PDA

View Full Version : HP loss for Mulligans



YourOpponent
01-03-2014, 06:58 PM
I definitely think there needs to be some sort of penalty for taking a Mulligan and I'm fine with this game using the traditional Mulligan format of it being one less card with each shuffle. I'm just curious as to how people thought about it instead being having to pay HP with each mulligan used? At a rate where each mulligan was a larger amount of course. For example Pay 2 HP for the first shuffle, another 4, for 2nd, 6 for 3rd and so forth.

Thoughts and opinions? Also please keep this mature and analytical.


Another idea I thought of was the reverse and your opponent gets so much HP from each mulligan you do. (That way people wouldn't be trying to manipulate the system to help out their orcs.)

Gwaer
01-03-2014, 07:06 PM
Doesn't seem like a big enough downside to me. There's a number of decks that aren't really penalized by starting at low health at all, buffing your opponents health is also negligible for many decks.

Xenavire
01-03-2014, 07:17 PM
Mill+Life gain would be a fairly potent combo under these tules. Same with aggro, it would love this change.

I could see a TCG built around this mulligan idea being very fun though.

YourOpponent
01-03-2014, 07:24 PM
Hmm...and instead of the player discarding a card from Mulligan the enemy player getting an extra starting card in their hand could be problematic too...but less so if the enemy player had the option of whether or not to draw that card.

Gwaer
01-03-2014, 07:47 PM
They couldn't keep many extra cards, you can mull repeatedly and force them to discard back to 7. Even less of a downside for the most part.

noragar
01-03-2014, 08:23 PM
They couldn't keep many extra cards, you can mull repeatedly and force them to discard back to 7. Even less of a downside for the most part.

Unless it also increased their max hand size for the game.

Gwaer
01-03-2014, 09:00 PM
Haha, you mull 5 times and my hand size for the game becomes 12? I might be down with that.

Though it suffers from a problem someone else brought up in another thread about people mulling willy-nilly and not realizing what a disadvantage they are giving themselves. I think the obvious immediate downside to them might be pretty much required. *shrug*

halfwing
01-03-2014, 09:06 PM
Hmm...and instead of the player discarding a card from Mulligan the enemy player getting an extra starting card in their hand could be problematic too...but less so if the enemy player had the option of whether or not to draw that card.
Pokemon did that. Led to the most unfun mill deck every. You have a card that cant be damaged (Mewtwo) and then just keep taking mulligans. Your opponent draws a card and... You pretty much automatically win, cause you can just stall 50 turns waiting for them to deck themselves.


Instead, I suggest having a single free mulligan, then have it so if BOTH sides mulligan a hand, they each get the full amount, and you only start losing cards if you mulligan more then the opponent.

HyenaNipples
01-03-2014, 09:09 PM
As to the 4 life loss mulligan idea:

It would give decks with lifegain capability a rather large advantage in terms of starting hand flexibility. They would be rather confident in their ability to recover and so could mulligan for the perfect hand rather consistently. That could potentially backfire, though...

I'd be willing to playtest it. The idea does seem to have merit in that it adds more player choice to the start of the game, but I'm sure it would have overarching impact on the game. It could be cool, it could be bad.

If anything, it might make for an interesting Champion ability for colors that don't have lifegain capability. Ruby, for example.

MajinRaiko
01-04-2014, 01:37 PM
I think sticking with one Mulligan free is fine and that's it. Maybe you could do the life loss idea by giving the players a choice of "Either lose one card or lose 5 life"

Xenavire
01-04-2014, 03:04 PM
I think sticking with one Mulligan free is fine and that's it. Maybe you could do the life loss idea by giving the players a choice of "Either lose one card or lose 5 life"

'Sticking with one Mulligan free is fine'... We don't even have that now, so I don't understand why you are even using that in your comment at all. It is meant to be compared to what we have right now, and what we have now is standard paris mulligan.

As for mulligan ideas, this is one of the more fair ones I have heard for aggro versus control, but that doesn't take into account combo and lifegain - those skew the balance and make this less than optimal.

But I think I can use your idea to make a more fair version - one free mulligan - the cost is 5 life. Then every mulligan after that goes down 1 card, no life paid.

The option for that 7 card mulligan would be offered at your first chance to mulligan, so it would be optional (either choose to pay life or start going down cards.)

Might be a bit nicer for lifegain decks and combo, but losing that life while your opponent can chose to drop a card and have more life than you could be an interesting game. I doubt it is any more balanced, but it does mean it is slightly harder to abuse, and that pleases me.

Vengus
01-04-2014, 03:09 PM
Saccing life for mulligans wouldn't work, it's not just lifegain that's the issue. Endbringer says hi, and I wouldn't be surprised if we see other similiar cards.

Xenavire
01-04-2014, 03:12 PM
Saccing life for mulligans wouldn't work, it's not just lifegain that's the issue. Endbringer says hi, and I wouldn't be surprised if we see other similiar cards.

Fair point, but the amount of HP loss is not insignificant for the early turns - a good aggro deck could burn through that in no time.

I don't advocate the idea. It is interesting to toy with it and see the repercussions though.

knightofeffect
01-04-2014, 03:16 PM
There is always some fun in thinking about different mulligan penalties; personally, I like the idea of free double mulligans actually becoming part of the game. Maybe something like getting to decide to play or draw after seeing your opening hand if you win the toss.

