PDA

View Full Version : Resource Screw...how it will never be completely fair.



Zygon
12-30-2013, 09:43 AM
People fail to realize that resource screw is always going to be around. The most fair way I've seen people want to 'combat' resource screw is to have any card be used as a 0/1 colorless resource. Any other way of using every card as a resource would have to get rid of resources completely, and that would completely unbalanced everything. It would speed up the game greatly. If aggro could just use some of the cards they deemed they didn't want to use that game to fuel their turn 4 win, it would be almost impossible to get lucky against aggro because they would much more likely have a winning combo of resources.

So what's wrong with any card can be 0/1? Well it doesn't get rid of the screw....

It'd only be fair if you didn't get a threshold...so you can still get color screwed sometimes.

This doesn't stop the possibility of drawing too many resources or not enough important non-resources. Remember you would be using cards as resources, and if you're a good deck building 95% of your cards should be useful or you should have mulligan-ed in the first place.

They already answered color screw. Threshold is the perfect answer to color screw. Once we start getting our dual lands, I doubt we'll have much trouble with 3 color decks.


...I see everywhere people want to get rid of the screw/flood. People who say they are 'TCG vets omg lol" and don't understand why inconsistant resource systems are important. It keeps unfair things under control. And in real decks ss long as you're playing the right amount of resources...then you're in an even playing field of possibility of bad luck with whoever you play against. It doesn't make Hex/Magic ultra luck based. It just forces you to know the resource system correctly, and know when to keep your hand and when to throw it away. If it was really that luck based, we wouldn't have magic veterans consistently doing well in tournaments, like in every other card game.

It's never going to be fair. They looked into it. They didn't like it. It's not going away. Adapt or die.

DackFayden
12-30-2013, 10:32 AM
Adapt or Die, that's a good summary

Just don't be unaware of benefits other resource systems/opening-hand rules can have. The problem isn't 'TCG vets' the real problem is most people think their point of view is blanketly right. So its like we're all trying to convince a wall they're not a wall.

I agree, color screw in this game should not be a problem people are having. The resource system is soo forgiving, but people just decide to play greedier decks with double thresholds everywhere. And alot of times that works, but when it doesn't the games are so boring.

On poor opening hands I disagree. Statistically even if your deck building is on point you have to deal with poor opening hands at least >10% of the time, a chance that is completely out of your hands. While each player does have this chance assuming on point deck building, does it need to be so high? I'd look into opening hand resource screw personally.

Gwaer
12-30-2013, 10:39 AM
As has been pointed out, by your own definition of poor hands, you can get that percentage down to much less than 10%, if you play less greedy decks.

DackFayden
12-30-2013, 11:11 AM
As has been pointed out, by your own definition of poor hands, you can get that percentage down to much less than 10%, if you play less greedy decks.

...For an opening hand actually can't. You could if you want to flood out everygame

With a mulligan you can. I was just talking about opening hands

Gwaer
12-30-2013, 11:41 AM
With just opening hand, you laid out your criteria for what constitutes a usable hand, and I showed with math that you could hit 5% with more sources. The potential flooding is a different problem, which you didn't back up, and I didn't work out. But your argument that 10% is the best opening hand scenario is completely flawed.

DackFayden
12-30-2013, 11:59 AM
With just opening hand, you laid out your criteria for what constitutes a usable hand, and I showed with math that you could hit 5% with more sources. The potential flooding is a different problem, which you didn't back up, and I didn't work out. But your argument that 10% is the best opening hand scenario is completely flawed.

? Okay well a deck with 25 resources if a good opening hand is 2-5 resources. The probability of a good hand using a hypergeo calculator is... 86%. Assuming only good/bad hands 100-86 = 14. I've rarely seen people run more than 25 resources.

Fun fact with the 2-5 / 7 resources defined as good hand, its actually impossible to have a bad hand chance below 10% (since having 6/7 resource hands become more probable, do the math if you want). So I don't know what you're talking about or what math was done (No mull taken), but I think you're wrong here. You might be talking about having a no resource hand, but I've never considered that as soley my good hand definition

Gwaer
12-30-2013, 12:25 PM
with 30 resources you have a very slightly less than 10 percent chance of not having to mulligan with your definition of a keepable hand. Though the last time you were throwing this 10% number around you hadn't forbidden the use of mulligans... Which are a part of the game, and even further reduce those chances. So you arbitrarily deciding to forbid them is just as silly as the original complaint you made about it.

MajinRaiko
12-30-2013, 12:31 PM
I think I like the idea of every card being able to become a colorless resource. I think I might even like it better than my own suggestion of making any card once every turn to be able to be converted into a shard. With that method though the shards actually become more meaningful in a deck, not so much for the resource, but for the threshold and charge....I like it a lot actually. Basically anything to help make this game stand out more from its MtG roots would be nice.

Here's the thing, 2-5 is not good resource in an opening hand. About 3 resources is what you want, or maybe 2. Having more than that clogs up your hand and card advantage. But it's NOT just the opening hands that are the problem, it's the fact of how many dead draws you can run into with resources though. No matter how much you modify your decks or how much you try to build it right, there's always a possibility of getting screwed. Either you're suffering a drought or an overflow, and we all know the classic MtG Table Flip videos where he draws nothing but lands even though his deck has such low number. The fact of the matter is, trying to justify resource screwing and calling it part of the game is no different than trying to claim to be skilled at Russion Roulette. Winning just because your opponent got resource screwed isn't challenging or fun at all, and losing simply because of that is even worse.

It's time we SOLVE the problem. Not just try and justify it.

Gwaer
12-30-2013, 12:34 PM
There's no problem to be solved. You don't play tournaments as best of 1, you consistently perform in bo3 or bo5. The odds work out in the end. The rare upsets from screw and flood add to the game, not detract.

DackFayden
12-30-2013, 12:45 PM
with 30 resources you have a very slightly less than 10 percent chance of not having to mulligan with your definition of a keepable hand. Though the last time you were throwing this 10% number around you hadn't forbidden the use of mulligans... Which are a part of the game, and even further reduce those chances. So you arbitrarily deciding to forbid them is just as silly as the original complaint you made about it.

You must be looking at a deck that's not 60 cards or have rounding error, redo your math and be careful about rounding (expect ~89.7% for good hand). This is the first time I've mentioned 10% in regards to openings so I don't know what you're talking about. Also this train of thought is off-topic, the OP had some good points about keeping bad-luck symmetrical

So on Topic:

To OP I have 2 believes that I want to highlight:

1) CZE has been experimenting with removing aspects/choices in the game to improve enjoyment, while keeping it sufficiently competitive.

2) Choices allow players to differentiate levels in skill. Even if choices are no-brainers. Allowing the chance for a mistake or next-level play differentiates skill levels

I agree keeping a good or a risky bad hand is a skill. Any changes to make a more forgiven resource system will reduce the amount of skill required in this aspect of the game. I also believe making more games 'playable'(like not 1-sided due to resources) increases enjoyment for both parties.

