PDA

View Full Version : [Discussion] Resource Screw



Pages : [1] 2 3

FreyOrvar
05-16-2014, 06:48 AM
There have been lots of good ideas in various forum posts about changing the very random nature of mana screw that affects too many games and frustrates a lot of players.

The literal response has been, "Magic has done it this way for 20+ years, don't change it, some of us like it this way."

Now that the suit is a real thing, if CZE came out and included changing the mana system as some changes to help with the litigation, how would you feel about it? The game is still in beta, so even a change to the mana system is reasonable.

How would you feel abut it now?
What changes to the mana system would you suggest?

A "land deck" and a "spell deck" to start your turn, draw from either? Or someone's idea about having the computer keep the land draws within 2 standard deviations of average? Or having the computer ensure you have x number of lands in your hand based on the number in your deck? etc.... I like the ideas that utilize the digital nature fo the HEX that you couldn't do in a paper version.

Basically my question is do you think changing the land/mana system in HEX is a good idea considering the lawsuit and has the lawsuit made you feel there needs to be more differences between magic and HEX.

I know "The charge power already is a different and the the threshold is different"

Marsden
05-16-2014, 06:54 AM
Basically my question is do you think changing the land/mana system in HEX is a good idea considering the lawsuit and has the lawsuit made you feel there needs to be more differences between magic and HEX.

No.

mudkip
05-16-2014, 06:57 AM
The literal response has been, "Magic has done it this way for 20+ years, don't change it, some of us like it this way."
I'm pretty sure you made that quote up, but otherwise whoever said it is ignorant. The system was chosen because it's an optimal fun for the design space CZE were looking for.


A "land deck" and a "spell deck" to start your turn, draw from either? Or someone's idea about having the computer keep the land draws within 2 standard deviations of average? Or having the computer ensure you have x number of lands in your hand based on the number in your deck? etc.... I like the ideas that utilize the digital nature fo the HEX that you couldn't do in a paper version.
The problem with all of these is it would fundamentally change the way Hex works i.e. the change would require the whole set to be scrapped and started over. As one example, the guaranteed resources means aggro/cheap decks would be favoured.

While the occasional mana screw/flood is not fun at the time, the overall randomness it creates does add significant fun to the game.

I wouldn't change anything with the current resource system. If the suit meant that the resource system needed to be modified, it would ruin a lot of the previous work. The man-hour cost to recover would probably kill the project anyway.

Bells
05-16-2014, 06:57 AM
Yeah... no. sorry.

Kami
05-16-2014, 06:58 AM
I don't understand what the purpose of all these 'change this, change that' in HEX is. Why did people back HEX if it wasn't the game they wanted to play? :/

To change the resource system (and it's already fundamentally different from Magic to begin with - significantly, even though subtle) would be to alter the entire way the game plays.

The lawsuit is a tactic - this is basically all or nothing at this point. To change anything directly in response to the lawsuit means they didn't think their vision was strong enough to survive and that also means it would no longer be the game we backed.

ElvenMercenary
05-16-2014, 07:01 AM
If this ended up being a key issue I think it would be more entertaining if they just renamed the resources to abstract concepts to distance them just a little further from colors.

Ruby - Essence/Shard of Passion
Sapphire - Essence/Shard of Creativity
Diamond -Essence/Shard of Law

I guess Wild and Blood still work with the lore.

HeXBazou
05-16-2014, 07:12 AM
current systeme is very good

Daparish81
05-16-2014, 07:22 AM
I think HEX's resource system is (purposefully) different enough from Magic's already. If anything, change the colors. That seems to be one of the biggest issues that WotC hammers on in their suit. It would be strange to be casting "yellow", "purple" and "orange" spells, perhaps.

Then again, Magic also can't copyright the primary colors. I say it's fine as is.

mudkip
05-16-2014, 07:42 AM
I think HEX's resource system is (purposefully) different enough from Magic's already. If anything, change the colors. That seems to be one of the biggest issues that WotC hammers on in their suit. It would be strange to be casting "yellow", "purple" and "orange" spells, perhaps.

Then again, Magic also can't copyright the primary colors. I say it's fine as is.

The biggest problem is the art. At the moment, the art generally reflects the shard colours. Changing the art is expensive, however if they changed the colour and kept the art it would look really tacky.

I agree it's fine. The whole red = fire, green = nature, white = purity, purple = death, blue = mana; mapping is pretty standard, I doubt WOTC could win a claim to own that.

mmac900
05-16-2014, 07:43 AM
I don't understand what the purpose of all these 'change this, change that' in HEX is. Why did people back HEX if it wasn't the game they wanted to play? :/

To change the resource system (and it's already fundamentally different from Magic to begin with - significantly, even though subtle) would be to alter the entire way the game plays.

The lawsuit is a tactic - this is basically all or nothing at this point. To change anything directly in response to the lawsuit means they didn't think their vision was strong enough to survive and that also means it would no longer be the game we backed.

You can still back a game and not think its perfect yano...

I would be in favor of reducing variance but not completely eliminating it.

FreyOrvar
05-16-2014, 08:06 AM
I don't understand what the purpose of all these 'change this, change that' in HEX is. .

Kami it is not complicated. I'm surprised you don't understand but I will ELI5 for you....

Hasbro is trying to shut down HEX for copying Magic. The more difference between the two, the less chance that happens... there is still time in BETA to create more differences..... I hope that helps you understand.

Gwaer
05-16-2014, 08:11 AM
Resource system is already different enough. It's also one of the best things hex has going. I very much like it, and would be extremely upset if it changes.

Kami
05-16-2014, 08:28 AM
Kami it is not complicated. I'm surprised you don't understand but I will ELI5 for you....

Hasbro is trying to shut down HEX for copying Magic. The more difference between the two, the less chance that happens... there is still time in BETA to create more differences..... I hope that helps you understand.

I understand that point. What I don't understand is then why did I back HEX if not for the way it already is? Changing things becomes essentially bait-and-switch to me.

I'm also of the opinion there is already significant differences between HEX and Magic that no changes are required. As I stated in another thread: "You know why I backed this game? Because it's not Magic. If I wanted to play Magic, I would play Magic. Full stop."

mmac900
05-16-2014, 08:56 AM
I understand that point. What I don't understand is then why did I back HEX if not for the way it already is? Changing things becomes essentially bait-and-switch to me.

I'm also of the opinion there is already significant differences between HEX and Magic that no changes are required. As I stated in another thread: "You know why I backed this game? Because it's not Magic. If I wanted to play Magic, I would play Magic. Full stop."

I already explained it to you. Just because you back a game doesnt mean you think its perfect, its just the best alternative at the moment.

Gwaer
05-16-2014, 08:59 AM
I think you're somehow backing games wrong.

Vorpal
05-16-2014, 09:01 AM
The resource system is already sufficiently different from MTG, in my opinion.

You don't have lands at all. Instead you have mana thresholds, which is a completely difference concept from what magic uses.

The leas harmful change, IMO, would be pseudo random shuffling of resources into the deck. Say you have 60 cards, 20 resources...computer gives you 20 stacks of 2 cards and puts a resource in there somewhere.

This is what most people actually expect/want to happen with 'random'. IE the distribution is correct but you you don't know on which turn you'll get your resources. So there is uncertainty, but it operates within very specific parameters.

laborlawlarry
05-16-2014, 09:18 AM
Instead you have mana thresholds

There is no mana in Hex. While we all know you are using mana as a "short-hand" reference, I think it is important we develop community habits of using correct terminology when discussing Hex gameplay mechanics. This is particularly true since the two terms are different and do not represent the same thing/game mechanic-concept. (I.e. mana is generated by tapping lands each turn, whereas resources represent a finite pool that increase based on various card effects (shards, troops, or spells) that are played and which automatically refresh every turn.)

EccentricFan
05-16-2014, 09:19 AM
I don't understand what the purpose of all these 'change this, change that' in HEX is. Why did people back HEX if it wasn't the game they wanted to play? :/

The PVE aspect excited me. I've never liked the resource system from the start. Sure there have been some improvements, but it's still very similar to Magic's system. The problem with that is that Magic is a very old game. It did a lot of things right, but in the years since, a lot of bright minds have come up with resources systems I've found far better than magic's.

Duel of Champions is a good example. You basically chose which of three resources to increase each turn. Or, you could forgo increasing a resource to draw a card, or use your chose champion's special ability. As I see it, there are pros and cons to having a resource system so heavily influence by magic.

Pros:

1. You can borrow a lot of the the theorycrafting and knowledge base from magic to make balancing easier.
2. It's a familiar system to many players who enjoy the competitive PvP aspect of card games.

Cons:

1. Far more ways for randomness can mess up the game.
2. While you may desperately need a resource, there's nothing terribly exciting about a resource card in your hand.

For me, the cons strongly outweigh the pros, and the pros only fit into WotC's arguments in their suit. You see, I don't much enjoy a game where either player is all but shut down thanks to bad luck. And there are easily too many ways that can happen.

1. Either player gets too many resources and no actual cards to play.
2. Either player gets too few resources and can't play the cards they have.
3. Either player gets a good balance of resources, but only high cost cards and basically loses before they even get a chance to start playing.
4. Either player gets a good balance of cards, but only low cost cards, and can't keep up once the resources get higher.

Now if you're not actually drawing resources in your deck, you completely eliminate the first two of the four scenarios. You also greatly reduce the chance of the remaining two. If all the cards you drawn are non-resource, the odd of them all being low or high cost is significantly reduced.

It also gives more room for tactics and strategy within the game itself. More interesting cards with useful text give you more options for what to play on a given turn, which I feel improves that aspect of the game. If you've got four resources and one non-resource card you can play, there's not a lot of thought going into your turn.

Diesbudt
05-16-2014, 09:19 AM
I backed hex because it's resource system is what it is. The thresholds, and the random element of drawing the resources. If they ever went to a noob deck building friendly "2 decks" or "pseudo random" shuffling, I would not have backed. I love the difficulty and thought required to put a deck together knowing that you have to build smart with the resources.

I don't mind a change if it's needed (but it shouldn't) but not joking ideaa like that.

maniza
05-16-2014, 09:21 AM
if anithing needs to be changed it will be the combat. its what is most similar to mtg. sadly that would aslo mean most cards need to be reevaluated and the entire game has to be rebalanced. its what i see as a worst case senario imo. it would take alot of time to fix but hopefully it wont come to that.

GamerPET
05-16-2014, 09:24 AM
I liked the system in WoW TCG with quests :P

FreyOrvar
05-16-2014, 09:46 AM
I love the difficulty and thought required to put a deck together knowing that you have to build smart with the resources.

I don't mind a change if it's needed (but it shouldn't) but not joking ideaa like that.

Karma is a beatch. I just lost in the 1st round of a draft in game 3. I was running 17 shards in a 40 card deck. I had to mulligan to 4. In the 7,6,5, or even 4 draws I had 1 or fewer shards in each draw.

So how was that fun to sit there and lose like that? What difficult deck building challenge did I fail to meet? How was I not "smart" with my resources.....

Gwaer
05-16-2014, 09:49 AM
The resource system isn't changing.

FreyOrvar
05-16-2014, 09:57 AM
The resource system isn't changing.

Well lets see how the litigation resolves. I am against the law suit, but if it improves the resource system its at least a silver lining in my book. :)

Xenavire
05-16-2014, 10:02 AM
The resource system is the weakest of all the points of contention. A much larger worry is the 5 colours +artifact issue.

I still think we should get ancient/primordial magic as amber shards, with a heavy focus on rituals, ancient magic, and extinct monsters coming back to life.

But I am biased, because I want an orange colour :D

Gwaer
05-16-2014, 10:09 AM
Well lets see how the litigation resolves. I am against the law suit, but if it improves the resource system its at least a silver lining in my book. :)

Any change to the resource system will not be an improvement.

Turtlewing
05-16-2014, 10:19 AM
There have been lots of good ideas in various forum posts about changing the very random nature of mana screw that affects too many games and frustrates a lot of players.

The literal response has been, "Magic has done it this way for 20+ years, don't change it, some of us like it this way."

Now that the suit is a real thing, if CZE came out and included changing the mana system as some changes to help with the litigation, how would you feel about it? The game is still in beta, so even a change to the mana system is reasonable.

How would you feel abut it now?
What changes to the mana system would you suggest?

A "land deck" and a "spell deck" to start your turn, draw from either? Or someone's idea about having the computer keep the land draws within 2 standard deviations of average? Or having the computer ensure you have x number of lands in your hand based on the number in your deck? etc.... I like the ideas that utilize the digital nature fo the HEX that you couldn't do in a paper version.

Basically my question is do you think changing the land/mana system in HEX is a good idea considering the lawsuit and has the lawsuit made you feel there needs to be more differences between magic and HEX.

I know "The charge power already is a different and the the threshold is different"

I think changing the resource system is a bad Idea.

Legally, it's already the most obvious place where hex is different from Magic so no real gain there.

Gameplay wise... well this get a bit complicated and it depends a lot on where you stand on the friendly to new players vs competitive e-sport spectrum. Me I think the randomness is a good thing. And Hex already gives us the tools to mitigate screw and will likely give us even more in future sets.

However, I'll say that no one has proposed an alternative to hex's existing system that I would agree is unambiguously better (they typically cause other problems, of just shift the randomness to drawing cards on-curve instead of drawing resources).

mmac900
05-16-2014, 02:13 PM
Any change to the resource system will not be an improvement.

Why are people so against making the resource system more fair? Even a minor change such as a free mulligan if you have no lands or all lands would be miles better then what we have now.

Yoss
05-16-2014, 02:21 PM
I'd be good with some sort of digital-only variant on what we have now that preserves the feel while mitigating the screw/flood a bit. Like having a resource weave, with 1-sigma variation tacked on.

At the end of the day though, CZE ain't gonna change it.

Xenavire
05-16-2014, 02:25 PM
Why are people so against making the resource system more fair? Even a minor change such as a free mulligan if you have no lands or all lands would be miles better then what we have now.

Any resource system that is the same for both players is 'fair'. It isn't like one person is getting 0/2 a turn for doing nothing, while the other is getting 0/0 every other turn - screw exists, on both sides, but the chances are equal for both players.

The largest reason to be against it though, is the massive amount of design that is based off the resource system, and changing it could put development back by 6 months at least (and people are already upset by 'delays' with the AH and PvE.)

It is literally more feasible to change the sizes of decks, the roles of the shards, add more shards, or any number of things.

Yoss
05-16-2014, 02:28 PM
The largest reason to be against it though, is the massive amount of design that is based off the resource system, and changing it could put development back by 6 months at least (and people are already upset by 'delays' with the AH and PvE.)

It is literally more feasible to change the sizes of decks, the roles of the shards, add more shards, or any number of things.

Resource weave (with variance) would not require any ripple-effect changes whatsoever. It would, however, add non-intuitive complexity for new players. They'd expect a normal deck shuffle like in real life (and what we have now), but would not get that. On the other hand, while screw/flood is easy for a newbie to understand, it also makes them mad. Pick your poison I guess.