This is part of a response that I gave on my apprentice game theory test regarding mulligans:


Currently champion abilities are basically a way to reward you with a free "spell" or "card" for playing resources. What if there was a similar mechanic that gives you an option to punish yourself for the trade-off of creating a permanent (or temporary) resource; IE:
Void two cards from your hand: Gain a permanent resource. Play this only if you did not play a resource last turn.

That would almost be a retroactive mulligan.

I could go on about variations in the potential costs and benefits, but overall I think there might be some potential for a solution that mitigates some of the worst resource RNG scenarios without sacrificing the strategy of deck-building and the stability of resource-based design. As a matter of fact, one could even argue that it would add to the complexity of a mulligan decision.

Kingrags
01-13-2014, 05:15 AM
Love the idea of losing life instead of cards for mulligan. I'm fine with there being strategies that mulligan hard to get less life. It just adds another fun layer of strategy to the game I think.

Endbringer is not a no go for this mechanism I think

Hexgo
01-13-2014, 06:02 AM
Imo you have to look at the problem in the first place:
Why do you want to take a mulligan?

If it is becouse a additianal chance to get your early killer combo (like fist turn 3 or double inc. turn 3) then I think the traditional mulligen is absolutly fine. Most or even all proposed alternatives would heavily favor those decks (even the free mulligan for both players).

On the other hand if we are talking about ressource screw/flood I fully understand the concerns.
Its just no fun to play without ressources (or almost only ressources for that matter)!

So my suggestions are:

Hard way "i have to think more about to take one or not" - as many mulligans as you want
pay n+1 ressource cards for n random non-ressource cards
or
pay n+1 non-ressource for n random ressource cards

Playerfriendly way: only one mulligan
pay n ressource cards for n random non-ressource cards
or
pay n non-ressource for n random ressource cards

Jinxies
01-13-2014, 10:58 AM
Playerfriendly way: only one mulligan
pay n ressource cards for n random non-ressource cards
or
pay n non-ressource for n random ressource cards
So I could just run a mono ruby deck with 3 resources, guarantee that I get them in my starting hand and then only play 1-3 three drops... that sounds fun.

Hexgo
01-13-2014, 01:39 PM
So I could just run a mono ruby deck with 3 resources, guarantee that I get them in my starting hand and then only play 1-3 three drops... that sounds fun.

True...thats stupid too then :-)

Turtlewing
01-13-2014, 04:32 PM
Imo you have to look at the problem in the first place:
Why do you want to take a mulligan?


There are generally two answers to this:

1. You don't want to get stuck with a bad hand that is a statistical outlier for your deck. (widely regarded as acceptable, because the game isn't supposed to be decided by the shuffler alone, and it is possible for all resource/no resource draws to happen even with well built decks)

2. You want to be able to fish for a good hand that is a statistical outlier for your deck. (widely regarded as bad, because it defeats the purpose of randomizing cards at all if everyone juts re-shuffles until they get their optimal hand)

The "Paris Mulligan" is designed to allow #1 without opening the door for #2, by imposing a cost to each mulligan. It works particularly well because unless your hand was an outlier, the odds that the next hand you draw will be better than it in spite of being 1 card smaller is pretty low. It's not perfect because it's still possible to get repeated unusable hands, but it shouldn't happen often unless your deck is poorly built.

Most "free mulligan" suggestions are (intentionally or not) more aimed at providing #2, as the main reason to want to mulligan repeatedly with little to no cost is to be able to try for a hand that's better than the average for what your deck should produce.

DackFayden
01-17-2014, 05:54 PM
There are generally two answers to this:

1. You don't want to get stuck with a bad hand that is a statistical outlier for your deck. (widely regarded as acceptable, because the game isn't supposed to be decided by the shuffler alone, and it is possible for all resource/no resource draws to happen even with well built decks)

2. You want to be able to fish for a good hand that is a statistical outlier for your deck. (widely regarded as bad, because it defeats the purpose of randomizing cards at all if everyone juts re-shuffles until they get their optimal hand)

The "Paris Mulligan" is designed to allow #1 without opening the door for #2, by imposing a cost to each mulligan. It works particularly well because unless your hand was an outlier, the odds that the next hand you draw will be better than it in spite of being 1 card smaller is pretty low. It's not perfect because it's still possible to get repeated unusable hands, but it shouldn't happen often unless your deck is poorly built.

Most "free mulligan" suggestions are (intentionally or not) more aimed at providing #2, as the main reason to want to mulligan repeatedly with little to no cost is to be able to try for a hand that's better than the average for what your deck should produce.

I like the way you put it. I like the way the paris mull achieves the goal of solving of 1 however I believe the cost of a card doesn't equal the statistical boost (By boost I mean you get 2 shots at a good hand)

From some math that was discussed in other forums + some rounding down I'm doing the chance of an outlier bad hand for a majority of decks will be (>10%) . The problem I find with the >10% chance is what it means in a card duel. With 2 people playing the chance at least 1 person has to mulligan in a game is 1-([I]complementry <90% goodhand)^2 which is ~20%. Meaning 20% of games someone will go down a card even if both players are the best deckbuilders in the world.

I feel which an outlier chance that high a card should not be the cost. The boost the paris mull gives is only significant on the first mull (leaves you w/ >4% cahnce of being stuck w a bad hand). So I argue why not allow 1 free then paris the rest.

Solve #1 and allow some abuse of #2(more than just paris), but be okay with said abuse because of it increases games played out more by player skill and less by initial card advantage.