So my question to you OP is:

Is there a line between resource mitigation and loss-of-skill that would be acceptable? Or is removing that opening hand choice/possib deckbuilding choice too large on an impact on the core game?

ErnieK
12-30-2013, 12:53 PM
I'm also of the opinion that you don't need to fix the mana system (although the "any card as 0/1) isn't a terrible idea either). If luck of the draw, and that's good luck or bad luck either way, were not meant to be part of the game, then you wouldn't even need a resource system at all, you'd just add one every turn no matter what and make decks of 40 instead of 60. That's completely fair and reliable and consistent and boring.

Is it fun to be on the bad end of a streak of dead draws, drought or flood? Nope. But it is part of the game, just as drawing badly is part of poker or Uno or ANY OTHER CARD GAME, let alone TCG's. Myself, for a long time I've been grumbling about the RNG and the clumpy, streaky draws of both resources and same-name cards. It seemed off and unfair to me, until I realized that hand-shuffling had skewed my perspective and actual randomness would look less random because I hadn't accidentally spread the deck myself.

You can't solve "luck". And you don't want to get rid of the luck aspect of the game, as the next thing you'll want to do is make sure the cards are drawn in the right order... not fun to draw your big-resource win-conditions in the opening hand, make sure they can't come out for a few turns, better chances of getting your smaller cards to start. And soon we're just playing Mage Wars Online... (which doesn't sound like a terrible idea either, now that I say it out loud..) and not a TCG.

MajinRaiko
12-30-2013, 12:54 PM
I say that without some choice of what cards in our hands to use as resources, whatever hand we have basically decides our fate for the rest of the match. In order to survive it's about right to say that 2-3 resources is desired. That leaves 5-4 cards to choose from and play with. Can we honestly say that a player's skill is a large factor here? It's pretty straight forward how the match will play out with little or no choice. Removing the resources and letting us use our own cards in our hands and deciding which ones to make into resources and which to use for the fight will actually add strategy to the game. Otherwise, just like I've seen proven for a fact in MtG, even the inexperienced players and the biggest veterans of the game will end up doing the same things with the same hand more often than you would think.

Xenavire
12-30-2013, 02:30 PM
Gwaer made a point about tournaments, and I would like to add to that. Being best of three (in most tournaments) gives you a second chance (at least) to recover from flood or screw. And in that rematch, your opponent has the same chance to get screwed. And then theres a third game...

And being flooded or screwed doesn't mean the game is over - I have seen as many combacks as I have seen people winning with god hands. Uncommon, but perfectly possible, especially with more skilled players.

And guess what? If you get screwed or flooded so badly in all your games that you lose to someone you know for a fact is a poor player, take solace in the fact that another good player will avenge you later in the tournment. Luck runs out quickly in the face of skill.

Zygon
12-30-2013, 05:05 PM
"Is there a line between resource mitigation and loss-of-skill that would be acceptable? Or is removing that opening hand choice/possible deckbuilding choice too large on an impact on the core game? "

There might be a line, but not without reworking the entire game. Is it possible for them to invent some new resource system and have things more fair? Maybe. Like I said originally, the current system is the system they went with after a year of testing out different resource systems. (This was said in an interview during the kickstarter.) This is what they decided was best for them. And I don't think there's a way to fix it without breaking more then you fix, and taking away too much skill.

Tinuvas
12-30-2013, 05:27 PM
... and know when to keep your hand and when to throw it away...

Anyone else suddenly start hearing Kenny Rogers singing somewhere?

In other news, I like the resource system as is. Of course put 'dual lands' and such in set 2-5, but I like it as is. I've played constant resource increase games, games without resources, constant static resource games, blah blah blah. Hearthstone had a pretty cool take on resources. End result? Still playing Hex, not playing any of the others. As resource drops are a key element in every turn, I'm pretty certain that CZE is on to something with this system. People get flooded. People get shard-screwed. That's really a problem? Really? It honestly gives me a greater enjoyment to the game. Can I get that 4th drop...NO! Well, can I survive until the next turn? Maybe if the stars align right now...

JakeFreedom
12-30-2013, 06:00 PM
I am not saying that any of the ideas I am going to throw out here are good, but what if CZE tested out a system, where when you are building your deck, you put in a threshold of how many resources you wanted in your opening hand. Say (1-5), and based on that the system would deal you at a minimum of 1 resource and a max of 5. Now this is just on your opening hand, and keep in mind this is when you are building the deck you have to enter this parameter, not as the game starts.

Now that wouldn't fix flood and/or drought of course. But what if CZE tested out an idea that once per game you could gain a resource point or threshold of the color of your choice that is in your deck? Would this help, I have no idea. Would this un-balance things? I have no idea. Would it take away from the game and having to be decent at building your deck? MAYBE!

I personally don't think this debate will ever end, which is fine. I like debates(when they are civil).

There might be a solution, there might not be a solution. But like many have said, that is why there are (BEST OF X) games and tournaments.

Since we are still in alpha, I wonder how difficult it would be right now to implement a build that tries out different ideas that people have thrown out there for resource issues. Then get the feed back from the community and see how it goes.

They did that with removing activated and triggered abilities from the chain. The community spoke out then and now we at least have half of that system back.

I know I hate it when I get flood of resources or a drought but I just accept it as part of the game. Kind of like landing on boardwalk or park place with hotels 2 times in a row. The chances are slim, but we all know that it can happen.

MajinRaiko
12-31-2013, 01:02 PM
Gwaer made a point about tournaments, and I would like to add to that. Being best of three (in most tournaments) gives you a second chance (at least) to recover from flood or screw. And in that rematch, your opponent has the same chance to get screwed. And then theres a third game...

And being flooded or screwed doesn't mean the game is over - I have seen as many combacks as I have seen people winning with god hands. Uncommon, but perfectly possible, especially with more skilled players.

And guess what? If you get screwed or flooded so badly in all your games that you lose to someone you know for a fact is a poor player, take solace in the fact that another good player will avenge you later in the tournment. Luck runs out quickly in the face of skill.

But should not we be trying to make games more about skill and take luck out as a factor? I mean don't we already have enough luck to deal with as is with the fact it's a card game? Sometimes you might only see a card in your deck once in a blue moon, so luck's already bad enough without having to add resource gambling to the mix. It needs some correction and fast. This thread alone has presented plenty of ideas to counteract it, not to mention this entire forum. If they don't manage to take any of these ideas into account then not only are they ignoring the fanbase's concerns but also ignoring what the customer wants, and you ALWAYS give the customers what they want.

noragar
12-31-2013, 01:22 PM
and you ALWAYS give the customers what they want.

I think it's safe to assume that the customers want competitive, entertaining games and they want to win.

So therefore, they should fix the decks so that both players have the perfect opening hand - just the right amount of resources and a nice opening curve. Just as it looks like one side has certain victory, their opponent topdecks the perfect solution to turn the game the game around. This roller coaster continues a random number of times (so that the games don't become too predictable). Then at the end, the game branches off into two separate streams so that both players can draw their win condition and win the game in their own little alternate reality.