Xenavire
05-16-2014, 02:43 PM
Resource weave (with variance) would not require any ripple-effect changes whatsoever. It would, however, add non-intuitive complexity for new players. They'd expect a normal deck shuffle like in real life (and what we have now), but would not get that. On the other hand, while screw/flood is easy for a newbie to understand, it also makes them mad. Pick your poison I guess.

Changing the resource system (the core of it) is far different than changing some shuffling rules though. Considering most of the posts in this thread weren't talking about the actual shuffling, but were talking about new ways to handle the resources (like creating a resource deck, and I think I saw the WoWTCG method), I think there is a big difference between the two topics (and their representation in this thread), and that your post doesn't counter mine at all.

Although I do get frustrated by the RNG a lot, I think I would vote to keep it the same for now. I am willing to wait and see what new resource cards would add to the mix before calling foul.

Yoss
05-16-2014, 02:45 PM
Fair enough, though the shuffle and resource system go hand-in-hand, at least with the current design. Plus, the weave would be yet another digital-only innovation to add to the #HexIsn'tMTG list.

Not that I expect it to change; I don't.

Xenavire
05-16-2014, 02:48 PM
Fair enough, though the shuffle and resource system go hand-in-hand, at least with the current design. Plus, the weave would be yet another digital-only innovation to add to the #HexIsn'tMTG list.

Not that I expect it to change; I don't.

I can't deny this. It would have a nice ripple effect.

But still, sometimes screw isn't all that bad - getting stuck at 4 resources for a few turns while your opponent drops bombs, and then you blow it all up with an extinction... I love that feeling, and weave might make that very rare. Still, overall health of the game should come first, if future shards fail to do fixing right, I might put my name down in support of this idea.

Jonesy
05-16-2014, 03:05 PM
VS had the best resource system, every card can be a resource, and half of them can still be played later even when used as a resource. No magic mana screw and none of the wowtcg pain of having to kill cards to use as a resource all the time.

Gwaer
05-16-2014, 03:06 PM
That sounds suspiciously like a terrible resource system rather than a best one...

That's not true, it sounds like a system designed for a very different game than hex.

mmac900
05-16-2014, 04:19 PM
Any resource system that is the same for both players is 'fair'. It isn't like one person is getting 0/2 a turn for doing nothing, while the other is getting 0/0 every other turn - screw exists, on both sides, but the chances are equal for both players.

The largest reason to be against it though, is the massive amount of design that is based off the resource system, and changing it could put development back by 6 months at least (and people are already upset by 'delays' with the AH and PvE.)

It is literally more feasible to change the sizes of decks, the roles of the shards, add more shards, or any number of things.

I dont believe for a second that adding a free mulligan if you get all lands or no lands would disturb the game balance in any way. It's like you people enjoy being frustrated, just because others have an equal chance of being frustrated.

QuantumZeruul
05-16-2014, 04:32 PM
VS had the best resource system, every card can be a resource, and half of them can still be played later even when used as a resource. No magic mana screw and none of the wowtcg pain of having to kill cards to use as a resource all the time.

The problem with that is that if you did not hit your curve, you were frequently put in a severe disadvantage if the other person did. The person that hit the 3, 4, and 5 drop had much more presence on the table than somebody that had to drop a 3 drop on turns 4 and 5. You got curve-screwed rather than resource-screwed, so you are just trading one design flaw for another.

Personally I prefer the system that Hex has over the others I have played (MTG, L5R, VS, Magi-Nation, Pokemon, etc). You may get resource-screwed periodically, but not nearly as much as you could in some other games thanks to the Threshold system.

EntropyBall
05-16-2014, 05:25 PM
The other thing to note about Hex's resource system, compared to MTG, is that it pushes you to run slightly higher resource bases for the same curve, because that lessens the chance of screw, and flood is mitigated by the fact that shards provide charges. And screw in multi-color decks is heavily mitigated by the threshold concept.

This argument has been hashed out excessively on the forums. I originally was much more against Hex's resource system, but people have pointed out how it helps gameplay. I wouldn't mind many of the digital improvements people have suggested, or non-digital ones like free mulligans for all/no shard hands, but after playing a lot of games in alpha/beta, I don't find it to be bad.

Xenavire
05-16-2014, 05:40 PM
I dont believe for a second that adding a free mulligan if you get all lands or no lands would disturb the game balance in any way. It's like you people enjoy being frustrated, just because others have an equal chance of being frustrated.

I wish people would pay more attention to the wording I use - mulligan system =/= resource system. I never disputed any claims about the mulligan system.

Flight
05-18-2014, 06:32 AM
I run 18 resource in 40 card decks and 24 in 60 card decks.

The amount of times I get terrible runs of all resource or no resource seems to defy statistical probability.

One thing I do know, it's not fun.


I'n not whinging or expecting changes, just trying to find out if this experience is common to others and promote debate on whether it is good for the game.


And I'd suggest PvE might be a different beast when it comes to balancing this issue.

ursa23
05-18-2014, 06:51 AM
It's an inherent part of the human brain that we're real good at pattern recognition. The problem is, we see patterns where there are none. When you say that your hands "seem to defy statistical probability," you are not saying anything of import. It is an opinion on statistical randomness, which the human brain is notoriously bad at spotting. Start a spreadsheet of hands and resource variance. Track over (at minimum) 1000 hands, and get back to us. We've already hashed this out, and the randomizer works fine. Read this (https://hextcg.com/randomization/), and understand that you are experiencing a blind spot in the human condition.

QuartZ
05-18-2014, 07:00 AM
It happens to me with frequency to get a starting hand with 1 resource mulligan and get 5 resources then mulligan again and get only one resource. It sucks a lot as it would be better to keep the starting hand ;P
But the shuffler is working fine so i think that we are noticing the difference between "true random" and manually shuffled methods

HeXBazou
05-18-2014, 07:07 AM
I run 18 resource in 40 card decks and 24 in 60 card decks.



We can't give answer with this, number of shard whitout deck list is just useless.

FreyOrvar
05-18-2014, 07:16 AM
We can't give answer with this, number of shard whitout deck list is just useless.

Not useless if his question is the frequency of mana screw. For mana screw stats math you just need lands and spells in the deck.

Diesbudt
05-18-2014, 07:24 AM
Honestly I don't see this all that much. Opening hands 90-95% of the time I am between 2-5 resources (which is fine to me). Most of the games I have played I did not lose (both draft and constructed) due to shard screw or shard flood. It has been being out matched/played on the field. Not saying it hasn't happened but its in the relm of 10% or less. It all depends on the amount of shards you use and which cards you put in for the curve to work well with said amount of shards/

For constructed I use 23-24 depending, for draft/sealed (40 card deck) I use 16-17 depending.

Diesbudt
05-18-2014, 07:30 AM
It's an inherent part of the human brain that we're real good at pattern recognition. The problem is, we see patterns where there are none. When you say that your hands "seem to defy statistical probability," you are not saying anything of import. It is an opinion on statistical randomness, which the human brain is notoriously bad at spotting. Start a spreadsheet of hands and resource variance. Track over (at minimum) 1000 hands, and get back to us. We've already hashed this out, and the randomizer works fine. Read this (https://hextcg.com/randomization/), and understand that you are experiencing a blind spot in the human condition.

Not only this, but people recognize and memorize the bad patterns/thoughts much more than the good. When a decent hand happens they just shrug it off as normal, but the minute they have a meh, below average or a bad hand, they memorize it. Thus people always tend to believe they have more bad hands than they did. On top of the fact deck building with the curve of cost of cards and thresholds is important to building a deck that doesn't have as many resource problems.

HeXBazou
05-18-2014, 07:44 AM
Not useless if his question is the frequency of mana screw. For mana screw stats math you just need lands and spells in the deck.

Curve, CA, weak alone card give many bad impression, 99% player of tcg don't use Stat, but impression with a bad deck and whine.

bootlace
05-18-2014, 07:54 AM
I will keep posting this in any thread of this kind that I see:

There is absolutely no reason to not allow 1 free mulligan to someone (and automatically their opponent) IF they meet the following criteria:

-Deck composition consists of 40-45% shards
-Playing in a limited format (sealed, draft)
-Are given an opening hand of either 0 or 7 shards.

It would be very easy for Hex to implement this given its digital nature and it would be a great way to differentiate themselves from MTG. No one has been able to tell me why this would be a bad idea other than inexplicably and almost masochistically claiming that 'this is part of the game'.

I would go even one step further and extend the rule to cases of 1 or 6 shards but that would probably see too much resistance so I won't seriously suggest it.

HeXBazou
05-18-2014, 08:03 AM
Since the start of the Beta i loose few game with ressource probleme but 0 BO3. In my opinion the probleme is not the random or the ressource systeme.

Diesbudt
05-18-2014, 08:30 AM
I will keep posting this in any thread of this kind that I see:

There is absolutely no reason to not allow 1 free mulligan to someone (and automatically their opponent) IF they meet the following criteria:

-Deck composition consists of 40-45% shards
-Playing in a limited format (sealed, draft)
-Are given an opening hand of either 0 or 7 shards.

It would be very easy for Hex to implement this given its digital nature and it would be a great way to differentiate themselves from MTG. No one has been able to tell me why this would be a bad idea other than inexplicably and almost masochistically claiming that 'this is part of the game'.

I would go even one step further and extend the rule to cases of 1 or 6 shards but that would probably see too much resistance so I won't seriously suggest it.

Actually someone from Crypto a while back did respond after testing over 6 digit of rounds and hand draws and explained it was bad as it for whatever reason the ysaid

Xenavire
05-18-2014, 08:49 AM
Since the start of the Beta i loose few game with ressource probleme but 0 BO3. In my opinion the probleme is not the random or the ressource systeme.

I have lost multiple Bo3's to screw. Less to flood, but I have been 1/0 in my favour, and then had multiple zero resource into 2 shard hands where I never drew enough extra shards to actually play. Including one last night with back to back screws while my opponent curved out and won purely because I didn't have the resources for my removal.

That is the danger of draft though (and I absolutely never go under 17 resources in draft.)

It does legitimately happen and you are lucky to not have run foul of it, but it is very rare. Anyone saying it is common is overreacting.

DuroNL
05-18-2014, 09:04 AM
It does legitimately happen and you are lucky to not have run foul of it, but it is very rare. Anyone saying it is common is overreacting.

People screaming its to common to draw into resource flooding or resource screwed, are probably losing a lot, even if they get a decent to good hand... So they try and find a reason for their lose streak and blame it on the draw..

Its a random thing, like shuffling a deck of cards when you play poker, people complain they never hit an Ace *shrugs*

Just be glad its digital so no one can mess around with shuffling ;) its always random folks!
play to the best of your abilities and even Resource screwed games can turn into a win, i know I've had that happening quite often. (important factor here is a good mana curve, and just good cards in general :P )

Xenavire
05-18-2014, 09:24 AM
People screaming its to common to draw into resource flooding or resource screwed, are probably losing a lot, even if they get a decent to good hand... So they try and find a reason for their lose streak and blame it on the draw..

Its a random thing, like shuffling a deck of cards when you play poker, people complain they never hit an Ace *shrugs*

Just be glad its digital so no one can mess around with shuffling ;) its always random folks!
play to the best of your abilities and even Resource screwed games can turn into a win, i know I've had that happening quite often. (important factor here is a good mana curve, and just good cards in general :P )

I have seen a lot of people like that in real life (both those who blame their poor skills on flood/screw, even when it was bad plays, and those who mana weave or simply flat out cheat.) Luckily I am not one of them, but its hard to argue with 0 resource hands and mulling into more screw. :p

But I am hoping future fixing will make a difference. When you have a nice resource base (which will hopefully be common, not rare) things are a lot easier. For example, I rarely get colour screwed when I draft well. So heres hoping set 2 makes it even better.

Refugee
05-18-2014, 12:26 PM
Here's an amusing story.

In draft yesterday, running blood/wild. 9 blood shards, 7 wild shards. Each game I keep a hand of either 1 blood shard and 1 wild shard or 1 blood shard and 2 wild shards. In all three games I get 5 wild shards before I ever hit my second blood shard. In game 2 I hit 6 wild before my second blood and in game 3 I never hit my second blood (again, 5 wild shards). The odds of such a string of bad luck is extremely improbable. But if you add up all the extremely improbable things that could happen you start seeing that the odds aren't THAT bad that something unlikely occurs overall.

Anyway, just my little story contribution.

shocker455
05-18-2014, 01:43 PM
I had the pain of drawing nothing but shards both games one round in a draft. I even used peek and peeked into only shards, o what a fun round :(

Im on draft 28 since beta, and that is basically the only time iv lost a round because of shard problems. Sure iv lost games because of it, and could of won rounds with better top decks

primer
05-18-2014, 11:49 PM
This game is way worse for screw and flood than MTG. Can they show that in court?

hex_colin
05-18-2014, 11:56 PM
This game is way worse for screw and flood than MTG.

Time and time again it's been shown that it has the statistically expected incidence of screw and flood. Threshold mitigates that somewhat on the screw side, champions/charge powers on the flood side.

What it doesn't have is resource-weaving which has been mitigating flood and screw for years. ;)

DoctorJoe
05-19-2014, 04:59 AM
I'm 14 drafts in, and I can say that I don't think my 17 resource draft decks feel radically different in Hex from MTG. I tend to see resource troubles in 30%-ish of my games, and consider myself to be somewhat unfavored by the variance gods. Often with tight play I can stay in the game long enough for it to level out. I'm not some TCG master or anything, I'd have to be pretty lucky to "Go Infinite" if/when 8-4 drafts come out, but you have to play according to what you have, not what statistics says you should have. Last night I eventually won a game where I played 12 resources with 20 cards remaining in the deck.

While I find it frustrating to have resource problems myself, I feel like they are a critical aspect of the game. In card selection, the balance between consistency and power makes deckbuilding and drafting much more interesting.

Mana-weaving is considered stacking your deck in competitive MTG down to the Friday Night Magic level. Oddly they have different levels of rules enforcement based on how competitive the game is. Presumably to help newer players ease into it because they don't have handy computers to track all the interactions or a visual representation of the stack.

DocX
05-19-2014, 05:49 AM
The past few drafts, I've had at least half my games be burdened by shard flood/deficit. Mulliganing 0 shards to 5 shards to 1 shard to 1 shard sticks out in my mind. I need to start broadcasting drafts again so I can a) document this and b) share this with other folks who can remind me of the times when I got a bomb draw to balance things out.

Then again, since I'm drafting essentially for free, I try not to get bent out of shape about it. I gotta grouse about it, but it's not nearly as bad as if I spent real money on each draft.

Turtlewing
05-19-2014, 06:45 AM
I will keep posting this in any thread of this kind that I see:

There is absolutely no reason to not allow 1 free mulligan to someone (and automatically their opponent) IF they meet the following criteria:

-Deck composition consists of 40-45% shards
-Playing in a limited format (sealed, draft)
-Are given an opening hand of either 0 or 7 shards.

It would be very easy for Hex to implement this given its digital nature and it would be a great way to differentiate themselves from MTG. No one has been able to tell me why this would be a bad idea other than inexplicably and almost masochistically claiming that 'this is part of the game'.

