on your idea:

I think to make people the happiest the screw/flood problem would need to be solved without affecting deckbuilding at all/minimally (hard standard to meet). Your idea favors decks that don't want to draw resources too much. If I'm a control and I want to draw resources, I'll probably run 25 resources. So I will be guaranteed 2 in my opening hand, the problem here is that guarantee is also forcing 2 of my cards to be resources, you're more likely to flood. However the larger problem is how good low resource decks would become. Those decks would be... wild

The thing is right now in general resource problems hurt decks that need more resources more often then it hurts decks that only need a couple. This would still be true but it would be to a lesser degree, since it is easy to get at least 3 in your opening hand. So you will not need to mulligan (pretty much ever) to less cards searching for resources.

Putting together an agro deck that each card can be played with 2 resources would not be significantly better then doing that right now. The only difference will be 2-4 cards that are spells instead of resources (42/60 isntead of 38-40/60), since with 20-22 resources in a deck you will draw 2 of them by turn 2 most of the time anyways.

Gwaer
12-27-2013, 08:51 PM
I dislike it just because a lot of my early favorite decks were very high resource demolisher decks. I would hate having guaranteed 6 or 7 resources with those decks. =\ otherwise. It's a better option than straight up giving x resources.

kurtkatt
12-28-2013, 10:50 AM
im all for trying to find a way to mitigate resource screws Slightly. obviously its not as easy as its sounds.

i kinda like the percentage idea, but it still favors aggro decks too much imo. what if instead of trying to implement some fancy percentage thingie we just say, well aggro decks should be running atleast 20 resources, control should run 25+. so, under 20 shards u get 1 min shard, 20-24 u get 2 min shards and 25+ u get 3 min. it doesnt look as nice, but it might just work :P

another solution would be to slightly buff mulligans. it will always favor the god draw decks tho. one alternative could be a tweaked paris mull where u always draw seven but shuffle back 1,2,3 etc per mulligan

Handsofevil
12-28-2013, 03:10 PM
Kurkatt, I'm confused by your "tweaked paris mull" so please explain more.

Also, as I've said before any sort of "stacking the deck" to guarantee anything is bad imo. It takes away the luck and some of the skill of deckbuilding. And how do you decide that 25+ gets 3? To me, there's too much grey area on where to draw the line.

kurtkatt
12-28-2013, 04:01 PM
i mean that u always get a choice of 7 cards, but otherwise like paris with one less card to keep for each mull. the rest is shuffled back in your deck. still favors some decks obv. but buffs mulligan slightly, actually making mulligan more of a skill imo.

yea well my numbers were arbitary, but somewhere in the range of where different archetypes usually use. if aggro decks needs 20 shards in the deck to get min 2 shards they dont get extra non-shard cards vs percentage method. actually u still have to do most of the works yourself, color screw and flood still exist as usual. screw will still happen as well, just not the most extreme cases,

Handsofevil
12-28-2013, 05:10 PM
I'm still confused... Are you saying you chose how many to toss back? So you draw 7, keep 4, toss 3, and draw 2?

Gwaer
12-28-2013, 05:30 PM
I think he means you discard your hand draw 7 then trash 1 on the firsts mull. Second mull you discard those 6 then draw 7. Then trash 2.

Basically see 7 every time but you have to choose to discard your fee before you can keep the hand?

kurtkatt
12-28-2013, 06:07 PM
exactly

Handsofevil
12-28-2013, 06:23 PM
oh!! That's actually a better idea, I kinda like it. Not sure if I'd like it implemented here though... Would be nice to play around with.

DackFayden
12-29-2013, 01:00 AM
I think he means you discard your hand draw 7 then trash 1 on the firsts mull. Second mull you discard those 6 then draw 7. Then trash 2.

Basically see 7 every time but you have to choose to discard your fee before you can keep the hand?

Did someone just have a good idea?

Although it favors a certain deck type (combo/demolisherYOLO): BUT WHO CARES

Any system favors a deck type, but this idea seems like a rather creative idea. If only someone could communicate these ideas to CZE

Handsofevil
12-29-2013, 01:02 AM
DackFayden, Cory comments in these threads all the time. They read almost every single one.

escapeRoute
12-29-2013, 04:38 AM
Did someone just have a good idea?

Although it favors a certain deck type (combo/demolisherYOLO): BUT WHO CARES

Any system favors a deck type, but this idea seems like a rather creative idea. If only someone could communicate these ideas to CZE

i care? and other palyers too? and dont take me wrong here, i am a combo player usually... the order of preferences for me is combo -> control -> midrange -> aggro

but still, i dont like the idea of it being stronger (with aggro too)... the balance we have right now its great... no reasons to disrupt it only cause its difficult to deal with bad luck once in a while... bing different only for the sake of it is a terrible idea... u gotta have better reasons to do it

not that it changes much, CZE will decide anyway.. but someone had to speak for the other part of the barricade since the others who oppose this change became too bored to even care bout these topics anymore

ps: dont get me wrong, this is the most sensible idea i heard on the "change mulligan" topic... but still, thats a pandoras pot u dont want to mess with...

Handsofevil
12-29-2013, 04:43 AM
I care too, but excapeRoute, even our current system favors some decks. We just don't see it because it's what we're used to. I guarantee that our decks are different in style than a Hearthstone deck. But those are the norm there, and these are the norm here, it would just end up with a different norm. Now I'm not saying I'm in favor or turning this into Hearthstone, just using it as an example.

malloc31
12-29-2013, 11:40 AM
I think (like people have said) we need to remember any system will favor some one. So once we give up on having it 100% balanced we must just look for what ever will be the most fun to play. Any of the ideas, that continue to have some chance involved while still not making the game in a large part decided by chance are steps in the right direction to me.

Shadowspawn
12-29-2013, 08:53 PM
what if you could take this an an option, but it cost you 2 cards in your opening hand as a result? a pre-built 2nd Mulligan...

Just a thought. I like the randomness.

DackFayden
12-30-2013, 01:00 AM
I think (like people have said) we need to remember any system will favor some one. So once we give up on having it 100% balanced we must just look for what ever will be the most fun to play. Any of the ideas, that continue to have some chance involved while still not making the game in a large part decided by chance are steps in the right direction to me.

Agreed

Different system will result in different balance. It happens, so no reason to always bring up any affect on balance as negative, unless its going to be a SUBSTANTIAL affect that will affect game-play. The fun factor might actually be more importnat