Sound ideal, eh?

SomeoneRandom
12-31-2013, 02:07 PM
I feel like the math has been done enough on the mulligan system to put it to rest. After mulliganing once you should have over a 95% chance of an acceptable hand, and honestly the randomness is part of what keeps casual players happy. Even Shitty McGee can beat Spike once in a while... CZE chose this system for a reason and although they could make minor adjustments most likely nothing about resources or mulligans will change except cards being printed.

Edit: Gwaer meant that guy ^^^ up there ^^^

Someday he will like one of my posts.

Gwaer
12-31-2013, 02:07 PM
^ this is a great post. Well done norager.

Banquetto
12-31-2013, 03:06 PM
But should not we be trying to make games more about skill and take luck out as a factor? I mean don't we already have enough luck to deal with as is with the fact it's a card game? Sometimes you might only see a card in your deck once in a blue moon, so luck's already bad enough without having to add resource gambling to the mix. It needs some correction and fast. This thread alone has presented plenty of ideas to counteract it, not to mention this entire forum. If they don't manage to take any of these ideas into account then not only are they ignoring the fanbase's concerns but also ignoring what the customer wants, and you ALWAYS give the customers what they want.

Why do you assume that just because you are unhappy with the current significance of luck, everyone else is?

Obviously everyone here likes an amount of luck in their game - as you say, it's a card game, so people who don't want luck to play any role at all won't be interested in the first place. They'll be off playing some zero-luck game like chess.

Different people like different amounts of luck. Clearly you like less than the game currently involves. That's a perfectly fair and valid opinion.

What is not perfectly fair and valid is assuming that everyone agrees with you, and then trumpeting sanctimonious nonsense which boils down to "if they don't manage to take any of these ideas into account then not only are they ignoring MY concerns but also ignoring what I want".

How widespread is your opinion? I don't know. But I do know that the game mechanics - which were clearly spelled out a long time ago - earned CZE tens of thousands of Kickstarter backers, and a steady trickle of whiny threads on the forums. You do the maths.

DackFayden
12-31-2013, 03:22 PM
Why do you assume that just because you are unhappy with the current significance of luck, everyone else is?

Obviously everyone here likes an amount of luck in their game - as you say, it's a card game, so people who don't want luck to play any role at all won't be interested in the first place. They'll be off playing some zero-luck game like chess.

Different people like different amounts of luck. Clearly you like less than the game currently involves. That's a perfectly fair and valid opinion.

What is not perfectly fair and valid is assuming that everyone agrees with you, and then trumpeting sanctimonious nonsense which boils down to "if they don't manage to take any of these ideas into account then not only are they ignoring MY concerns but also ignoring what I want".

How widespread is your opinion? I don't know. But I do know that the game mechanics - which were clearly spelled out a long time ago - earned CZE tens of thousands of Kickstarter backers, and a steady trickle of whiny threads on the forums. You do the maths.

Dude the entire forums is everyone QQing about their vision for HEX. I wouldn't directly attack someone for having an opinion, its kinda dick.

As for what people have been saying I'm pretty pro-luck. It makes every game different and worth playing, cuz the outcome is different. But as others have pointed there is a line between luck/skill/game enjoyment. So far the facts I've seen are:

1) Luck is Fun and makes the game variable
2) Resource problems are not fun for winners or losers
3) The *vocal* majority likes magics system. They're okay with the luck cutting into that aspect og game enjoyment
i) I assume the actual silent majority just doesn't care either way and will play no matter what
4) *vocal* minority thinks some resource/mulligan sys should be implemented to limit/remove resource screw/flood

As for me I think there's 1 additional fact that I got from some other poster:

5) There is a line between enjoyment, competitiveness, and luck

I personally don't want any changes done to the resource system (I'd be in favor of experimenting, but I'd have a knee-jerk reaction). I am in favor of reassessing the mulligan system (I like 1 free-mull then paris I don't believe in punishing the mostly unavoidable >10% bad luck)

MajinRaiko
12-31-2013, 06:13 PM
Dude the entire forums is everyone QQing about their vision for HEX. I wouldn't directly attack someone for having an opinion, its kinda dick.

As for what people have been saying I'm pretty pro-luck. It makes every game different and worth playing, cuz the outcome is different. But as others have pointed there is a line between luck/skill/game enjoyment. So far the facts I've seen are:

1) Luck is Fun and makes the game variable
2) Resource problems are not fun for winners or losers
3) The *vocal* majority likes magics system. They're okay with the luck cutting into that aspect og game enjoyment
i) I assume the actual silent majority just doesn't care either way and will play no matter what
4) *vocal* minority thinks some resource/mulligan sys should be implemented to limit/remove resource screw/flood

As for me I think there's 1 additional fact that I got from some other poster:

5) There is a line between enjoyment, competitiveness, and luck

I personally don't want any changes done to the resource system (I'd be in favor of experimenting, but I'd have a knee-jerk reaction). I am in favor of reassessing the mulligan system (I like 1 free-mull then paris I don't believe in punishing the mostly unavoidable >10% bad luck)


Thanks for that btw. That was cool of you.


Anyways, I think the community is more split evenly down the middle on the resource thing rather than being a minority vs majority. It's basically been the number one topic. The only problem is people want some kind of calculating system to give you at least 1-2 resources guaranteed, which doesn't truly solve the problem. If the resource system is to be kept the way it is, then it needs to be supplemented with card support such as Demented Demolisher or having cards that can also double as a resource themselves, there's just a lot left to be desired.


Plus, still can't get over how little they try to hide the MtG roots.

Gwaer
12-31-2013, 07:39 PM
It's always been just one or two people that make a thread wanting the resource system to change, then a ton of people come in saying that's exactly why they backed the game, and they would hate for it to change, then in a few weeks another new person comes along and makes the topic again. It's definitely not split down the middle.

Zophie
01-01-2014, 02:57 AM
Personally I like the idea of being able to sacrifice a card in your hand to use as a colorless resource. I played a lot of WoWTCG where this was an option and I think it worked great. You're still making the hard decision of which card to get rid of, so there's still a negative aspect to it. I think it still keeps the luck factor involved while softening the blow of mana screw situations. I don't mind the system as it is now and I know it probably wouldn't change, but there are pros and cons to each. Maybe if we get some kind of custom format/house rules system that could be an option for people to play with if they want?

MajinRaiko
01-01-2014, 04:42 AM
It's always been just one or two people that make a thread wanting the resource system to change, then a ton of people come in saying that's exactly why they backed the game, and they would hate for it to change, then in a few weeks another new person comes along and makes the topic again. It's definitely not split down the middle.

Yes, because ALL the people coming up with ideas and discussions on it within those threads and supporting it are just the same person with different accounts or something right? Some people speak up about it but many join in. Even the person posting above me basically said he would like it. You should probably pay more attention.