I would go even one step further and extend the rule to cases of 1 or 6 shards but that would probably see too much resistance so I won't seriously suggest it.

On the contrary the reason not to do that is it's complicated, non-onbious, and it doesn't affect all decks equally (you impose design constraints to qualify for the free mulligan)

It also probably wouldn't help much (your premiss is that the existing mulligan system doesn't work so your solution is more mulligan?)

noragar
05-19-2014, 07:44 AM
There is absolutely no reason to not allow 1 free mulligan to someone (and automatically their opponent) IF they meet the following criteria:

-Deck composition consists of 40-45% shards
-Playing in a limited format (sealed, draft)
-Are given an opening hand of either 0 or 7 shards.


Always allowing a free mulligan is bad as demonstrated in the other dozen threads on the topic.

Something like this is even worse than always allowing a free mulligan. If you're going to incorporate free mulligans, why would you limit it only to a certain percentage of the time? Why should one player get a free mulligan because he happened to "luck" into a 0 or 7 shard hand while his opponent has to lose a card to mulligan an equally unplayable hand?

negativeZer0
05-19-2014, 07:44 AM
If the mulligan rules are ver changed I am only in favor of 1 method:
1st mulligan - Draw 7 - void 1 card
2nd Mulligan - Draw 7 - void 2 cards
Etc
Note: you only void the cards if you keep the hand
By drawing the full hand then the player voiding the extra cards, you are better able to ensure a playable hand.
This would also give us something different then MTG without changing the feel of the game.


The problem with doing anything with mulligan even the above option is anything that makes mulligans more attractive than they currently are helps out combo decks. You have to be very careful with a change like this. Although I think this would have an amazingly positive impact on Limited formats over the MTG mulligans it may be too strong for the constructed format. Figuring this out for sure would be no easy task.

caffn8d
05-19-2014, 08:07 AM
It's anecdotal, but of my 2 draft tournaments so far both have been unequivocally determined by mana screw/flood. And not "oh, I only got to 4 mana with a hand of 5 drops" type mana problems either. Straight up feast or famine type stuff. It's making me think that any charge ability that relies on buffing is simply not worth chancing. Card draw/make a creature type abilities are FAR superior in those kind of games.

bootlace
05-19-2014, 08:09 AM
On the contrary the reason not to do that is it's complicated, non-onbious, and it doesn't affect all decks equally (you impose design constraints to qualify for the free mulligan)

It also probably wouldn't help much (your premiss is that the existing mulligan system doesn't work so your solution is more mulligan?)

What design constraint? 99.9% of all limited decks run 40-45% resources so it basically applies to all decks and that 'constraint' as you put it, is just there so this rule can't be gamed to optimize decks in a way to gain an advantage from the possible free mulligan.

And it does affect decks equally - if your opponent happens to get unlucky and get a mulligan, you also have the option to get a free mulligan.

bootlace
05-19-2014, 08:14 AM
Always allowing a free mulligan is bad as demonstrated in the other dozen threads on the topic.

Something like this is even worse than always allowing a free mulligan. If you're going to incorporate free mulligans, why would you limit it only to a certain percentage of the time? Why should one player get a free mulligan because he happened to "luck" into a 0 or 7 shard hand while his opponent has to lose a card to mulligan an equally unplayable hand?

There is no ALWAYS allowing of free mulligan - very certain conditions have to be met (0 or 7 shards in opening hand). If you happen to get a 'free mulligan', your opponent also has the choice of a free mulligan. This simply avoids receiving a FU from the shuffler and starting a down-ward spiral in your chances of winning the game before the game has even started.

noragar
05-19-2014, 08:15 AM
And it does affect decks equally - if your opponent happens to get unlucky and get a mulligan, you also have the option to get a free mulligan.

I didn't see this in your original proposal. If you mean that if one player takes a free mulligan, then his opponent gets a free redraw and gets to choose which of the two draws to use, then that would make free mulligans tolerable. Still unnecessary and probably not ideal, but tolerable.

thedevilsjester
05-19-2014, 08:16 AM
One of the key reasons I like Hex is because it does not have an arbitrary resource system like Hearthstone or Infinity Wars that eliminate any strategy with resources and deck balance. Its a bit easier to manage than MTG, and dumbing it down any more would be terrible.

Svenn
05-19-2014, 08:24 AM
I dont believe for a second that adding a free mulligan if you get all lands or no lands would disturb the game balance in any way. It's like you people enjoy being frustrated, just because others have an equal chance of being frustrated.
This has already been discussed and debated at length. A free mulligan like that would give a benefit to aggro decks who run less shards compared to a control deck running more shards. It changes the game in favor of one specific play style.

zolop
05-19-2014, 09:29 AM
I don't understand what the purpose of all these 'change this, change that' in HEX is. Why did people back HEX if it wasn't the game they wanted to play? :/

To change the resource system (and it's already fundamentally different from Magic to begin with - significantly, even though subtle) would be to alter the entire way the game plays.

The lawsuit is a tactic - this is basically all or nothing at this point. To change anything directly in response to the lawsuit means they didn't think their vision was strong enough to survive and that also means it would no longer be the game we backed.

Nothing should be changed about the game in its current game design (unless developers want to go more into a different route for gameplay/features) because making the changes after this lawsuit of MTGO developers/publishers would make it appear that Cryptozoic agrees with Hasbro/Wizards. Once you go down that road it would be used against Cryptozoic in the case as trying to cover up gameplay mechanics that would "appear" to be similar. All of us kickstarters/Slacker Backers backed Hex for its fundamental differences between many other DTCGs out currently or in development.

I feel that the resources system is different enough from MTGO. It has no mana symbols, no lands and Hex has gem Thresholds. in MTGO you tap basic land for mana, that is all.

Yoss
05-19-2014, 10:14 AM
I still support a change to a "digital shuffle" where the shuffler does some kind of statistical interleaving to prevent "clumps".

Unhurtable
05-19-2014, 10:19 AM
One of the key reasons I like Hex is because it does not have an arbitrary resource system like Hearthstone or Infinity Wars that eliminate any strategy with resources and deck balance. Its a bit easier to manage than MTG, and dumbing it down any more would be terrible.

I don't think you know what arbitrary means.

On another note : I don't actually care about the resource system, its more about the mechanics for me, but I wouldn't mind future sets having cards or something that reduce flood / screw frequency. Changing it now in the middle of a lawsuit is legal suicide.

EccentricFan
05-19-2014, 10:32 AM
The problem with that is that if you did not hit your curve, you were frequently put in a severe disadvantage if the other person did. The person that hit the 3, 4, and 5 drop had much more presence on the table than somebody that had to drop a 3 drop on turns 4 and 5. You got curve-screwed rather than resource-screwed, so you are just trading one design flaw for another.

You see, that problem can still exist in Hex. One player can get the right resource balance and also perfectly hit their curve. The problem still exists, but you also have the resource problems. An improved resource system wouldn't remove the randomness of draw aspect of the game, but it would make it much rarer to get stuck with a hand that's not in the least bit competitive.

EccentricFan
05-19-2014, 10:46 AM
One of the key reasons I like Hex is because it does not have an arbitrary resource system like Hearthstone or Infinity Wars that eliminate any strategy with resources and deck balance. Its a bit easier to manage than MTG, and dumbing it down any more would be terrible.

You see, I'm beginning to think that for a lot of people, they like the resource system because they don't want to leave their comfort zone. Unsurprisingly with the design they came up with, Hex attracted a lot of Magic fans. Fans that are very used to a resource system like Hex has and the design implications.

But there's a lot of benefits to eliminating resource cards and managing them through other means. I love to use DoC as an example of game that did resources right. You picked which of several resources to raise each turn, or skipped that in favor of drawing a card. So there's still a lot of deck balance going into how to balance with resources.

You mix up too many high cost cards from different resource types and you're sacrificing card draws you could have had while increasing the chance you'll be stuck multiple turns from being able to play either of two cards and having to choose which one to build toward.

So most of the same balancing issues as in Hex are still there, and you'll forgive me if I don't think not having to decide whether to put 22 or 24 resources into my deck will ruin the deck building aspect of the game.

Especially since it means every card you have in your hand will a reason and strategy behind it. You'll have more choices on any given turn as to what to play, making for more mid-game strategy and tactics. It also opens more doors for cards that interact well with each other when being in your hand or played at the same time, since you don't have resources clogging up your hand making those combinations far less likely. That opens whole new design possibilities.

With all the innovative ideas they have for this game, I wish they could have made the resource system one of them. It's a refinement from magic, but magic's system was dated to begin with, so it still falls short of strides other companies have made in the meantime.

Gwaer
05-19-2014, 10:53 AM
I actually won't forgive you for saying DoC is the best resource system. Different strokes for different folks, and that is not a tune that keeps me afloat.

Khazrakh
05-19-2014, 11:02 AM
I played DoC for some time and to be honest - it might have been the worst balanced card game I ever played...

Turtlewing
05-19-2014, 11:28 AM
I dont believe for a second that adding a free mulligan if you get all lands or no lands would disturb the game balance in any way. It's like you people enjoy being frustrated, just because others have an equal chance of being frustrated.

It would mean that running a source starved deck with cheap cards and exploiting the free mulligan to negate the chance of screw while still retaining the card advantage from having fewer source draws becomes a more viable stately.

That would alter the meta.

QuantumZeruul
05-19-2014, 11:32 AM
Time and time again it's been shown that it has the statistically expected incidence of screw and flood. Threshold mitigates that somewhat on the screw side, champions/charge powers on the flood side.

What it doesn't have is resource-weaving which has been mitigating flood and screw for years. ;)

Don't you really mean "What it doesn't have is CHEATING which has been mitigating flood and screw for years"? :)

Turtlewing
05-19-2014, 11:34 AM
What design constraint? 99.9% of all limited decks run 40-45% resources so it basically applies to all decks and that 'constraint' as you put it, is just there so this rule can't be gamed to optimize decks in a way to gain an advantage from the possible free mulligan.

And it does affect decks equally - if your opponent happens to get unlucky and get a mulligan, you also have the option to get a free mulligan.

If any theoretical deck that could be built doesn't meet your criteria than enforcing the criteria is applying a design constraint.

And it does not affect all decks equally. If you build a deck that doesn't qualify you can't benefit from the rule unless you opponent also befits (if your opponent gets a perfect hand you have no chance of getting the free mulligan regardless of your draw because your deck doesn't qualify for free mulligans).

ossuary
05-19-2014, 11:53 AM
The problem with all of these wild (and a few semi-rational) suggestions for changing the way resources work is that it fundamentally alters the potential power of different styles of play. As Turtlewing said, even giving people a single free mulligan can mess up the metagame pretty severely. People who run really low (or even just a bit lower) resource counts will get a distinct advantage over people who run the "correct" number. The game is balanced around somewhere between 24-28 resources being in your deck. If they made a change that caused everyone to drop to 18 resources, the game would have to be rebalanced to work that way.

It gets even work when you actually start fudging the randomness to guarantee X number of shards by turn X. Combo decks will just run nearly zero resources, because they'll be guaranteed to get the resources they need, and EVERY other deck type will be blown out of the water. Doing anything to allow guaranteed resources would basically break the whole game. It's a terrible idea that was thought up by people who didn't think it through. :)

EccentricFan
05-19-2014, 11:57 AM
I played DoC for some time and to be honest - it might have been the worst balanced card game I ever played...

I won't argue that, and there's a reason I didn't play it for long. It had a lot of potential, and I enjoyed the positional battle system, but the balance was terrible. It's like they weren't even trying. That said, their failing on that part doesn't change the fact that I think they had a very good resource system.

ossuary
05-19-2014, 12:03 PM
Wasn't their resource system just "your total resources go up by 1 every single turn, guaranteed"? That's a lazy, stupid, boring, worthless system. :p

negativeZer0
05-19-2014, 12:32 PM
Don't you really mean "What it doesn't have is CHEATING which has been mitigating flood and screw for years"? :)

There are very precise rules for what constitutes shuffling in a high enforcement MTG tournament.
Resource weaving prior to a legal shuffle is not cheating.

Xenavire
05-19-2014, 12:35 PM
There are very precise rules for what constitutes shuffling in high enforcement MTG tournament.
Resource weaving prior to a legal shuffle is not cheating.

Most people skip the legal shuffle though, unless carefully watched. :p

Turtlewing
05-19-2014, 12:36 PM
There are very precise rules for what constitutes shuffling in high enforcement MTG tournament.
Resource weaving prior to a legal shuffle is not cheating.

That's because a legal shuffle will randomize the deck sufficiently that the order of the cards before the shuffle doesn't matter (i.e. manna weaving before a legal shuffle is useless).

bootlace
05-19-2014, 12:47 PM
If any theoretical deck that could be built doesn't meet your criteria than enforcing the criteria is applying a design constraint.

And it does not affect all decks equally. If you build a deck that doesn't qualify you can't benefit from the rule unless you opponent also befits (if your opponent gets a perfect hand you have no chance of getting the free mulligan regardless of your draw because your deck doesn't qualify for free mulligans).

I dont know what you're going on about - I've never heard of anyone who has ever really needed less than 16 resources or more than 18 resources in a limited deck of 40 cards - EVER. If they do, this mulligan rule is the least of their concerns. In fact I'd be willing to take out the 40-45% resource requirement because even with this 1 free mulligan rule its incredibly stupid to play anything other than 40-45% resources.

negativeZer0
05-19-2014, 12:48 PM
That's because a legal shuffle will randomize the deck sufficiently that the order of the cards before the shuffle doesn't matter (i.e. manna weaving before a legal shuffle is useless).

Not quite. A legal shuffle is statistically more likely to end up with a relatively even flow of land when the deck starts from this state. it will not remain 2-1 distribution thus being "random" but land will be much more evenly distributed then if you started with all you land on top and then shuffled exactly the same way. A legal tournament shuffle does not have enough iterations of shuffling to achieve a purely random result. It is simply "random enough" to meet the requirements / practicality of RL (ie: you cant make players shufle their deck 200+ times inbetween each match to achieve a more random result)


Most people skip the legal shuffle though, unless carefully watched. :p
You rarely encounter this at high level tournaments because the punishment is quite severe.

Xenavire
05-19-2014, 12:51 PM
I dont know what you're going on about - I've never heard of anyone who has ever really needed less than 16 resources or more than 18 resources in a limited deck of 40 cards - EVER. If they do, this mulligan rule is the least of their concerns. In fact I'd be willing to take out the 40-45% resource requirement because even with this 1 free mulligan rule its incredibly stupid to play anything other than 40-45% resources.

I can tell you right now, I have been seriously considering running more resources than 18. I came this close to getting back to back screw today when running 18. I have been as careful as possible with my resources, and it is a very bold statement to say you will never need more, going off personal experience.

bootlace
05-19-2014, 01:03 PM
I can tell you right now, I have been seriously considering running more resources than 18. I came this close to getting back to back screw today when running 18. I have been as careful as possible with my resources, and it is a very bold statement to say you will never need more, going off personal experience.

Im happy to take out that requirement entirely, I had no idea people were really playing 19 lands in limited.