Xenavire
01-01-2014, 06:55 AM
Yes, because ALL the people coming up with ideas and discussions on it within those threads and supporting it are just the same person with different accounts or something right? Some people speak up about it but many join in. Even the person posting above me basically said he would like it. You should probably pay more attention.

There are two kinds of complainers though - those who truly think the game needs to change, and those who come cry on the forums because they dont know how to build a deck.

Of those who truly think the game needs to change, there are about 5-10 posters who consistantly complain and advocate one of many ideas to change the mana system. And they genetally don't agree with each others ideas.

The other 90% of regular posters are firmly against changing the mana system, and have shown it in numerous threads. Unless you claim that those people are also just a single person with multiple accounts...

And this is less of a hot button topic than it is a bunch of whiners fanning the flames at every possible opportunity. Considering that the game is already 99% complete from a rules and mechanics perspective, it is not feasible to change anything, and these people are too stubborn (or in rare cases, simply too stupid) to accept that simple fact.

MajinRaiko
01-01-2014, 07:26 AM
There are two kinds of complainers though - those who truly think the game needs to change, and those who come cry on the forums because they dont know how to build a deck.

Of those who truly think the game needs to change, there are about 5-10 posters who consistantly complain and advocate one of many ideas to change the mana system. And they genetally don't agree with each others ideas.

The other 90% of regular posters are firmly against changing the mana system, and have shown it in numerous threads. Unless you claim that those people are also just a single person with multiple accounts...

And this is less of a hot button topic than it is a bunch of whiners fanning the flames at every possible opportunity. Considering that the game is already 99% complete from a rules and mechanics perspective, it is not feasible to change anything, and these people are too stubborn (or in rare cases, simply too stupid) to accept that simple fact.

See, I stopped reading what you were saying after the first sentence because you just refer to people as 'complainers'. That shows a huge lack of understanding and a very terrible mindset on your part. Everyone not a 'complainer'. They have problems with the game but they are pointing out those problems and submitting possible solutions and trying to have discussions. If you aren't going to contribute something meaningful to the discussion then please pardon my french but GET THE FUCK OUT!

escapeRoute
01-01-2014, 07:34 AM
See, I stopped reading what you were saying after the first sentence because you just refer to people as 'complainers'. That shows a huge lack of understanding and a very terrible mindset on your part. Everyone not a 'complainer'. They have problems with the game but they are pointing out those problems and submitting possible solutions and trying to have discussions. If you aren't going to contribute something meaningful to the discussion then please pardon my french but GET THE FUCK OUT!

i have a problem with team fortress 2.. i allways get owned cause i cant aim right, not enough skill for that... mayve i should go on tf2 forums and tell them that there are better solutions like an autoaim system so everyone will fight on the same level and if i see someone first i should win the fight...

cause a lot of people that complain about the system have problem cause they dont get it (Either deck building or mulligan at the right time) and thus think they game is broken... but i could make the same complain about every game if i am not skilled enough in that game

MajinRaiko
01-01-2014, 07:40 AM
i have a problem with team fortress 2.. i allways get owned cause i cant aim right, not enough skill for that... mayve i should go on tf2 forums and tell them that there are better solutions like an autoaim system so everyone will fight on the same level and if i see someone first i should win the fight...

cause a lot of people that complain about the system have problem cause they dont get it (Either deck building or mulligan at the right time) and thus think they game is broken... but i could make the same complain about every game if i am not skilled enough in that game

Dude, that's completely different in every single way. In fact, I don't think you can get any farther on the other end of the spectrum. Congratulations, you have officially lost your right to comment. Please pack your bags and go home. Hot damn.


You know what work better for an example? Resource screwing is more like if at the beginning of a match in tf2, ammo was completely random for the players throughout the whole game. So imagine you starting off with only five bullets to spawn in with while your opponent has 5 magazines worth to use the whole game. THAT'S what resource screwing is like. You have officially failed in the analogy department.

escapeRoute
01-01-2014, 07:49 AM
no, thats not the situation... in these games u need to pack ur ammo (the deck) in away that ur ammo pack wont fail u... if u dont know how to make ur pack well... ur fault... (u still ca get screwed, but with proper mulligan its really rare...)

the thing casual gamers tend to forget is that u have skill involved in deck making also and that is allready HALF of the match... but casuals keep thinking that the match starts only after the first draw...

Xenavire
01-01-2014, 07:49 AM
See, I stopped reading what you were saying after the first sentence because you just refer to people as 'complainers'. That shows a huge lack of understanding and a very terrible mindset on your part. Everyone not a 'complainer'. They have problems with the game but they are pointing out those problems and submitting possible solutions and trying to have discussions. If you aren't going to contribute something meaningful to the discussion then please pardon my french but GET THE FUCK OUT!

First of all, way to be a mature adult. /applause.

Secondly, I wouldn't call them complainers if I thought any of their arguments ever held any goddamn water - they never do. "Oh no I get resource screwed" is not an argument, it is a complaint. The reason why they get resource screwed, in 90% of the cases, is poor deckbuilding (and never have they come in and shown us a perfectly balanced deck that is being consistantly screwed or flooded.) Any time anyone asks for any kind of evidence they start dodging and become very evasive.

And all the 'solutions' are poorly thought out and often repeated over and over with no regard for previous discussion that have proven how bad those ideas were.

So yes, they are in fact, complainers. They don't take any time to do any research, put in the bare minimum amount of time to build decks and play them, and then they come, crying wolf, and stirring up bad feelings and causing these rifts in the community. No offense to those with genuine concerns who HAVE done all this research and feel things are still not up to scratch, but CZE just need to drop the bomb and say that things will never change under any circumstances and start banning forum accounts that bring up the issue, because at the rate things are going people are going to start becoming more and more angry, offensive, and divisive to the point that the Hex community will be known as toxic, and people will avoid the game because of it.

I also want to point out that people who have been on the forums for less than a month should stop acting like they have been here since day one and that they know all this stuff - guess what, you should go through the 500+ threads created in the past few months and see what people have said before pretending like you are the god of all knowledge and facts.

MajinRaiko
01-01-2014, 07:52 AM
First of all, way to be a mature adult. /applause.

Secondly, I wouldn't call them complainers if I thought any of their arguments ever held any goddamn water - they never do. "Oh no I get resource screwed" is not an argument, it is a complaint. The reasons why they get resource screwed is, in 90% of the cases, are poor deckbuilding (and never have they come in and shown us a perfectly balanced deck that is being consistantly screwed or flooded.) Any time anyone asks for any kind of evidence they start dodging and become very evasive.

And al lthe 'solutions' are poorly thought out and often repeated over and over with no regard for previous discussion that have proven how bad those ideas were.

So yes, they are in fact, complainers. They don't take any time to do any research, put in the bare minimum amount of time to build decks and play them, and then they come, crying wolf, and stirring up bad feelings and causing these rifts in the community. No offense to those with genuine concerns who HAVE done all this research and feel things are still not up to scratch, but CZE just need to drop the bomb and say that things will never change under any circumstances and start banning forum accounts that bring up the issue, because at the rate things are going people are going to start becoming more and more angry, offensive, and divisive to the point that the Hex community will be known as toxic, and people will avoid the game because of it.

I also want to point out that people who have been on the forums for less than a month should stop acting like they have been here since day one and that they know all this stuff - guess what, you should go through the 500+ threads created in the past few months and see what people have said before pretending like you are the god of all knowledge and facts.


Dude, you NEVER think anyone's arguments or ideas hold any water but your own. Most of the time you just insult people and propose really weak analogies that hold no weight to them either. You wanna talk about a complainer? Look in the mirror. I've never seen someone make such terrible complaining about others in all my life.


You compared resource screwing from entirely luck based systems to bad aiming on the player's side in an fps. Like I said, as far apart as you can get.


no, thats not the situation... in these games u need to pack ur ammo (the deck) in away that ur ammo pack wont fail u... if u dont know how to make ur pack well... ur fault... (u still ca get screwed, but with proper mulligan its really rare...)

the thing casual gamers tend to forget is that u have skill involved in deck making also and that is allready HALF of the match... but casuals keep thinking that the match starts only after the first draw...

Actually in that situation the gun would be more like the cards you put in your deck with the resources being your ammo, except you're getting ammo screwed. Doesn't matter how good you are or how skilled if you have no resources you're screwed, if you have all resources and no other cards to play with, you're screwed.

Malakili
01-01-2014, 07:52 AM
Do I need to remind everyone yet again that random one off games are never going to give you a perfect outcome? That's why best of series/sideboards exist.

If you seriously want to be able to win 100% of one off games against a random person in the matchmaking system, you're going to have a bad time.

MajinRaiko
01-01-2014, 07:54 AM
Do I need to remind everyone yet again that random one off games are never going to give you a perfect outcome? That's why best of series/sideboards exist.

If you seriously want to be able to win 100% of one off games against a random person in the matchmaking system, you're going to have a bad time.

Is it weird after reading that last sentence all I could do was think about the ski instructor from south park?

Xenavire
01-01-2014, 08:06 AM
Dude, you NEVER think anyone's arguments or ideas hold any water but your own. Most of the time you just insult people and propose really weak analogies that hold no weight to them either. You wanna talk about a complainer? Look in the mirror. I've never seen someone make such terrible complaining about others in all my life.


You compared resource screwing from entirely luck based systems to bad aiming on the player's side in an fps. Like I said, as far apart as you can get.



Actually in that situation the gun would be more like the cards you put in your deck with the resources being your ammo, except you're getting ammo screwed. Doesn't matter how good you are or how skilled if you have no resources you're screwed, if you have all resources and no other cards to play with, you're screwed.

Dude, learn to read, for christs sake.

And maybe you should go back through my posting history - when I see a good idea, I support it. When I see a ball off the wall incredibly retarded idea, I am against it. Just like any sane person who is capable of conscious thought.


Also, until you start figuring out WHO I am, rather than just bitching about the fact that I do not agree with you, this conversation is over. I don't want to be mixed up with someone as stupid as you, and at the rate you are going you will read you own post and imagine that my name is there at the top.

MajinRaiko
01-01-2014, 08:14 AM
Dude, learn to read, for christs sake.

And maybe you should go back through my posting history - when I see a good idea, I support it. When I see a ball off the wall incredibly retarded idea, I am against it. Just like any sane person who is capable of conscious thought.


Also, until you start figuring out WHO I am, rather than just bitching about the fact that I do not agree with you, this conversation is over. I don't want to be mixed up with someone as stupid as you, and at the rate you are going you will read you own post and imagine that my name is there at the top.

Bitching about the fact I don't agree with you? Please! You've been bitching at anything that doesn't suit your tastes. I've actually been trying to listen to others' ideas while you just say "nope that's stupid. That's retarded. Herpaderp." and now thanks to you, this is turning into a flame war so I'm stopping it now. If you wanna keep going on your merry little way of not showing anyone else's opinion you don't agree with the slightest bit of respect, go right ahead. But as for me? I prefer to make friends not enemies kid.

Now, I'm not going to respond to you anymore since I don't like flame wars because they lead to nowhere. As for everyone else, I'm always glad to hear your ideas and discuss them with you on an equal level.

Xenavire
01-01-2014, 08:24 AM
Bitching about the fact I don't agree with you? Please! You've been bitching at anything that doesn't suit your tastes. I've actually been trying to listen to others' ideas while you just say "nope that's stupid. That's retarded. Herpaderp." and now thanks to you, this is turning into a flame war so I'm stopping it now. If you wanna keep going on your merry little way of not showing anyone else's opinion you don't agree with the slightest bit of respect, go right ahead. But as for me? I prefer to make friends not enemies kid.

Now, I'm not going to respond to you anymore since I don't like flame wars because they lead to nowhere. As for everyone else, I'm always glad to hear your ideas and discuss them with you on an equal level.

See -->
See, I stopped reading what you were saying after the first sentence because you just refer to people as 'complainers'. That shows a huge lack of understanding and a very terrible mindset on your part. Everyone not a 'complainer'. They have problems with the game but they are pointing out those problems and submitting possible solutions and trying to have discussions. If you aren't going to contribute something meaningful to the discussion then please pardon my french but GET THE FUCK OUT!

That was your response after I made a single post that didn't agree with you (in this thread at least.) Now I did not make that post to target you, but because you were wrong about the facts - it is not, nor has it ever been, a 50/50 split regarding the resource issues.

Regarding your other posts, they are complaining about things that are required for the game to be healthy. They are required. The only way you could have a game without any boardwipes is to make it a lane combat TCG. And even then, several lane combat TCG's have boardwipes.

Seriously, I have made many comments in support of changes from the norm, but there are things that either cannot, or should not change, for the overall health of the game. But you are too wrapped up in arguing with people to do any fact finding to support your arguments. You are firing blanks buddy.

Zygon
01-01-2014, 10:09 AM
I know for a fact that there is a learn to play part of deckbuilding and deciding whether or not to mull your hand. Am I a MtG vet? Yes. But I've had two online friends get into this game, and when they first learned to play, I gave them decks I made. And guess what? Very often then not they would mull way too often, get down to not enough cards, and get frustrated with the system.

New players don't realize what a keepable hand is, and there is a learning aspect to that. They play my decks, which I have good, balanced hands with *Because I don't go crazy with thresholds like a lot of people do*, and they still mull way more then I have to, and get screwed or flooded.

Anyone who says that it isn't a learned aspect of the game is wrong. It takes time. It's not a flaw of the system. It's a learning curve. That's what Escape was trying to say. Learn the difference.

There are a lot of people who came in here who didn't play MtG before, got alpha and expected to be good at the game just because they liked the idea of it. Those are the vocal minorities that complain about the system they don't want to learn because it wasn't part of their perfect vision of what Hex was going to be.