EccentricFan
05-19-2014, 01:03 PM
Wasn't their resource system just "your total resources go up by 1 every single turn, guaranteed"? That's a lazy, stupid, boring, worthless system. :p

You had to chose which resource to increase each turn, or choose to forgo that to draw an extra card. It's not exactly exciting, but being pleased to see four resources in your starting hand with a proper mix of colors for what you want to do and then proceeding to play one per turn isn't exciting either.

Maybe it's just me, but I prefer games where 1 out of every 4 games or so isn't a throwaway game where bad luck kept you from being even slightly competitive. I also want a game that puts as much emphasis as possible on decisions and strategy during the game. So I like having a full hand of interesting cards with choices to make as to how to play them rather than just playing a resource each turn, and often having only one card you can actually play in your hand at any given time for much of the game.

Deck building is fun, and I admit there's a lot of tactics in the game right now once cards on the board, but too often there's little to any choice to what you play each turn. I also find that compared to other card games I've played, Hex leans towards the high end of randomness and the low end of complex strategies and tactics once your deck has been built.

I'd love to see it shift more in the other direction, and a change to the resource system would be a good start.

negativeZer0
05-19-2014, 01:06 PM
I can tell you right now, I have been seriously considering running more resources than 18. I came this close to getting back to back screw today when running 18. I have been as careful as possible with my resources, and it is a very bold statement to say you will never need more, going off personal experience.

I've been flooded on many occasions playing 17. Going above 18 is asking for flood just as often as you are getting screw right now.

my last draft playing a 17 mana deck with most cards in the deck costing 3-4
Round 1
Game 1 - play Flood
kept a 4 resource hand with decent start (2 drop-3 drop-5 drop)
out of my next 10 cards 8 of them were resources
Game 2 - draw - Screw
kept 2 resource hand with several 3 drops and a 4 drop
Saw 3rd source on turn 4 4th source on turn 8 5th on turn 9 (5th won me the game had this been one turn more i was dead)
Game 3 - draw - Screw
Screw (kept 2 resource hand with one 2 drop several 3 drops)
Saw 4th source on turn 7 never saw 5th
Still won the round because my deck was better than opponents, I should have lost

Round 2
game 1 - play - flood (3 resource hand)
Game 2 - play - flood (4 resource hand)

Round 3
Game 1 - play - perfect curve - 3 resource hand
Game 2 - draw - Unknown - lost to in game bug not allowing me to play resources even though they were in my hand, I would have had a perfect curve to at least 4 had then game allowed me to play shards.

I was able to overcome the flood/screw because of a better deck and better playing skills. This doesn't change the fact
I should have lost round 1 without question
and round 2 was nearly lost - my opponent had = bad luck game 1 and made a huge play mistake game 2 that allowed me to come back.

Xenavire
05-19-2014, 01:13 PM
I've been flooded on many occasions playing 17. Going above 18 is asking for flood just as often as you are getting screw right now.

my last draft playing a 17 mana deck with most cards in the deck costing 3-4
Round 1
Game 1 - play Flood
kept a 4 resource hand with decent start (2 drop-3 drop-5 drop)
out of my next 10 cards 8 of them were resources
Game 2 - draw - Screw
kept 2 resource hand with several 3 drops and a 4 drop
Saw 3rd source on turn 4 4th source on turn 8 5th on turn 9 (5th won me the game had this been one turn more i was dead)
Game 3 - draw - Screw
Screw (kept 2 resource hand with one 2 drop several 3 drops)
Saw 4th source on turn 7 never saw 5th
Still won the round because my deck was better than opponents, I should have lost

Round 2
game 1 - play - flood (3 resource hand)
Game 2 - play - flood (4 resource hand)

Round 3
Game 1 - play - perfect curve - 3 resource hand
Game 2 - draw - Unknown - lost to in game bug not allowing me to play resources even though they were in my hand, I would have had a perfect curve to at least 4 had then game allowed me to play shards.

I was able to overocme the flood/screw because of a better deck and better playing skills. This doesn't change the fact I should have lost round 1 without question, and round 2 was nearly lost, my opponent made a huge play mistake that allowed me to come back.

A well built deck can handle flood better than screw though. And I have seen well placed champion abilities clinch games - it is something I am considering, if 18 is not reliable enough for me.

negativeZer0
05-19-2014, 01:17 PM
I think I am more and more leaning to 18 being the better choice (over 17) but I think you're pushing your luck at 19+.

Svenn
05-19-2014, 01:18 PM
A well built deck can handle flood better than screw though. And I have seen well placed champion abilities clinch games - it is something I am considering, if 18 is not reliable enough for me.
18 in a draft? I've never gone above 17, but I tend to keep my curve on the low end. Most of the cards I play are 3 drops, and I tend to go for maybe 4 cards over that. It's worked well so far... I seem to make it to the finals pretty often.

Xenavire
05-19-2014, 01:34 PM
18 in a draft? I've never gone above 17, but I tend to keep my curve on the low end. Most of the cards I play are 3 drops, and I tend to go for maybe 4 cards over that. It's worked well so far... I seem to make it to the finals pretty often.

Well, that 18 shard deck took me to finals vs Infam0usNe0. The rest of the deck wasn't even stellar, but it was rather high on the cost side. But my most recent win was a 17 shard deck with a ton of card draw, which fixed my screw very well. Only lost a single game, and that was to some exceptional screw (to the point I couldn't play anything for most of the game, even mulliganing well.)

Like I said, I am willing to experiment with more resources, because I am getting screwed often with 17. 18 worked well, but it still had some minor screw. I will keep experimenting over time, and see if there is a better ratio - people just assumed 16-18 was perfect without a lot of testing at first. I am not claiming it is incorrect, but maybe there is a larger possible range than people thought.

LNQ
05-19-2014, 01:46 PM
It's an inherent part of the human brain that we're real good at pattern recognition. The problem is, we see patterns where there are none.

You've likely been watching the new Cosmos. :)

Yoss
05-19-2014, 01:50 PM
It gets even work when you actually start fudging the randomness to guarantee X number of shards by turn X. Combo decks will just run nearly zero resources, because they'll be guaranteed to get the resources they need, and EVERY other deck type will be blown out of the water. Doing anything to allow guaranteed resources would basically break the whole game. It's a terrible idea that was thought up by people who didn't think it through. :)

I don't think you can make such broad statements without examining the details first.

Consider this (complicated) system.

For every card type ("Ruby Shard", "Ragefire", etc) in the deck:

- count them
-- 24 for "Ruby Shard", 4 for "Ragefire", etc

- provide a default homogeneous index location for each instance of the unique card
-- with 24 of a card (shards in a mono-shard deck), indices would happen every 2.5 cards (60/24): 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 19, 21, 24, 26, 29, 31, 34, 36, 39, 41, 44, 46, 49, 51, 54, 56, 59
-- with 12 of a card (shards in a two-shard deck), indices would happen every 5 cards: 3, 8, 13, 18, 23, 28, 33, 38, 43, 48, 53, 58
-- with 4 cards, indices would be every 15 cards: 8, 23, 38, 53
-- with 3 cards, indices would be every 20 cards: 11, 31, 51
-- with 2 cards, indices would be every 30 cards: 16, 46
-- with 1 card, index would be at 31

- find a variance range around the indices, inversely proportional to the Count
-- with 24 cards, variance would be 1.25
-- with 12 cards, variance would be 2.5
-- with 4 cards, variance would be 7.5
-- with 3 cards, variance would be 10
-- with 2 cards, variance would be 15
-- with 1 card, variance would be 30

For each card type in the deck, starting with highest Count, randomizing on ties:
- For each card within that card type:
-- Take the index from above and perturb it by a gaussian function with zero mean and variance from above. Round towards the original index. If that index is occupied or is out of range (>DeckSize or <1) in the final result (final result starts empty), then use a "one more up, one more down" search to find an empty spot. Put this card in that slot in the final result, then proceed to the next card.

What's the result? You get a highly homogeneous shuffle, but with no ability to absolutely predict that Card Type X will show up by Turn Y. Instead, one could only say, "With 24 Ruby Shards, I am P% likely to hit my Nth one by the Xth draw." And really, that's the same as now, except that the P will be larger for high-density cards like shards since 3 sigma would only be a perturbation of mabye 3 slots in the shuffle and since higher density cards take positional priority over lower density cards.

I'm not convinced that higher homogeneity would favor Combo over other types. Having more control of the resource distribution just means being able to better target your curve with your shard base. If you run fat stuff, you can customize to hit your shard drops and let your card quality make up for the loss of draw quality (card advantage). If you run weenies, you can customize to avoid flood out to get draw quality (card advantage). Combo is more likely to hit what it needs, but so are the counters to it. Combo hits the Shrewd Manipulation easier, but Control also hits the Solitary Exile easier, and Aggro hits its curve easier (or its Combo hate in game 2 and 3).

The main downside I see is that explaining the shuffler details will be a nightmare, but the layman explanation is quite easy and would be sufficient for most players. ("The shuffler spreads your cards out more or less uniformly throughout your deck to reduce clumping. It is not 'true random'.") The FEEL of the shuffle will actually be exactly what people expect from a shuffle: homogeneity. True random is NOT what people intuitively expect from a shuffler. (Witness the many threads talking about how clumpy the shuffler is.)

LNQ
05-19-2014, 01:51 PM
I wouldn't mulligan a 5 shard opening hand in draft, if it is 5+2 or even 5+1. So you don't have a perfect starting hand? Well at least you're good on resources. If you have a decent deck you still have a fighting chance.

I'm currently 6x win, 2x final, 2x 2nd round, 2x first round loss. I usually go for 18 shards as I feel draft is much more forgiving on resource flood vs resource screw.

LLCoolDave
05-19-2014, 02:09 PM
Not quite. A legal shuffle is statistically more likely to end up with a relatively even flow of land when the deck starts from this state. it will not remain 2-1 distribution thus being "random" but land will be much more evenly distributed then if you started with all you land on top and then shuffled exactly the same way. A legal tournament shuffle does not have enough iterations of shuffling to achieve a purely random result. It is simply "random enough" to meet the requirements / practicality of RL (ie: you cant make players shufle their deck 200+ times inbetween each match to achieve a more random result)

You severely overestimate the amount of reasonably well executed shuffles one needs to properly randomize a deck. You just need to actually use a shuffling technique that accomplishes this reasonably efficiently. I just took a stacked deck (24 lands on top), did 3 riffle shuffles, cut, 4 riffle shuffles, cut, 3 riffle shuffles and the deck afterwards looked fine at a first glance to me, I certainly wouldn't be able to distinguish it from the way it looked after repeating the shuffle from this mixed state (i.e. I doubt I'd do significantly better than 50% when forced to double blind guess if the stacked deck had been through that shuffle procedure once or twice). If people would simply spend half the time they waste on mana weaving and pile shuffling on randomization techniques that are more efficient at moving cards around in a deck we'd have both better randomized decks and less time wasted on shuffling. There's a sufficient amount of statistical analysis on this subject out there, people simply refuse to believe the people that actually have an idea of what they are talking about and rather listen to their own instincts, which are almost always terrible at these kinds of things.

primer
05-19-2014, 02:11 PM
I wish they would do something although i'm sure they won't. There's no skill in you or your opponent losing due to screw or flood and it makes a poor game experience for both parties.

nicosharp
05-19-2014, 02:14 PM
I've played about 15 beta drafts so far. I'd have to say 17 shards feels like the most consistent. I've played some low curve decks to with 3-4 cards over 3 cost with 16 resources, and did fine as well.

The trick is, whether you flood or screw you want to have quality picks that you can play that will help you get to at least turn 6 or 7. In some cases against a nut draw from the opponent who happens to be rushing, you just can't compete. That means running a decent amount of 2 drops, and quite a bit of 3 drops.

primer
05-19-2014, 02:16 PM
I'm at the point now where I only play mono colour + artifacts in draft. Its just not worth paying $7 and then being screwed/flooded out first round elimination. Although this usually means i'm playing weaker decks I feel that I at least have a better playing experience.

I'll try dual colour drafts when swiss is implemented.

Even with mono colour, just yesterday I mulled a 6 shard opening hand and kept a 2 shard second draw. Only to get no shards for 10 turns.

ossuary
05-19-2014, 02:45 PM
There's no skill in you or your opponent losing due to screw or flood and it makes a poor game experience for both parties.

Of course there is. The skill comes from building the deck better in the first place, and recognizing when to mulligan. Saying "I got resource screwed, there was nothing I could do" is an ignorant and self-delusional statement. There was plenty you could have done, you just weren't proactive enough, and missed your chance. Once you choose to keep your opening hand, it's too late. :)

Svenn
05-19-2014, 02:50 PM
I'm at the point now where I only play mono colour + artifacts in draft. Its just not worth paying $7 and then being screwed/flooded out first round elimination. Although this usually means i'm playing weaker decks I feel that I at least have a better playing experience.

I'll try dual colour drafts when swiss is implemented.

Even with mono colour, just yesterday I mulled a 6 shard opening hand and kept a 2 shard second draw. Only to get no shards for 10 turns.
I've had little issues playing dual colors every time. There are a few things that can help:
1) Don't play too many dual threshold cards, or stick with dual threshold in only one color.
2) Adaptable Infusion Device. I usually see a couple of these tossed around per draft.
3) Shards of Fate. Same thing as above, there's usually at least 1-2 of these floating around.

Xenavire
05-19-2014, 02:50 PM
Of course there is. The skill comes from building the deck better in the first place, and recognizing when to mulligan. Saying "I got resource screwed, there was nothing I could do" is an ignorant and self-delusional statement. There was plenty you could have done, you just weren't proactive enough, and missed your chance. Once you choose to keep your opening hand, it's too late. :)

C'mon oss, there are going to be rare times that the screw is just that bad, even with the best mulligan skills. I have seen no resource - 1 resource - 2 resource and kept (because going down to 4 is going to be far worse most of the time.) Then proceeded to not draw any resources until turn 5, and have all my high cost bombs in my hand, with none of my low cost curve cards.

It does happen. And no amount of proactiveness can stop those horrible, rare, and nasty screws. I agree that skill can mitigate it down to minute chances, but those screws do happen.

What is very, very rare, is losing a match to it. With reserves, you should almost always be able to do better.

mudkip
05-19-2014, 02:57 PM
The point of every deck is that every draw is a killer that works to your favor. If it isn't, you're either unlucky (happens to the best of us) or you built a worse deck that you're opponent.

Guap
05-19-2014, 03:06 PM
I can only comment on my own experience. Of the 22 drafts I've paid for over half of those had me lose in the first round due to severe resource flood/screw I'm rarely on the opposite side of resource issues where I win due to it. It's a problem and the more people poor into the game the more people will complain about it. No one likes to consistently lose to resource draw. It's a problem and is something that will eventually have to be addressed. It's not fun to lose over and over because you draw nothing but resources or get no resources. It's not the number of resource in the deck it's the very crappy draw mechanic. It doesn't reflect the results you would get with a physical game. I've never had the resource issues that exist with this game in any of the physical tcgs I've played.