MajinRaiko
01-01-2014, 04:02 PM
I know for a fact that there is a learn to play part of deckbuilding and deciding whether or not to mull your hand. Am I a MtG vet? Yes. But I've had two online friends get into this game, and when they first learned to play, I gave them decks I made. And guess what? Very often then not they would mull way too often, get down to not enough cards, and get frustrated with the system.

New players don't realize what a keepable hand is, and there is a learning aspect to that. They play my decks, which I have good, balanced hands with *Because I don't go crazy with thresholds like a lot of people do*, and they still mull way more then I have to, and get screwed or flooded.

Anyone who says that it isn't a learned aspect of the game is wrong. It takes time. It's not a flaw of the system. It's a learning curve. That's what Escape was trying to say. Learn the difference.

There are a lot of people who came in here who didn't play MtG before, got alpha and expected to be good at the game just because they liked the idea of it. Those are the vocal minorities that complain about the system they don't want to learn because it wasn't part of their perfect vision of what Hex was going to be.


Why would you just give them decks you made though? But anyways, after the learning aspect is over, once you know what a hand is it doesn't matter how experienced or how inexperienced you are, due to the card advantage in a 'good hand' being taken up by 2-3 resources, very little variation in strategy actually exists. There's only so much you're gonna be able to do and I'm sure that if they learned the game a bit more, you could basically test out what you would do with a hand and what they would do and it'd probably be about the same thing.

This is why I wish we could use cards as resources since it would make for more player skill and choice when picking and choosing what cards to get rid of. It's just a problem I've always had when playing MtG that I could never not be able to focus on. Strategies for the match are pretty much written in stone based on the opening hand (unlike other games like Yugioh or Duel Masters where there's a lot more noticeable variation).

Voices
01-01-2014, 04:21 PM
Why would you just give them decks you made though? But anyways, after the learning aspect is over, once you know what a hand is it doesn't matter how experienced or how inexperienced you are, due to the card advantage in a 'good hand' being taken up by 2-3 resources, very little variation in strategy actually exists. There's only so much you're gonna be able to do and I'm sure that if they learned the game a bit more, you could basically test out what you would do with a hand and what they would do and it'd probably be about the same thing.

This is why I wish we could use cards as resources since it would make for more player skill and choice when picking and choosing what cards to get rid of. It's just a problem I've always had when playing MtG that I could never not be able to focus on. Strategies for the match are pretty much written in stone based on the opening hand (unlike other games like Yugioh or Duel Masters where there's a lot more noticeable variation).

EDIT: I will stay away from this discussion. Sometimes it is better to just let things fade away.

Malakili
01-01-2014, 04:22 PM
Strategies for the match are pretty much written in stone based on the opening hand (unlike other games like Yugioh or Duel Masters where there's a lot more noticeable variation).

Your strategy should be chosen when you make the deck, not when you are already playing. Once you get in you are trying to execute the strategy you've already chosen, not trying to make a new strategy on the fly based on what you've drawn.

escapeRoute
01-01-2014, 04:26 PM
Your strategy should be chosen when you make the deck, not when you are already playing. Once you get in you are trying to execute the strategy you've already chosen, not trying to make a new strategy on the fly based on what you've drawn.

shhh, as i said, from his point of view the match starts when the coin is flipped... everything before is nothing and mean nothing

DackFayden
01-01-2014, 04:48 PM
The salt in this thread wow.

@Xenavire: I don't think post count or forum membership has anything to do with contribution to an argument. Additionally only you have the power to open a thread. It the topic disconcerts you then pass over it
@MajinRaiko: Don't go full Majin, you never go full Majin. Put the saltshaker down

@Topic: These ideas are nice, but at the end of the day I believe the resource system will maintain the status-quo. I saw some good ideas being passed around. But it's far easier/effecient to not implement any changes to the resource system

MajinRaiko
01-01-2014, 07:43 PM
The salt in this thread wow.

@Xenavire: I don't think post count or forum membership has anything to do with contribution to an argument. Additionally only you have the power to open a thread. It the topic disconcerts you then pass over it
@MajinRaiko: Don't go full Majin, you never go full Majin. Put the saltshaker down

@Topic: These ideas are nice, but at the end of the day I believe the resource system will maintain the status-quo. I saw some good ideas being passed around. But it's far easier/effecient to not implement any changes to the resource system

Lol I laughed at the Tropic Thunder reference.

Anyways, I agree that the resource system can work, just needs support. It's not so much that they want the whole mechanic changed but rather that a few additional solutions would really help it out. I know I certainly would like to see cards that would help me make use of dead mana draws or be able to double as resources themselves.

Hopefully CZE will bother reading these things and take them seriously. I don't really have much confidence in that though. Hell, the more I think about it, the more I'm starting to wonder if we've all been duped into believing this is actually going to be good. I mean, CZE is a company that has shown it will make a game out of anything in order to make a quick buck and the entire system for Hex is basically just a copy of the most popular card game.

I'm starting to wonder if they're even trying at all lol.

Xenavire
01-01-2014, 08:59 PM
The salt in this thread wow.

@Xenavire: I don't think post count or forum membership has anything to do with contribution to an argument. Additionally only you have the power to open a thread. It the topic disconcerts you then pass over it
@MajinRaiko: Don't go full Majin, you never go full Majin. Put the saltshaker down

@Topic: These ideas are nice, but at the end of the day I believe the resource system will maintain the status-quo. I saw some good ideas being passed around. But it's far easier/effecient to not implement any changes to the resource system

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't accusing anyone of being less important or less valuable to the discussion, I was pointing out that his facts were wrong, and that he obviously hadn't gone looking in any of the many threads on this topic to see what the real facts were.

Someone who joined today could easily add to this conversation as well as someone who has been present for months, but when you make up numbers and state them as fact because you didn't do any research, you are misinforming the other posters.

I still don't understand all the hostility, I wasn't being offensive or antagonistic in that post.

hex_colin
01-01-2014, 09:00 PM
Hopefully CZE will bother reading these things and take them seriously. I don't really have much confidence in that though. Hell, the more I think about it, the more I'm starting to wonder if we've all been duped into believing this is actually going to be good. I mean, CZE is a company that has shown it will make a game out of anything in order to make a quick buck and the entire system for Hex is basically just a copy of the most popular card game.

I'm starting to wonder if they're even trying at all lol.

Why hang around then? Take your money (if you've invested anything) and run?

ev1lb0b
01-02-2014, 02:01 AM
Here's a possible solution:

The player gets 7 cards as an opening hand, they get to exchange x (say 2) number of non resource cards for resources or vice versa. Hex then RANDOMLY takes x cards and exchanges them. The player then ends up with a hand with sufficient resources and non resources to play the game. Here's a scenario:

Opening had consists of 1 resource and 6 non resources. The player chooses to exchange 2 non resources for resources. Hex proceeds to randomly choose 2 non resources from the hand and randomly choose 2 resources from the deck and exchanges them. The player then has 3 resources and 4 non resources and starts the game. The existing system means the player could end up mulling down to 3-4 cards before getting something that's usable.....quite a disadvantage and not something he/she is in control of despite having a great deck with the right mix of resources.