FreyOrvar
05-19-2014, 03:06 PM
Of course there is. The skill comes from building the deck better in the first place, and recognizing when to mulligan. Saying "I got resource screwed, there was nothing I could do" is an ignorant and self-delusional statement. There was plenty you could have done, you just weren't proactive enough, and missed your chance. Once you choose to keep your opening hand, it's too late. :)

In game 3 of a draft, I was running 17 shards in a 40 shard deck. I saw, 0,1,0,1 shards per hand as I mulliganed to 4.

What chance did I miss genius?

mudkip
05-19-2014, 03:08 PM
In game 3 of a draft, I was running 17 shards in a 40 shard deck. I saw, 0,1,0,1 shards per hand as I mulliganed to 4.

What chance did I miss genius?

You should have risked the 6 card. 1 resource isn't terrible.

Guap
05-19-2014, 03:09 PM
You should have risked the 6 card. 1 resource isn't terrible.
Yes, yes it is terrible.

Yoss
05-19-2014, 03:10 PM
post 55 totally ignored :(

primer
05-19-2014, 03:13 PM
Of course there is. The skill comes from building the deck better in the first place, and recognizing when to mulligan. Saying "I got resource screwed, there was nothing I could do" is an ignorant and self-delusional statement. There was plenty you could have done, you just weren't proactive enough, and missed your chance. Once you choose to keep your opening hand, it's too late. :)

So I mull a 6 shard hand. Draw a 2 shard hand and keep. Turn 10 still have 2 shards. But yeah there's plenty I could of done... I was even playing a low curve aggro deck nothing over 4 cost...

That was game 3. First game he flooded out, second game he stabilised and got over the top. So we basically played a 2 game match.

Guap
05-19-2014, 03:13 PM
Of course there is. The skill comes from building the deck better in the first place, and recognizing when to mulligan. Saying "I got resource screwed, there was nothing I could do" is an ignorant and self-delusional statement. There was plenty you could have done, you just weren't proactive enough, and missed your chance. Once you choose to keep your opening hand, it's too late. :)
This is quite possible the dumbest thing I've ever seen stated here. There are no skills involved in losing to drawing nothing but resource or drawing none and getting shafted repeatedly and shorting yourself cards in mulligans. No skill.... None. There's no build that can account for it, no magical number of shards, no mulligan that can save you when the mulligans are bad. If you start with 1 resource and you don't draw any for 4 or 5 turns you are fucked and you are going to lose unless you opponent plays into the same draw.

primer
05-19-2014, 03:18 PM
post 55 totally ignored :(

This is a nice idea, but its kind of a lot of trouble guaranteeing shards every so often when you could just have a hearthstone system, which I don't believe is the answer.

primer
05-19-2014, 03:21 PM
I've had little issues playing dual colors every time. There are a few things that can help:
1) Don't play too many dual threshold cards, or stick with dual threshold in only one color.
2) Adaptable Infusion Device. I usually see a couple of these tossed around per draft.
3) Shards of Fate. Same thing as above, there's usually at least 1-2 of these floating around.

I've tried numerous options. I even ran with a 18 resources every draft to combat screw but it still didn't stop me having 5 of x shard and none of y.

Svenn
05-19-2014, 03:22 PM
This is quite possible the dumbest thing I've ever seen stated here. There are no skills involved in losing to drawing nothing but resource or drawing none and getting shafted repeatedly and shorting yourself cards in mulligans. No skill.... None. There's no build that can account for it, no magical number of shards, no mulligan that can save you when the mulligans are bad. If you start with 1 resource and you don't draw any for 4 or 5 turns you are fucked and you are going to lose unless you opponent plays into the same draw.
You shouldn't be starting with 1 resource. Yes, there's nothing you can do to completely prevent getting screwed at some points. However, there are PLENTY of things you can do to mitigate it. Unfortunately, a lot of the complaints of people getting screwed are improperly built decks (bad curves, poor shard distribution, etc) or people that don't know when to mulligan. It happens, but not as much as some people want you to believe.

hacky
05-19-2014, 03:23 PM
In my own draft experience (15+ drafts), I've lost less than 5 games (not matches) due to not having enough resources to play the majority of my hand. I've lost only a couple of games due to having too many resources in the first few turns of the game. I've lost only a couple of games due to not getting the correct shard to play the majority of cards in my hand.

I've played far more games where I get a non-ideal resource spread, and my opponent also gets an non-ideal resource spread, but I am able to come out ahead.

I've played many games where I have started with a non-ideal resource spread, laid out my options for both possibilities (drawing more resources, and drawing no more resources), and decided whether to keep a hand based on that.

For every game where I need to draw a non-resource card to win a game or stay alive, there is a game where I need to draw a resource card to win or stay alive.

I've kept risky hands with 2 or even 1 resource, when I can come up with a plan for the game that is still passable without drawing any more resources. Sometimes it doesn't pan out, but more often, it works. Just the same, I have kept risky hands with 5 or 6 resources, with similar success.

And from this, I can confidently say that I disagree with everyone who gets "resource screwed 25% or more of the time". Look carefully at how you decide the number of resources to play, and what distribution of resources to play. Look carefully at the cost curve of your cards, and the thresholds you want to hit at each stage of the game (early, middle, late). Look carefully at the value of cards that give you additional ways to get resources or thresholds to play the cards you need. Knowledge of all factors of your deck will help you choose a resource spread that will serve you well the vast majority of the time.

There are people out there who think 13 resources is enough for a 40-card draft deck. Of course they'll think they get resource starved every game.

There are people out there who mulligan hands they can keep. There are people out there who keep hands they should mulligan. The knowledge to know what to look for in an opening hand is something that I needed to learn through practice.


EDIT: And if you need proof of my experiences, almost every draft I have ever played in Hex has been livestreamed and archived on my Twitch channel in my signature. Let me know if you'd like me to point out some examples of non-ideal hands and my analysis of whether to keep them or not.

Svenn
05-19-2014, 03:24 PM
I can only comment on my own experience. Of the 22 drafts I've paid for over half of those had me lose in the first round due to severe resource flood/screw I'm rarely on the opposite side of resource issues where I win due to it. It's a problem and the more people poor into the game the more people will complain about it. No one likes to consistently lose to resource draw. It's a problem and is something that will eventually have to be addressed. It's not fun to lose over and over because you draw nothing but resources or get no resources. It's not the number of resource in the deck it's the very crappy draw mechanic. It doesn't reflect the results you would get with a physical game. I've never had the resource issues that exist with this game in any of the physical tcgs I've played.
If you're experiencing issues that often (especially if they are costing you a whole round and not just a single game) I would say that it's more likely an issue with your deck construction/mulligan choices. I've played in probably a dozen drafts and I can think of maybe a single time I got screwed and it cost me a round.

primer
05-19-2014, 03:26 PM
You shouldn't be starting with 1 resource. Yes, there's nothing you can do to completely prevent getting screwed at some points. However, there are PLENTY of things you can do to mitigate it. Unfortunately, a lot of the complaints of people getting screwed are improperly built decks (bad curves, poor shard distribution, etc) or people that don't know when to mulligan. It happens, but not as much as some people want you to believe.

I don't disagree that you remember the bad much more than the good. But with the whole 'Hex too similar to MtG' thing going on, why not take the opportunity to take the resource system away from the more annoying parts of MtG (screw and flood) and turn it into something truly innovative and revolutionary.

Arbiter
05-19-2014, 03:29 PM
post 55 totally ignored :(

I read it. I won't quote it as it is a little long. I think it does require rebalancing of certain cards - cards that let you dig deeper and reorder your library are much more powerful with interleaved shuffling. Also certain decks could be built to abuse it, which is kind of good on the creativity side, but bad because once someone has done the work and it's in the public domain it becomes open for anyone to abuse, regardless of their theory crafting aptitude.

LLCoolDave
05-19-2014, 03:30 PM
I've tried numerous options. I even ran with a 18 resources every draft to combat screw but it still didn't stop me having 5 of x shard and none of y.

Note that generally, in a two color deck you'll mostly want to try to achieve a color balance that allows you to play a 10/7 or even 11/6 distribution of shards, with a stronger base color and a secondary support color. This goes a surprisingly long way to battle color imbalances in your draws, but is also something you have to plan for while drafting and building your deck.

Considering there are some people that complain about consistently getting screwed/flooded more than anybody else ever, I have a feeling the issue might also just lie in the way you make use of the resources you have and the curves your decks adhere to. I'd love to see some full game recordings or complete play by play logs of some of your games to see if there might be more to this than you just getting exceedingly unlucky.

There are games you simply can't win due to the way you draw resources, but there's also simply games you can't win even if you draw your resources perfectly fine on curve. The number of these games, however, is a lot lower than some of you might think. I might make a post this week about why I feel a certain amount of randomness, uncertainty and bad luck is important for the health of the game if I have time to. There is an actual positive design aspect to some games just being almost unwinnable.

primer
05-19-2014, 03:38 PM
Yeah I don't disagree that the number of games I lose due to screw and flood are few, but they are the ones that stick in your mind. With one happening just yesterday that's what i'm remembering atm.

hacky
05-19-2014, 03:40 PM
Note that generally, in a two color deck you'll mostly want to try to achieve a color balance that allows you to play a 10/7 or even 11/6 distribution of shards, with a stronger base color and a secondary support color. This goes a surprisingly long way to battle color imbalances in your draws, but is also something you have to plan for while drafting and building your deck.

Quoting for truth and emphasis.

10/7 and 11/6 allow you to play dual-thresholds of one shard, and splash many single-threshold of your secondary shard.

12/5 is even acceptable if you are only splashing a handful of cards of a shard (example: mono-wild with 3x Repel)

Shards of Fate and Adaptable Infusion Device allow you to further reduce your secondary-shard. 12/3 +2 Shards of Fate is perfect if you need double-threshold 2-or-3-cost cards consistently (thunderbird, feral ogre).

I would go closer to even if both my shards had dual-threshold cards. 9/8 with the 9 being the dual-thresholds that are lower-cost.

The same guidelines apply to trying to go tri-shard. Shards of Fate and Adaptable Infusion Device GREATLY help tri-shard.

ossuary
05-19-2014, 04:07 PM
Several of you (mostly the ones bitching at me and calling names) have failed to grasp the point of my post. I never said screw doesn't happen. However, one of the people who posted earlier in the thread that I was partially responding to said it was the cause of 1 in 4 games being lost. If you are losing that many games to screw, it's not the shuffle, it's you. Add a better mix of resources, play a larger number of lower cost cards, or practice mulliganing better. That's my point.

And if you KNOW your luck with resources are that bad (mine are!), account for it. My orc deck has 26 resources in it, and all but 6 cards in the deck cost 3 or less. Because I'm very familiar with how much Kismet hates me. The tease. :)

Yoss
05-19-2014, 04:31 PM
This is a nice idea, but its kind of a lot of trouble guaranteeing shards every so often when you could just have a hearthstone system, which I don't believe is the answer.

Thing is, it's not a guarantee, it just skews the odds in favor of homogeneity. Sitting with 3 source, needing a 4th, you have no idea if your next draw will get you there, nor the next, nor the next. However, your odds go up much faster than if it was a pure random shuffle (instead of odds going 21/43, 21/42, 21/41, they'd be moving along the steep sides of a gaussian).

Yoss
05-19-2014, 04:42 PM
I read it. I won't quote it as it is a little long. I think it does require rebalancing of certain cards - cards that let you dig deeper and reorder your library are much more powerful with interleaved shuffling. Also certain decks could be built to abuse it, which is kind of good on the creativity side, but bad because once someone has done the work and it's in the public domain it becomes open for anyone to abuse, regardless of their theory crafting aptitude.

Thank you for reading. Saying "something could abuse it" requires support; it is not obvious. I can just as well say "no one could abuse it". The post 55 suggestion would lead to more consistent draws for all decks, this much we know. What we don't know is if that's really a problem. Removing variance favors skill in the skill vs luck trade. That much I'm fine with. As for breaking certain cards or combos, I'm not sure I'm ready to admit that. Maybe your combo jumps from 50% hit rate to 60% with this shuffle, but my answer is also much more likely to be available than with true random. (Also noteworthy is that combo doesn't really exist in Hex yet unless you count things that aren't competitive.)

Arbiter
05-19-2014, 07:37 PM
Abuse was probably an unreasonably harsh choice of words. Take advantage of is probably the better phrase.

Some examples:
Milling two cards after an opponent has drawn a resource, because now it is much more likely that they will be non-resource cards
Cards which gain stats based on the next x cards in the deck being a certain type have much less variance
If a key combo card is of a particular type that you can avoid elsewhere, statistically you increase your chance of drawing it while decreasing your chance of multiples.
Peek style cards give you a wider variety of cards to pick from
If you can have an answer card as a troop or basic or quick action, for example choosing between a troop or a quick action to deal with a constant, you can choose the one that gives you the best chance to draw due to spreading them through your deck.
Troops, artifacts and actions that give you resources become worse, as they can clump with resources, whereas resources alone have clump protection.

The maths geek in me actually loves some of these effects. The design geek in me says that this change does affect the relative. Power of some cards, so it would need to lead to a balance pass of the cards. I suspect though that most people are after a solution that de-randomises their resource draws without forcing a balance pass. That, however, does not exist.

ursa23
05-19-2014, 08:43 PM
You've likely been watching the new Cosmos. :)

You best believe I gets my NDGT fix on the weekly :) But also, to anyone who is interested in this aspect of humanity, check out "The Drunkard's Walk," by Leonard Mlodinow. It's an awesome read.

frychikn
05-19-2014, 08:46 PM
Of course there is. The skill comes from building the deck better in the first place, and recognizing when to mulligan. Saying "I got resource screwed, there was nothing I could do" is an ignorant and self-delusional statement. There was plenty you could have done, you just weren't proactive enough, and missed your chance. Once you choose to keep your opening hand, it's too late. :)

you really are delusional.

MugenMusou
05-19-2014, 09:27 PM
I don't think you can make such broad statements without examining the details first.

Consider this (complicated) system.

For every card type ("Ruby Shard", "Ragefire", etc) in the deck:

- count them
-- 24 for "Ruby Shard", 4 for "Ragefire", etc

- provide a default homogeneous index location for each instance of the unique card
-- with 24 of a card (shards in a mono-shard deck), indices would happen every 2.5 cards (60/24): 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 19, 21, 24, 26, 29, 31, 34, 36, 39, 41, 44, 46, 49, 51, 54, 56, 59
-- with 12 of a card (shards in a two-shard deck), indices would happen every 5 cards: 3, 8, 13, 18, 23, 28, 33, 38, 43, 48, 53, 58
-- with 4 cards, indices would be every 15 cards: 8, 23, 38, 53
-- with 3 cards, indices would be every 20 cards: 11, 31, 51
-- with 2 cards, indices would be every 30 cards: 16, 46
-- with 1 card, index would be at 31

- find a variance range around the indices, inversely proportional to the Count
-- with 24 cards, variance would be 1.25
-- with 12 cards, variance would be 2.5
-- with 4 cards, variance would be 7.5
-- with 3 cards, variance would be 10
-- with 2 cards, variance would be 15
-- with 1 card, variance would be 30

For each card type in the deck, starting with highest Count, randomizing on ties:
- For each card within that card type:
-- Take the index from above and perturb it by a gaussian function with zero mean and variance from above. Round towards the original index. If that index is occupied or is out of range (>DeckSize or <1) in the final result (final result starts empty), then use a "one more up, one more down" search to find an empty spot. Put this card in that slot in the final result, then proceed to the next card.

What's the result? You get a highly homogeneous shuffle, but with no ability to absolutely predict that Card Type X will show up by Turn Y. Instead, one could only say, "With 24 Ruby Shards, I am P% likely to hit my Nth one by the Xth draw." And really, that's the same as now, except that the P will be larger for high-density cards like shards since 3 sigma would only be a perturbation of mabye 3 slots in the shuffle and since higher density cards take positional priority over lower density cards.

I'm not convinced that higher homogeneity would favor Combo over other types. Having more control of the resource distribution just means being able to better target your curve with your shard base. If you run fat stuff, you can customize to hit your shard drops and let your card quality make up for the loss of draw quality (card advantage). If you run weenies, you can customize to avoid flood out to get draw quality (card advantage). Combo is more likely to hit what it needs, but so are the counters to it. Combo hits the Shrewd Manipulation easier, but Control also hits the Solitary Exile easier, and Aggro hits its curve easier (or its Combo hate in game 2 and 3).

The main downside I see is that explaining the shuffler details will be a nightmare, but the layman explanation is quite easy and would be sufficient for most players. ("The shuffler spreads your cards out more or less uniformly throughout your deck to reduce clumping. It is not 'true random'.") The FEEL of the shuffle will actually be exactly what people expect from a shuffle: homogeneity. True random is NOT what people intuitively expect from a shuffler. (Witness the many threads talking about how clumpy the shuffler is.)

I did not read detail but I actually like the concept,

In short, I believe you are trying to artificially throw out rare statistical cases and make more likely what the average stat should do on every game.

For example, 24 resources in 60 card, the mean is 4 resources by turn 4. Currently, we all get relatively frequent at least so we feel times of 5 or 6 resources in turn 1 or 1 resource in turn 5 or sixth.

Although these are statistically possible and therefore happening to us, with your method, most games we know get indeed 4 cards of resource and others 3 or 5 but make it impossible for 1 resource by turn 4 sort of deal, right?

I think there is sweet spot of variation and certainly some extreme stat case thrown out from the game won't hurt.. In fact, create more strategic environment.

I hope cryptozoic seriously consider this and give a try at least.

ylhos
05-19-2014, 10:15 PM
how bout just tossing 1/3 of your resources randomly into the first 1/3 of your deck, the next 1/3 of resource thrown randomly into the second 1/3 of your deck, and the remaining 1/3 of resource thrown into the last 1/3 of your deck.

You can go on to make variance less by throwing in 10% of your resources into the first 1/10 of your deck, and so on so forth.

I think this would be an easier method to program, reduce variance, and still retain the current resource system.

MugenMusou
05-19-2014, 10:26 PM
how bout just tossing 1/3 of your resources randomly into the first 1/3 of your deck, the next 1/3 of resource thrown randomly into the second 1/3 of your deck, and the remaining 1/3 of resource thrown into the last 1/3 of your deck.

You can go on to make variance less by throwing in 10% of your resources into the first 1/10 of your deck, and so on so forth.

I think this would be an easier method to program, reduce variance, and still retain the current resource system.

They can always make each draw not independent when comes to a resource.

They have certainly many options including one like u suggested or just for first hand and mulligan throw away extremely cases behind the scene, but the rest of game carries in as usual.

If they gonna go with these approach I'm sure they need a good statistician with PhD. But certainly seems possible to give better environment in theory.

Oroniss
05-19-2014, 10:44 PM
I wouldn't hold your breath for changes to the resource/mulligan system. CZE posted a while back stating that after a lot of testing the current system was the best amount of variability for the game design they were looking for.

They did raise the possibility of other mechanics/mulligans/etc for PVE and casual/private tournaments, but for competitive PvP I can't see them changing it.

Collectively, we are all probably better off figuring out how best to play with the current system rather than rehashing ideas they already decided against.

Arbiter
05-19-2014, 11:25 PM
I wouldn't hold your breath for changes to the resource/mulligan system. CZE posted a while back stating that after a lot of testing the current system was the best amount of variability for the game design they were looking for.

Which is the problem. It did take several years with MtG before WotC came up with the mulligan system and play/draw rule that HEX uses.

Gwaer
05-20-2014, 02:03 AM
WOTC didn't come up with the mulligan rule that mtg currently uses. It was created by a guy named Matt Hyra. You've probably never heard of him, and it certainly has nothing to do with this game at all.

Arbiter
05-20-2014, 02:15 AM
WOTC didn't come up with the mulligan rule that mtg currently uses. It was created by a guy named Matt Hyra. You've probably never heard of him, and it certainly has nothing to do with this game at all.

Actually I do... I played MtG in the early days and VS during my life.

This article mauy be of interest to you: http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr112b

He did indeed design it, and bring it to WotC R&D while he was their employee.

Gwaer
05-20-2014, 02:29 AM
The old mulligan rule was clunky, so R&D had a standing order to try and come up with something better. Meanwhile, Matt had come up with his own mulligan rule. He started using it at unsanctioned tournaments that he judged. And people seemed to like it. So he brought the idea to R&D.

Notice past tense, he had already designed it, and used it in unsanctioned play, then brought it to R&D after he was hired. There are no legal documents claiming they own it, there are tons of other games that use it. It's not considered MTG property to my knowledge. If you have some evidence otherwise I'd be glad to revise my opinion on the topic.

praesidium
05-20-2014, 02:30 AM
Long story short, if you rebalanced resource system and made it work like you wanted, the strategy of HEX would get a bit different from MTG and it seems noone wants that.

praesidium
05-20-2014, 02:34 AM
I don't think you can make such broad statements without examining the details first.

Consider this (complicated) system.

For every card type ("Ruby Shard", "Ragefire", etc) in the deck:

- count them
-- 24 for "Ruby Shard", 4 for "Ragefire", etc

- provide a default homogeneous index location for each instance of the unique card
-- with 24 of a card (shards in a mono-shard deck), indices would happen every 2.5 cards (60/24): 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 19, 21, 24, 26, 29, 31, 34, 36, 39, 41, 44, 46, 49, 51, 54, 56, 59
-- with 12 of a card (shards in a two-shard deck), indices would happen every 5 cards: 3, 8, 13, 18, 23, 28, 33, 38, 43, 48, 53, 58
-- with 4 cards, indices would be every 15 cards: 8, 23, 38, 53
-- with 3 cards, indices would be every 20 cards: 11, 31, 51
-- with 2 cards, indices would be every 30 cards: 16, 46
-- with 1 card, index would be at 31

- find a variance range around the indices, inversely proportional to the Count
-- with 24 cards, variance would be 1.25
-- with 12 cards, variance would be 2.5
-- with 4 cards, variance would be 7.5
-- with 3 cards, variance would be 10
-- with 2 cards, variance would be 15
-- with 1 card, variance would be 30

For each card type in the deck, starting with highest Count, randomizing on ties:
- For each card within that card type:
-- Take the index from above and perturb it by a gaussian function with zero mean and variance from above. Round towards the original index. If that index is occupied or is out of range (>DeckSize or <1) in the final result (final result starts empty), then use a "one more up, one more down" search to find an empty spot. Put this card in that slot in the final result, then proceed to the next card.

What's the result? You get a highly homogeneous shuffle, but with no ability to absolutely predict that Card Type X will show up by Turn Y. Instead, one could only say, "With 24 Ruby Shards, I am P% likely to hit my Nth one by the Xth draw." And really, that's the same as now, except that the P will be larger for high-density cards like shards since 3 sigma would only be a perturbation of mabye 3 slots in the shuffle and since higher density cards take positional priority over lower density cards.

I'm not convinced that higher homogeneity would favor Combo over other types. Having more control of the resource distribution just means being able to better target your curve with your shard base. If you run fat stuff, you can customize to hit your shard drops and let your card quality make up for the loss of draw quality (card advantage). If you run weenies, you can customize to avoid flood out to get draw quality (card advantage). Combo is more likely to hit what it needs, but so are the counters to it. Combo hits the Shrewd Manipulation easier, but Control also hits the Solitary Exile easier, and Aggro hits its curve easier (or its Combo hate in game 2 and 3).

The main downside I see is that explaining the shuffler details will be a nightmare, but the layman explanation is quite easy and would be sufficient for most players. ("The shuffler spreads your cards out more or less uniformly throughout your deck to reduce clumping. It is not 'true random'.") The FEEL of the shuffle will actually be exactly what people expect from a shuffle: homogeneity. True random is NOT what people intuitively expect from a shuffler. (Witness the many threads talking about how clumpy the shuffler is.)

the closed mind of the people who instantly say no to this its what makes crypto a mtg clone.

Quoted to support this idea.

Gwaer
05-20-2014, 02:39 AM
Uhhh... So liking base pseudo-random probability, rather than a pseudo-pseudo-random probability for deck building, where it's just a shuffle, and not any actual mechanic that is resource flooding or screwing you... somehow makes you an MTG clone? I didn't realize they also had a patent on randomness... I think the idea is worse now than I did before just because of the weight of your opinion.

Seriously, all something like that does is give people who have a bad game something to bitch about that Hex is specifically doing to their deck rather than making it as random as possible. "Why is hex shuffler monkeying with my resource distribution, why am I getting flooded/screwed all of the time" The fact that it can still happen with that system, just makes it more personal when it does.

LLCoolDave
05-20-2014, 03:23 AM
I'm not a big fan of forced homogeneity of draws. If I'm reading that system right, it would also lead to more "balanced" draws overall regarding cards in your deck, so you are more likely to draw one of each card instead of having pairs or triplets of the same card over the course of a single game (compared to purely randomized shuffles). This essentially means that your deck plays out very similarly each time (because you are more likely to have access to most of the same cards each game), which reduces variety in gameplay and increases the affects of rock-paper-scissors metagaming with stronger matchup percentages. I'm not sure if that's something to be desired, but it's at least something you also have to consider when proposing this new system.

Arbiter
05-20-2014, 04:00 AM
WOTC didn't come up with the mulligan rule that mtg currently uses. It was created by a guy named Matt Hyra. You've probably never heard of him, and it certainly has nothing to do with this game at all.

Notice past tense, he had already designed it, and used it in unsanctioned play, then brought it to R&D after he was hired. There are no legal documents claiming they own it, there are tons of other games that use it. It's not considered MTG property to my knowledge. If you have some evidence otherwise I'd be glad to revise my opinion on the topic.

If I come up with an idea, and pass it on to my employer, who use it, it becomes there idea (unless I insist on some legal document that keeps fill control with me). Now in this case, it isn't property, as far as I know it is in the public domain, so it isn't an issue with the suit.

The issue is you. You called me on something and said I was wrong, and I wasn't. You could have said Matt Hyra invented it and passed the idea on to WotC when he worked for them, and he now works for HEX. You didn't. You have this habit of aggressively going after people who say things that you don't want to hear in order to shut them down, with half truths that conveniently forget to mention facts that don't support the viewpoint you want to put forth. Even with the quote you gave you fail to mention that WotC trialed the rule at an event before bringing it into their system.

You also don't mention that there are other mulligan systems that work with and are used for other game systems. This one is used in HEX because it works very well, and has stood the test of time in games derived from MtG.

Turtlewing
05-20-2014, 04:56 AM
I don't think you can make such broad statements without examining the details first.

Consider this (complicated) system.

For every card type ("Ruby Shard", "Ragefire", etc) in the deck:

- count them
-- 24 for "Ruby Shard", 4 for "Ragefire", etc

- provide a default homogeneous index location for each instance of the unique card
-- with 24 of a card (shards in a mono-shard deck), indices would happen every 2.5 cards (60/24): 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 19, 21, 24, 26, 29, 31, 34, 36, 39, 41, 44, 46, 49, 51, 54, 56, 59
-- with 12 of a card (shards in a two-shard deck), indices would happen every 5 cards: 3, 8, 13, 18, 23, 28, 33, 38, 43, 48, 53, 58
-- with 4 cards, indices would be every 15 cards: 8, 23, 38, 53
-- with 3 cards, indices would be every 20 cards: 11, 31, 51
-- with 2 cards, indices would be every 30 cards: 16, 46
-- with 1 card, index would be at 31

- find a variance range around the indices, inversely proportional to the Count
-- with 24 cards, variance would be 1.25
-- with 12 cards, variance would be 2.5
-- with 4 cards, variance would be 7.5
-- with 3 cards, variance would be 10
-- with 2 cards, variance would be 15
-- with 1 card, variance would be 30

For each card type in the deck, starting with highest Count, randomizing on ties:
- For each card within that card type:
-- Take the index from above and perturb it by a gaussian function with zero mean and variance from above. Round towards the original index. If that index is occupied or is out of range (>DeckSize or <1) in the final result (final result starts empty), then use a "one more up, one more down" search to find an empty spot. Put this card in that slot in the final result, then proceed to the next card.

What's the result? You get a highly homogeneous shuffle, but with no ability to absolutely predict that Card Type X will show up by Turn Y. Instead, one could only say, "With 24 Ruby Shards, I am P% likely to hit my Nth one by the Xth draw." And really, that's the same as now, except that the P will be larger for high-density cards like shards since 3 sigma would only be a perturbation of mabye 3 slots in the shuffle and since higher density cards take positional priority over lower density cards.

I'm not convinced that higher homogeneity would favor Combo over other types. Having more control of the resource distribution just means being able to better target your curve with your shard base. If you run fat stuff, you can customize to hit your shard drops and let your card quality make up for the loss of draw quality (card advantage). If you run weenies, you can customize to avoid flood out to get draw quality (card advantage). Combo is more likely to hit what it needs, but so are the counters to it. Combo hits the Shrewd Manipulation easier, but Control also hits the Solitary Exile easier, and Aggro hits its curve easier (or its Combo hate in game 2 and 3).

The main downside I see is that explaining the shuffler details will be a nightmare, but the layman explanation is quite easy and would be sufficient for most players. ("The shuffler spreads your cards out more or less uniformly throughout your deck to reduce clumping. It is not 'true random'.") The FEEL of the shuffle will actually be exactly what people expect from a shuffle: homogeneity. True random is NOT what people intuitively expect from a shuffler. (Witness the many threads talking about how clumpy the shuffler is.)

I have several issues with this concept.

1. It's complicated as hell so explaining it to new players would be a bitch. And you have to be able to explain mechanics like your shuffler to new players because knoledge of the shuffler informs deck design.

2. It would disproportionately help 1 or 2 shard decks while providing minimal homogaity to 5 shard decks (since you count each shard as a separate card 5 of each shard will get distributed separately with a randomness similar to that of a 4 of card).

3. It absolutely would help combo decks as it reduces the chances of a run of any card which would improve their odds of getting all their combo pieces.

4. It won't solve what I view as the actual problem with resource screw (people bitching about resource screw) as it still allows for you to get a hand with the wrong shard, or to pull your expensive cards first.