Hex decides which cards get exchanged...the player only decides which type (resource/non resource) and how many (limit to 3?), which makes it really just an extension of the draw system in my mind anyway, it's just smoothing out resources. There would need to be a minimum number of resources per deck (20?) to prevent abuse from decks with all low cost cards which could mean most decks would always run the minimum, not really ideal but neither is the current system.

Just a thought, flame away....

Banquetto
01-02-2014, 02:53 AM
Hopefully CZE will bother reading these things and take them seriously. I don't really have much confidence in that though. Hell, the more I think about it, the more I'm starting to wonder if we've all been duped into believing this is actually going to be good.

Love to know how you think you've been "duped" when everything about Hex's resource system was well known before you were asked for money.

If you were so adamant that you didn't want to play a game with random resource card draws, you should have washed your hands of Hex a long, long time ago.

They're not going to redesign their game from the ground up just because you throw a tantrum.

escapeRoute
01-02-2014, 06:22 AM
in fact, u could have been misled and betrayed if u where talking bout the stack issues... but the mana system was this all the time and was well known... its like people who bought mmos like tera and star wars and rift and then complained cause they wanted good pvp... the game was commercilised as a pve game, why the hell do u say u feel betrayed if, after that, they sell u a pve game?

noragar
01-02-2014, 07:39 AM
Here's a possible solution:

The player gets 7 cards as an opening hand, they get to exchange x (say 2) number of non resource cards for resources or vice versa. Hex then RANDOMLY takes x cards and exchanges them. The player then ends up with a hand with sufficient resources and non resources to play the game. Here's a scenario:

Opening had consists of 1 resource and 6 non resources. The player chooses to exchange 2 non resources for resources. Hex proceeds to randomly choose 2 non resources from the hand and randomly choose 2 resources from the deck and exchanges them. The player then has 3 resources and 4 non resources and starts the game. The existing system means the player could end up mulling down to 3-4 cards before getting something that's usable.....quite a disadvantage and not something he/she is in control of despite having a great deck with the right mix of resources.

Hex decides which cards get exchanged...the player only decides which type (resource/non resource) and how many (limit to 3?), which makes it really just an extension of the draw system in my mind anyway, it's just smoothing out resources. There would need to be a minimum number of resources per deck (20?) to prevent abuse from decks with all low cost cards which could mean most decks would always run the minimum, not really ideal but neither is the current system.

Just a thought, flame away....

Exploit:
1. Create a deck that needs 3 resources to run
2. Draw your opening hand
3. Exchange 3 random cards for your 3 resources
4. Never have a dead resource draw the entire game

Do a search on the word 'mulligan' and see one of the previous 50 threads on the topic for details.

Gwaer
01-02-2014, 07:44 AM
in fact, u could have been misled and betrayed if u where talking bout the stack issues... but the mana system was this all the time and was well known... its like people who bought mmos like tera and star wars and rift and then complained cause they wanted good pvp... the game was commercilised as a pve game, why the hell do u say u feel betrayed if, after that, they sell u a pve game?

Tera had amazing PVP. Some of the best in any mmo ever.

escapeRoute
01-02-2014, 07:46 AM
Tera had amazing PVP. Some of the best in any mmo ever.

i loved it and the way it worked... but u gotta admit that it was pointless and had only one bg wich, actually, wasnt that great

and the whole game was pve centered

Gwaer
01-02-2014, 12:09 PM
World PVP is where the action was. Hunting people down and killing them. It could only have been better if you got their gear. =P

ev1lb0b
01-02-2014, 12:21 PM
Exploit:
1. Create a deck that needs 3 resources to run
2. Draw your opening hand
3. Exchange 3 random cards for your 3 resources
4. Never have a dead resource draw the entire game

Do a search on the word 'mulligan' and see one of the previous 50 threads on the topic for details.

What part of 'need a minimum number of resources per deck (20?)' did you not understand? Seriously, your 'exploit' could never work in this case and I am struggling to understand where you are coming from.

I aren't against the current mtg mulligan system, there is definitely skill in knowing when to drop a card in the hopes of getting a usable hand and when to hold sub par cards but why not make the game about strat, deck building and player skill and remove some of the rng that can win or lose games regardless of player ability?

Just because something has been done a particular way for 20 odd years doesn't mean it's the best/right/only way to do it....

Gwaer
01-02-2014, 12:31 PM
I've run very resource light decks before. Much less than 20. I'd be pretty upset if a resource minimum were put in place. Plus guaranteeing resources in your opening hand even with a resource minimum is just very strong. I'd much prefer the modified Paris mulligan that was suggested a while back if there had to be a change.

Draw 7
mulligan
draw 7 choose one to discard
mulligan
draw 7 choose 2 to discard
mulligan
draw 7 choose 3 to discard.
Etc. has the net effect of seeing more cards which does lower variance. But you're still down cards a after a mull. So it's pretty much not always the best option to mulligan like a free one would be.

SomeoneRandom
01-02-2014, 12:40 PM
I've run very resource light decks before. Much less than 20. I'd be pretty upset if a resource minimum were put in place. Plus guaranteeing resources in your opening hand even with a resource minimum is just very strong. I'd much prefer the modified Paris mulligan that was suggested a while back if there had to be a change.

Draw 7
mulligan
draw 7 choose one to discard
mulligan
draw 7 choose 2 to discard
mulligan
draw 7 choose 3 to discard.
Etc. has the net effect of seeing more cards which does lower variance. But you're still down cards a after a mull. So it's pretty much not always the best option to mulligan like a free one would be.

At minimum you would need to void the cards, just to avoid possible future reanimation or dredge effects. I wouldn't mind something like this too much. My main gripe with most changes is removing the cost to mulligan, it is such a powerful effect some cost needs to be attached to it. If it was changed to be void it would lower variance a bit making it less likely you need to mull to 5 or 4 due to pure resource issues, with the only downside being you might have to void a high priority card.

Gwaer
01-02-2014, 12:42 PM
Sure, void or just shuffle those cards back into the deck. They shouldn't be put in the discard pile. Honestly I wouldn't even want them voided just because there might be something that interacts with the void in the future. When I was typing it out I actually meant put those discarded cards back into the deck but didn't make that clear. I'm pretty sure that was the original suggestion anyway.

SomeoneRandom
01-02-2014, 12:52 PM
Sure, void or just shuffle those cards back into the deck. They shouldn't be put in the discard pile. Honestly I wouldn't even want them voided just because there might be something that interacts with the void in the future. When I was typing it out I actually meant put those discarded cards back into the deck but didn't make that clear. I'm pretty sure that was the original suggestion anyway.

Yeah that sounds fine and actually a solid evolution of the current mulligan rule. It does shift things a little towards consistency so you can run decks that might be a bit more risky. However, not so much to need card redesign or drastic abuse. I would definitely be willing to test this system out.