Turtlewing
05-20-2014, 05:10 AM
In game 3 of a draft, I was running 17 shards in a 40 shard deck. I saw, 0,1,0,1 shards per hand as I mulliganed to 4.

What chance did I miss genius?

Were any of the hands with 1 source playable?

I've won games that started with me screwed and drawn into sources. If you have a hand full of good low cost cards (1-3) and 1 shard it may well be keepable, and you should only mulligan below 6 if you're sure you can't keep the hand.

Also why did you choose 17 shards in a 40 card deck?

Is it because you did the math and decided that was the optimal amount based on the curve for your deck or because someone told you that was the optimal amount for a draft deck?

Part of the jump from good player to excellent player is learning when the "best practices" don't apply and you should do things differently.

meetthefuture
05-20-2014, 05:59 AM
What I like in Hex is an absolute randmeness of draws
In physical tcg you could do some pre-arrangements to your deck to try to pre-set up the draw, but here you can't
And this is great. What was intended to be random has finally become truly random.

negativeZer0
05-20-2014, 07:11 AM
I recall one game I was running 10/7 for my shards, was on the play
Kept a hand of
2 off color 1 primary shards
2 off color and 1 primary color cards (A 2 drop in off color, 3 drop in off color, 3 drop in primary with double shard requirement)
(had to mulligan opening hand it was comp crap thus 6 cards)

Had an amazing first 3 turns however by turn 6 all 5 of my draws consisted of the off color shards in my deck (ya this means I drew all 7 off color shards in the first 11 cards).

I couldn't play the one primary card (double shard cost) and needless to say the only other 2 cards in my hand did not win me the game. Sometimes even the best mulligans and deck building will not matter. This is a part of the game. These situations are however rare you just remember them way more then you do the game that ran smoothly.

Gwaer
05-20-2014, 08:23 AM
If I come up with an idea, and pass it on to my employer, who use it, it becomes there idea (unless I insist on some legal document that keeps fill control with me). Now in this case, it isn't property, as far as I know it is in the public domain, so it isn't an issue with the suit.


This is not actually the standard way that works in the USA, it takes a specific clause in your contract, and, even then doesn't retroactively attach to something you developed in the time before you were hired. You are correct about the last bit though, it isn't property, including IP. It was a fan created solution that they went with, and have made no claims over. So saying WOTC developed it is just wrong. WOTC had nothing to do with its development and simply adopted it. So what if they trialed it at a tournament before they adopted it? That's also irrelevant. So what if they accidentally trialed it in paris when they didn't mean to and that's where the name came from? None of that changes the fact that it wasn't developed by wotc, and they have never made any claim on it as being theirs... Since that'd be quite a stretch considering its origin.

And yes what I was hinting at was that Matt Hyra is actually working for hex... So it makes a lot of sense they're using the mulligan rule he developed. I'd say they are using his work, rather than copying from MTG at that point.

Yoss
05-20-2014, 11:05 AM
Thank you everyone for your thoughtful responses. :)


Abuse was probably an unreasonably harsh choice of words. Take advantage of is probably the better phrase.

Some examples:
Milling two cards after an opponent has drawn a resource, because now it is much more likely that they will be non-resource cards
Cards which gain stats based on the next x cards in the deck being a certain type have much less variance
If a key combo card is of a particular type that you can avoid elsewhere, statistically you increase your chance of drawing it while decreasing your chance of multiples.
Peek style cards give you a wider variety of cards to pick from
If you can have an answer card as a troop or basic or quick action, for example choosing between a troop or a quick action to deal with a constant, you can choose the one that gives you the best chance to draw due to spreading them through your deck.
Troops, artifacts and actions that give you resources become worse, as they can clump with resources, whereas resources alone have clump protection.

The maths geek in me actually loves some of these effects. The design geek in me says that this change does affect the relative. Power of some cards, so it would need to lead to a balance pass of the cards. I suspect though that most people are after a solution that de-randomises their resource draws without forcing a balance pass. That, however, does not exist.

I agree with this. The post 55 suggestion does not come for free, but gives (IMO) a nice balance between curbing unwanted variance (mostly, but not entirely, on shards) while keeping desired variance (on the "real" cards). The examples you brought up here are spot on, but I'm not sure they represent a big problem. It is just like the howling we had about how Righteous Paladin would be so OP with Scrivner due to the non-priority CIP triggers, yet it hasn't worked out that way. Pally is stronger now than before the rule change, but so what? Card valuations can go up and down a bit and it won't really matter as long as none of them become dominant. If there are a few that would be OP (I can't think of any, even considering your list above), CZE can tweak them.


I'm not a big fan of forced homogeneity of draws. If I'm reading that system right, it would also lead to more "balanced" draws overall regarding cards in your deck, so you are more likely to draw one of each card instead of having pairs or triplets of the same card over the course of a single game (compared to purely randomized shuffles). This essentially means that your deck plays out very similarly each time (because you are more likely to have access to most of the same cards each game), which reduces variety in gameplay and increases the affects of rock-paper-scissors metagaming with stronger matchup percentages. I'm not sure if that's something to be desired, but it's at least something you also have to consider when proposing this new system.

Indeed, you'd be much more likely to never draw duplicates of non-shards. It would make your deck play closer to how you designed it each game and avoid randomly-induced failures most of the time. Whether that's good or not could certainly be debated. It would most certainly highlight "digital only" in a very fundamental part of the game.


I have several issues with this concept.

1. It's complicated as hell so explaining it to new players would be a bitch. And you have to be able to explain mechanics like your shuffler to new players because knoledge of the shuffler informs deck design.
I admitted as much (the explaining part), but I don't think it "informs deck design" as much as you might think. When you put in a 4-of it's because you want to draw 1 or 2 every game. Same thing with the post 55 system.


2. It would disproportionately help 1 or 2 shard decks while providing minimal homogaity to 5 shard decks (since you count each shard as a separate card 5 of each shard will get distributed separately with a randomness similar to that of a 4 of card).
As long as you had 5 of each shard, each of those 5 would have positional priority over all 4-of cards, so you'd actually be in pretty good shape. (As much as any 5-thresh deck can be, anyway.) I'd say it favors multi-shard more than mono or dual.


3. It absolutely would help combo decks as it reduces the chances of a run of any card which would improve their odds of getting all their combo pieces.
Yes, I said this too. But it also helps the opponent draw his 4-of disruption cards for your combo. (Example, you need Shrewd Manipulation, I need Solitary Exile. We each have equal shot at our respective needs.)


4. It won't solve what I view as the actual problem with resource screw (people bitching about resource screw) as it still allows for you to get a hand with the wrong shard, or to pull your expensive cards first.
It depends what you mean by "solve". Since screw is not something we want to completely destroy (we want it to happen some small amount of the time), that means we are looking merely to reduce it. In my 9 drafts so far, I'm seeing way more screw/flood/mulligan, both for me and for him, than I think is "good". (And before anyone dismisses me as "noob", please note that I'm running a 67% win rate and an EV of 2.5 packs per entry.)

All in all, it's a change worth thinking about, but doesn't come without some drawbacks that need to be considered.

Turtlewing
05-20-2014, 11:34 AM
It depends what you mean by "solve". Since screw is not something we want to completely destroy (we want it to happen some small amount of the time), that means we are looking merely to reduce it. In my 9 drafts so far, I'm seeing way more screw/flood/mulligan, both for me and for him, than I think is "good". (And before anyone dismisses me as "noob", please note that I'm running a 67% win rate and an EV of 2.5 packs per entry.)

All in all, it's a change worth thinking about, but doesn't come without some drawbacks that need to be considered.

Unless you gan get people to stop complaining about it you've failed to solve the only problem I have with it (that people keep complaining about it). I don't see that happening as long as there is any random element.

I have thought about it and I'm not sold on it. The down sides would outweigh the largely nonexistent up-side IMO.

Flight
05-21-2014, 12:50 PM
Just played in a draft and went two colour.

Used 10 green resource and 8 black as black was just a splash. Use three mulligans and don't get a single black resource on any of them and of course half a hand full of black cards each time. Started playing with 3 green resource and of course then didn't pull a single resource of either type in four or five draws.

It might be statistically realistic I don't know but it sure isn't fun. You pretty much have to use mono or mono/artifact if you want to play reliably.

Diesbudt
05-21-2014, 01:25 PM
Just played in a draft and went two colour.

Used 10 green resource and 8 black as black was just a splash. Use three mulligans and don't get a single black resource on any of them and of course half a hand full of black cards each time. Started playing with 3 green resource and of course then didn't pull a single resource of either type in four or five draws.

It might be statistically realistic I don't know but it sure isn't fun. You pretty much have to use mono or mono/artifact if you want to play reliably.

1) Sounds like you had more blood creatures/actions in your deck than green, which causes an issue if you have more green in your deck.
2) It is not black. It is blood/purple.
3) Again sounds like your deck construction issues. I often draft 2 (and even 3 colors) and do well enough. I even won my tournament running 3 colors. It is all in how you build it. Not just resource amount to non resource amount, but how many of each shard color, how many threshold blips on those cards, and the curve of those cards.

Flight
05-22-2014, 05:27 AM
1) Sounds like you had more blood creatures/actions in your deck than green, which causes an issue if you have more green in your deck.


No, I pretty clearly said it was splash of that colour.



It is all in how you build it. Not just resource amount to non resource amount, but how many of each shard color, how many threshold blips on those cards, and the curve of those cards.

It's absolutely not just how you build it. No matter how you build it there is still a random element.

With regard to the deck in question there wasn't a single card that required more than one threshold of the splash color. With eight resource in a 40 card deck, three mulligans and a full game you'd expect I would see one. But no.

primer
05-22-2014, 06:29 PM
Just had a game where I had 9 diamond shards in my draft deck. Draw 19, no diamond.

Edit: Game 3 of the same match. Draw 12 cards get 9 shards. Lucky old me.

Vorpal
05-25-2014, 02:22 PM
I was watching this draft video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBtyXUguUag

It was quite good and really exciting! Our heroes had battled their way to the final match. They lost the first game narrowly in a very close tense game, then made a bunch of changes to their deck to counter what the enemy had.

Drama and suspense fills the atmopshere as they boot up. (Feel free to skip to 1:30:28 and follow along!) Will their plans have succeeded? Have they given their deck the edge it needs to come out on top? What will happen? How will the epic penultimate match play out?

Rather quickly, as it happens.

Unplayable hand.
Mulligan to 6.
Unplayable hand.
Mulligan to 5.
No lands.
Mulligan to 4.
Terrible hand, no plays, down 3 cards compared to opponent.
Game over before it begins.

GG! Wow, what fun!

Now, this is a serious issue if hex dreams of being big in the e-sports world. In fact, it's a much bigger issue for high profile events like tournaments and such than it is for your every day run of the mill players, because these players can say "Ok, well, in the long run, it will balance out"

But for a final tournament match, there is no long run. Best of 3 (as shown) obviously doesn't cut it. Each player might win one and then the final match is decided automatically by land screw. This is no doubt rather disappointing to the player, but also deeply dissatisfying to the viewer. Best of 5 still wouldn't, and would be unplayable long.

It is *more* disatisfiying to the viewer than similar incidents of 'curve screw' or whatever other form of randomness you wind up with when you transition to a system like hearthstones where mana screw is an impossibility. This is because viewers like to see people doing things. Even if the things they players they are watching are doing are pointless and are not going to stave off defeat, the viewer may not know this, and may still be happy watching.

When a player literally can't do anything for the first 4 turns of the game because they got mana screwed, it's immediately obvious they got screwed by RNG to even the most casual observer, and, morever, the game they watch becomes unutterably dull and boring.

I don't think hex should shift to using hearthstones system, but I hope some sort of innovation utilizing the nice digital design space will come along to move us over from this old outdated system.

Saying 'well, it's only terrible *some* of the time' is a fairly low bar to clear. Surely we can do better, and I think we must in order to attract the kind of viewers and have the kind of high profile events cory want's to have. I don't think we need to content ourselves with a system similar to a physical only game invented 20+ years ago.

Rapkannibale
05-25-2014, 02:28 PM
This has been discussed so many times. If it was such a huge issue would Magic be as popular as it is today?

Badgered
05-25-2014, 02:32 PM
This has been discussed so many times. If it was such a huge issue would Magic be as popular as it is today?

Or would it be more popular?

I think you'd be hard-pressed to make an argument that people enjoy watching games/matches that are decided entirely by the resource system of a game rather than the play skill of the competitors, and that curbing/eliminating resource/mana screw would somehow reduce viewership. For example, Hearthstone has more viewers than Magic: The Gathering events and MTGO and the game doesn't feature a resource system that can screw you.

hex_colin
05-25-2014, 02:35 PM
The resource system is not going to change. Unfortunately, if you want a different resource system, you probably need to find a different game. That's a 100% incontrovertible fact.

Will there be more resource and threshold fixing in the future? Yup. We're only in Set 1 afterall. There are lots of things coming. But... they don't change probability and statistics. ;)

I've said it before, people are just not used to completely random distributions of cards. The resource weaving and "shuffling" in traditional paper TCG tournaments is frequently very, very suspect.

Rokz
05-25-2014, 02:39 PM
This is also beneficial for newer players, the element of luck. Maybe the underdog will take the tournament, rather the person with no job that invests 10hrs a day into tcg? It's fine. Maybe he might add more resources to his deck or some cards that call resources and thresholds?

incitfulmonk21
05-25-2014, 02:40 PM
what is this magical mana you speak of? I have seen resources and shards but never this mana you speak of in game.

Diesbudt
05-25-2014, 02:42 PM
The resource system is not going to change. Unfortunately, if you want a different resource system, you probably need to find a different game. That's a 100% incontrovertible fact.

I've said it before, people are just not used to completely random distributions of cards. The resource weaving and "shuffling" in traditional paper TCG tournaments is frequently very, very suspect.

End thread.

Alright Kami please lock. So many times these threads pop up from like the same 4-5 people.

Diesbudt
05-25-2014, 02:44 PM
I was watching this draft video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBtyXUguUag

It was quite good and really exciting! Our heroes had battled their way to the final match. They lost the first game narrowly in a very close tense game, then made a bunch of changes to their deck to counter what the enemy had.

Drama and suspense fills the atmopshere as they boot up. (Feel free to skip to 1:30:28 and follow along!) Will their plans have succeeded? Have they given their deck the edge it needs to come out on top? What will happen? How will the epic penultimate match play out?

Rather quickly, as it happens.

Unplayable hand.
Mulligan to 6.
Unplayable hand.
Mulligan to 5.
No lands.
Mulligan to 4.
Terrible hand, no plays, down 3 cards compared to opponent.
Game over before it begins.

GG! Wow, what fun!

Now, this is a serious issue if hex dreams of being big in the e-sports world. In fact, it's a much bigger issue for high profile events like tournaments and such than it is for your every day run of the mill players, because these players can say "Ok, well, in the long run, it will balance out"

But for a final tournament match, there is no long run. Best of 3 (as shown) obviously doesn't cut it. Each player might win one and then the final match is decided automatically by land screw. This is no doubt rather disappointing to the player, but also deeply dissatisfying to the viewer. Best of 5 still wouldn't, and would be unplayable long.