Svenn
01-02-2014, 12:59 PM
I've run very resource light decks before. Much less than 20. I'd be pretty upset if a resource minimum were put in place. Plus guaranteeing resources in your opening hand even with a resource minimum is just very strong. I'd much prefer the modified Paris mulligan that was suggested a while back if there had to be a change.

Draw 7
mulligan
draw 7 choose one to discard
mulligan
draw 7 choose 2 to discard
mulligan
draw 7 choose 3 to discard.
Etc. has the net effect of seeing more cards which does lower variance. But you're still down cards a after a mull. So it's pretty much not always the best option to mulligan like a free one would be.
I actually really like this idea. It might make certain combos a little easier to pull off, but at the cost of smaller starting hand size still. I would support testing this out in Alpha to see how it works out.

And yeah, as mentioned above... just shuffle the discarded cards back into the deck before play starts (or alternately remove them from the game, that would be a serious penalty).

noragar
01-02-2014, 01:06 PM
What part of 'need a minimum number of resources per deck (20?)' did you not understand? Seriously, your 'exploit' could never work in this case and I am struggling to understand where you are coming from.


My bad. My brain must have just gone on autopilot and figured that this was going to be the more common version of this suggestion where there's initially no limit on the number of resources in the deck and I missed the last part where it mentions that limitation.

It's still exploitable (just not quite as easily or extremely), and would change deck-building drastically. See one of the previous thread for the discussions on this.

kurtkatt
01-02-2014, 01:51 PM
yea, i have refrained from trying to argue more for the tweaked paris idea, you dont wanna seem all look at this, look at this :p

but anyway, i would argue that it makes mulligan more skill-intensive as well, aggressive mulliganing will become more viable. There might be balance issues with regard to sideboard cards tho, mulligan for sideboard cards vs certain decks could become too good?

Gwaer
01-02-2014, 02:10 PM
Certainly. Also if there's just one card you need to start with and you don't care so much about card advantage it lets you potentially see 42 cards instead of 28. That's a pretty big change if you're willing to mull to 1 digging for something. 5 card difference when mulling thrice. I'd need to do some math to see what it actually does to the odds of drawing cards. But it's not insignificant.


at the very least I think this could be a cool esport moment. Like champ select for LOL. Basically commentators get to speculate what he is looking for and on how good the idea was of what he threw away.

Xenavire
01-02-2014, 03:05 PM
That is one of the more powerful mulligan ideas I have seen, but at the same time it is more balanced (because you still go down, that is more fair than a free 7 card mulligan or gauranteed resources). I think I could support the idea of testing it at least.

It does make certain cards a good deal more powerful though, and others weaker (Curse of oblivion would be a lot harder to use if your opponent can go fishing for their win conditions) and aggro would certainly love the chance to pitch those extra resources it doesn't need for the chance to get better troops. I think it is the first mulligan idea I have seen with any merit, and that is quite impressive.

Too bad we can't do custom games yet to test things like this.

Svenn
01-02-2014, 03:13 PM
yea, i have refrained from trying to argue more for the tweaked paris idea, you dont wanna seem all look at this, look at this :p

but anyway, i would argue that it makes mulligan more skill-intensive as well, aggressive mulliganing will become more viable. There might be balance issues with regard to sideboard cards tho, mulligan for sideboard cards vs certain decks could become too good?
This is why I think this could be good to test. Is gaining a bit more ability to fish for certain cards balanced by the card disadvantaged or does it make specific cards/combos too good?

Tinuvas
01-02-2014, 03:19 PM
...I'd much prefer the modified Paris mulligan that was suggested a while back if there had to be a change...

I am almost militantly against changing the mulligan system, and I could have a lot of fun with this...

kurtkatt
01-02-2014, 03:31 PM
Certainly. Also if there's just one card you need to start with and you don't care so much about card advantage it lets you potentially see 42 cards instead of 28. That's a pretty big change if you're willing to mull to 1 digging for something. 5 card difference when mulling thrice. I'd need to do some math to see what it actually does to the odds of drawing cards. But it's not insignificant.


at the very least I think this could be a cool esport moment. Like champ select for LOL. Basically commentators get to speculate what he is looking for and on how good the idea was of what he threw away.

haha, that would be a pretty degenerate matchup (but not That improbable in a control or combo heavy environment), to make that a viable plan. at the same time quite exploitable.

but lowering resource variance and adding skill elements is a pretty solid start on the pro side.

idk anything about LoL but tbf the esport example could still be a thing in standard paris, tweaked will probably lead to a decent increase of those spots tho.

SomeoneRandom
01-02-2014, 03:43 PM
Yeah I don't see many people mulling so low to get that kind of advantage unless the format is very degenerate where a specific card beats a whole deck (Kataki & Affinity) (GY Hate & Reanimator). However, honestly I think that is a fine cost to grab the card you are specifically looking for. If you are willing to sacrifice 3-4 cards to get your sideboard tech then I think that actually adds to the game and makes certain decks rethink their construction. I also only see it being an issue in some sort of eternal format where everything is degenerate. Honestly in a slower format like Set 1 or Standard in MTG that card advantage loss will almost never be worth the sideboard tech. However, it might allow for more aggressive mulligans like trying to hit an extinction against a fast aggro deck etc...

I am actually all for trying it out and think the advantage cost balances out the digging, even if it shifts the scales ever so slightly.

Turtlewing
01-03-2014, 10:43 AM
I've run very resource light decks before. Much less than 20. I'd be pretty upset if a resource minimum were put in place. Plus guaranteeing resources in your opening hand even with a resource minimum is just very strong. I'd much prefer the modified Paris mulligan that was suggested a while back if there had to be a change.

Draw 7
mulligan
draw 7 choose one to discard
mulligan
draw 7 choose 2 to discard
mulligan
draw 7 choose 3 to discard.
Etc. has the net effect of seeing more cards which does lower variance. But you're still down cards a after a mull. So it's pretty much not always the best option to mulligan like a free one would be.

While this is a lot better than most suggestions and I wouldn't complain much if it were adopted, I still think the standard paris mulligan is better.

The main reason is this version looks friendlier to a new player, and I think you'll get more people over mulligan-ing and loosing due to card disadvantage without understanding why. (mulligan should be something you do to smooth over the outliers not something you use in a significant portion of games outside a highly competitive environment.)

One of the good things about the paris mulligan is it's pretty obvious that you don't want to mull unless you are sure the hand you have now is worse than the one you'll likely draw next. While strictly speaking that's still true in this variant, it's a lot less obvious.

Xenavire
01-03-2014, 10:52 AM
I wish I had this paris system in olace when I had to go down to 2 yesterday. Twice. It wasn't even the same deck both times, and both were fairly well built. Just seeing a couple of extra cards when I was down to 4/5 would have helped immensely. And I don't think either deck could abuse it to find a win con, if that matters.

Rycajo
01-03-2014, 02:03 PM
I would like to join the "this is worth testing" camp.

Handsofevil
01-09-2014, 01:08 AM
I've been here for so long I've lost track of the days... The camp sure has grown though!!