It is *more* disatisfiying to the viewer than similar incidents of 'curve screw' or whatever other form of randomness you wind up with when you transition to a system like hearthstones where mana screw is an impossibility. This is because viewers like to see people doing things. Even if the things they players they are watching are doing are pointless and are not going to stave off defeat, the viewer may not know this, and may still be happy watching.

When a player literally can't do anything for the first 4 turns of the game because they got mana screwed, it's immediately obvious they got screwed by RNG to even the most casual observer, and, morever, the game they watch becomes unutterably dull and boring.

I don't think hex should shift to using hearthstones system, but I hope some sort of innovation utilizing the nice digital design space will come along to move us over from this old outdated system.

Saying 'well, it's only terrible *some* of the time' is a fairly low bar to clear. Surely we can do better, and I think we must in order to attract the kind of viewers and have the kind of high profile events cory want's to have. I don't think we need to content ourselves with a system similar to a physical only game invented 20+ years ago.

I watched said video.

All players in each game hit 5+ mana easy. Where is the resource screw? O_o

Yoss
05-25-2014, 02:44 PM
I've said it before, people are just not used to completely random distributions of cards. The resource weaving and "shuffling" in traditional paper TCG tournaments is frequently very, very suspect.

And yet the resource weave is exactly what you want for a game like Hex. Very few people want true randomness. It's not just that we're not used to it. We want variation, but that's not the same thing. My proposed change (see below) would not require any (maybe minimal) changes to the rest of the game.


Consider this (complicated) system.

For every card type ("Ruby Shard", "Ragefire", etc) in the deck:

- count them
-- 24 for "Ruby Shard", 4 for "Ragefire", etc

- provide a default homogeneous index location for each instance of the unique card
-- with 24 of a card (shards in a mono-shard deck), indices would happen every 2.5 cards (60/24): 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 19, 21, 24, 26, 29, 31, 34, 36, 39, 41, 44, 46, 49, 51, 54, 56, 59
-- with 12 of a card (shards in a two-shard deck), indices would happen every 5 cards: 3, 8, 13, 18, 23, 28, 33, 38, 43, 48, 53, 58
-- with 4 cards, indices would be every 15 cards: 8, 23, 38, 53
-- with 3 cards, indices would be every 20 cards: 11, 31, 51
-- with 2 cards, indices would be every 30 cards: 16, 46
-- with 1 card, index would be at 31

- find a variance range around the indices, inversely proportional to the Count
-- with 24 cards, variance would be 1.25
-- with 12 cards, variance would be 2.5
-- with 4 cards, variance would be 7.5
-- with 3 cards, variance would be 10
-- with 2 cards, variance would be 15
-- with 1 card, variance would be 30

For each card type in the deck, starting with highest Count, randomizing on ties:
- For each card within that card type:
-- Take the index from above and perturb it by a gaussian function with zero mean and variance from above. Round towards the original index. If that index is occupied or is out of range (>DeckSize or <1) in the final result (final result starts empty), then use a "one more up, one more down" search to find an empty spot. Put this card in that slot in the final result, then proceed to the next card.

What's the result? You get a highly homogeneous shuffle, but with no ability to absolutely predict that Card Type X will show up by Turn Y. Instead, one could only say, "With 24 Ruby Shards, I am P% likely to hit my Nth one by the Xth draw." And really, that's the same as now, except that the P will be larger for high-density cards like shards since 3 sigma would only be a perturbation of mabye 3 slots in the shuffle and since higher density cards take positional priority over lower density cards.

I'm not convinced that higher homogeneity would favor Combo over other types. Having more control of the resource distribution just means being able to better target your curve with your shard base. If you run fat stuff, you can customize to hit your shard drops and let your card quality make up for the loss of draw quality (card advantage). If you run weenies, you can customize to avoid flood out to get draw quality (card advantage). Combo is more likely to hit what it needs, but so are the counters to it. Combo hits the Shrewd Manipulation easier, but Control also hits the Solitary Exile easier, and Aggro hits its curve easier (or its Combo hate in game 2 and 3).

The main downside I see is that explaining the shuffler details will be a nightmare, but the layman explanation is quite easy and would be sufficient for most players. ("The shuffler spreads your cards out more or less uniformly throughout your deck to reduce clumping. It is not 'true random'.") The FEEL of the shuffle will actually be exactly what people expect from a shuffle: homogeneity. True random is NOT what people intuitively expect from a shuffler. (Witness the many threads talking about how clumpy the shuffler is.)

ossuary
05-25-2014, 02:46 PM
Oh, is it time to do the pointless rehashing of the resource system again already? I thought we just started re-whining about the Kickstarter rewards being exclusive. Boy, time sure does fly.

Diesbudt
05-25-2014, 02:48 PM
And yet the resource weave is exactly what you want for a game like Hex. Very few people want true randomness. It's not just that we're not used to it. We want variation, but that's not the same thing. My proposed change (see below) would not require any (maybe minimal) changes to the rest of the game.

Yea because that would be fun... No thank you.

Also People could predict when their resources will come, thus taking away a lot of the factor that drawing cards in TCG is ment to be. On top of that, some people may want more mana involved hands at the start, or less. Depending on the deck curve factor.

This also will not stop complaints from people with threshold issues.

~90% of the complaints and problems people see, are poor/weak deck constructions and/or how they play the opening hand and/or how they mulligan. The rest are legit, but 10% is not that bad of a ratio. That is the challenge in TCGs. How do you influence the "luck" in your favor based on playstyles and mulligans and how you build your deck.

incitfulmonk21
05-25-2014, 02:48 PM
Oh, is it time to do the pointless rehashing of the resource system again already? I thought we just started re-whining about the Kickstarter rewards being exclusive. Boy, time sure does fly.

It really does seem to be the same few topics over and over again. I look forward to the mulligan topic incoming soon. At least I think that's the next one on the list.

Diesbudt
05-25-2014, 02:49 PM
Oh, is it time to do the pointless rehashing of the resource system again already? I thought we just started re-whining about the Kickstarter rewards being exclusive. Boy, time sure does fly.

You and I both know this happens once every 3 days and 9/10 it is a new player to TCGs with resource systems, or the same people who have complained previously.

Plus I watched the video and as I said I saw 0 mana screw on either side. 1 or 2 issues of mana flood, but even then they had troops in hand and on field.

ossuary
05-25-2014, 02:50 PM
It really does seem to be the same few topics over and over again. I look forward to the mulligan topic incoming soon. At least I think that's the next one on the list.

Well, it should be "the shuffler is broken! Rarr!!" but that one gets conflated with "the resource system sucks why can't I just get 1 more mana every turn" and "the mulligan system sucks, why can't I mull forever for free or just pick my starting hand?" So it's hard to tell for sure what's coming next. ;)

Diesbudt
05-25-2014, 02:54 PM
Well, it should be "the shuffler is broken! Rarr!!" but that one gets conflated with "the resource system sucks why can't I just get 1 more mana every turn" and "the mulligan system sucks, why can't I mull forever for free or just pick my starting hand?" So it's hard to tell for sure what's coming next. ;)

It actually is a nice weave pattern.

Resource complaint --> Shuffler/cards are complained on being too random (because they are used to mana weave) --> Mulligan issues --> Cards being too OP --> KS exclusives --> Repeat.

ossuary
05-25-2014, 02:59 PM
So you're saying we're making a Complaint Quilt? :)

Edit: you forgot to weave in "we shouldn't be monetized yet" and "where is PVE? we paid for it, give it to us now."

mach
05-25-2014, 03:01 PM
It really does seem to be the same few topics over and over again. I look forward to the mulligan topic incoming soon. At least I think that's the next one on the list.

When the same topics keep coming up again and again and are being raised by different people, it's generally because the issues are real. The way to keep them from coming up again is to actually fix the problem.

Diesbudt
05-25-2014, 03:02 PM
When the same topics keep coming up again and again and are being raised by different people, it's generally because the issues are real. The way to keep them from coming up again is to actually fix the problem.

1. It is not a problem. It is people who are not "skilled" in manipulating building decks well to influence the "luck" factor better in your favor. There is a reason why people who do well, do well more often than others.

2. It isn't different people. It is always people who are new to TCGs or people who have complained in the past. Like this thread starter. This isn't his first, or his last complaint I am sure.

zadies
05-25-2014, 03:07 PM
I backed a game knowing the resource system. It isn't broken and changing would just create a different set of complaints. There is no 'perfect' system and any change to it will cause the balance of the set to have to be scraped thus a year tof work so it is not feasible

mach
05-25-2014, 03:12 PM
1. It is not a problem. It is people who are not "skilled" in manipulating building decks well to influence the "luck" factor better in your favor. There is a reason why people who do well, do well more often than others.


Even the best players in the world get manascrewed. You can minimize the chance with proper deck construction but there's a limit, no matter how skilled you are. The OP is right that mana screw deciding your world championship doesn't help your efforts to make the game an e-sport.



2. It isn't different people. It is always people who are new to TCGs or people who have complained in the past. Like this thread starter. This isn't his first, or his last complaint I am sure.

And why aren't the complaints of these players valid?

hex_colin
05-25-2014, 03:12 PM
I backed a game knowing the resource system. It isn't broken and changing would just create a different set of complaints. There is no 'perfect' system and any change to it will cause the balance of the set to have to be scraped thus a year tof work so it is not feasible

The balance of 3 sets at this point! :)

incitfulmonk21
05-25-2014, 03:14 PM
When the same topics keep coming up again and again and are being raised by different people, it's generally because the issues are real. The way to keep them from coming up again is to actually fix the problem.

So by that logic when we change the system and then a new set of people complain about the new system over and over again we will have to change it yet again? Their is no perfect solution as you can't have randomness and non-random co-exist and everyone wants different mixtures of the two.

Do we get to make a circle of life where we change systems every few months so everyone gets at least some time with their preferred system?

zadies
05-25-2014, 03:17 PM
Actually world championship poker kind of proves the point that luck and variance can make for a watchable event.

Diesbudt
05-25-2014, 03:18 PM
Even the best players in the world get manascrewed. You can minimize the chance with proper deck construction but there's a limit, no matter how skilled you are. The OP is right that mana screw deciding your world championship doesn't help your efforts to make the game an e-sport.



And why aren't the complaints of these players valid?

Yes, even the best. But the best make it to the top almost every time. Why is that? Because they know how to manipulate the luck best when it comes to building a deck. Making sure it has a good curve, making sure they can mulligan if needed, making sure they have the right amount of resources and/or resource support. That is why you cannot take 1 game as a sample size. Just like statistics. You have to have a much bigger pool, and those players have good win % at those numbers. So in that simple math it shows that it is fine, because the better plays always manage to do well with the same resource system others struggle on.

Because, they are complaining on issues they don't fully realize. A lot of people who never had mana issues in MTG, resource issues in WoWTCG with their curve system or any game, people would mana-weave. Not a true shuffle. This is why opponents get to cut decks before a game begins. Also if it is the same person over and over, after their first complaint it is no longer valid as they have been heard. No reason to go shouting about it more and more and be looked at like the crazy village crier.

Also CZE has said they will not change the system, as it is what majority likes and is what they built the game off of. They have said it time and time again, so repeat complainers need to stop. New ones I can understand as they have not heard this yet.

Werlix
05-25-2014, 03:19 PM
1. It is not a problem. It is people who are not "skilled" in manipulating building decks well to influence the "luck" factor better in your favor. There is a reason why people who do well, do well more often than others.

2. It isn't different people. It is always people who are new to TCGs or people who have complained in the past. Like this thread starter. This isn't his first, or his last complaint I am sure.

I don't think you understand the OP's point. Regardless of player skill, the resource system can lead to auto losses and very boring games for players and viewers. This can hinder the game's eSport potential.

This point is undeniable. However as has been pointed out this is just what we have to live with for Hex. CZE decided early on that the benefits of such a system outweighs the downsides. So we have to move on...

But let's not pretend that even the best player with the best deck in the world can't lose because of an unlucky distribution of resource cards.

Vorpal
05-25-2014, 03:20 PM
2. It isn't different people. It is always people who are new to TCGs or people who have complained in the past. Like this thread starter. This isn't his first, or his last complaint I am sure.

I am not new to TCG's.

Are you saying you only listen to people who have *never* said anything in Hex should be changed? Talk about living in an echo chamber!

Are you suggesting all threads by people who have suggested changing Hex be auto-locked? I'ts hard to tell what you want here.

That said, attempting to paint me as a serial detractor of Hex just shows you are arguing in bad faith. I've been a big defender of hex on these forums.

I have not seen a single thread so far devoted to the weakness of the current system in regards to high stakes high viewers e-sports events. Hearthstone has tons of viewers and does not have mana screw. Obviously, since it's still just a card game, you can get a bad draw in other ways, but this is less bad for viewers as I have pointed out already.

There was one high profile series of events that was decided entirely by a single random card. It drew so much outcry that blizzard promptly nerfed the card so that it wasn't competitive in tournament decks.

It's definitely a topic worth discussing, in my opinion. At least, if you want hex to succeed and do well, it is.

And I'm not sure how much weight to give to emphatic statements that "This thing we copied from MTG is 100% not going to change" given the ongoing lawsuit.

Werlix
05-25-2014, 03:21 PM
Yes, even the best. But the best make it to the top almost every time. Why is that? Because they know how to manipulate the luck best when it comes to building a deck. Making sure it has a good curve, making sure they can mulligan if needed, making sure they have the right amount of resources and/or resource support. That is why you cannot take 1 game as a sample size. Just like statistics. You have to have a much bigger pool, and those players have good win % at those numbers. So in that simple math it shows that it is fine, because the better plays always manage to do well with the same resource system others struggle on.

I think the OP already address this:



Now, this is a serious issue if hex dreams of being big in the e-sports world. In fact, it's a much bigger issue for high profile events like tournaments and such than it is for your every day run of the mill players, because these players can say "Ok, well, in the long run, it will balance out"

But for a final tournament match, there is no long run. Best of 3 (as shown) obviously doesn't cut it. Each player might win one and then the final match is decided automatically by land screw. This is no doubt rather disappointing to the player, but also deeply dissatisfying to the viewer. Best of 5 still wouldn't, and would be unplayable long.

His point was about eSports in particular. The final match of a bo3/5/7 is the climax of a whole tournament and for it to be decided by resource cards can be a bit of a let down to understate it.

Diesbudt
05-25-2014, 03:28 PM
I don't think you understand the OP's point. Regardless of player skill, the resource system can lead to auto losses and very boring games for players and viewers. This can hinder the game's eSport potential.

This point is undeniable. However as has been pointed out this is just what we have to live with for Hex. CZE decided early on that the benefits of such a system outweighs the downsides. So we have to move on...

But let's not pretend that even the best player with the best deck in the world can't lose because of an unlucky distribution of resource cards.

Never said he couldn't. What I am saying those is often enough the same players do well in a game with systems like this. If it is COMPLETELY random. Why? Why can some of the top players consistently be top? Reason? It takes skill to put together a good deck that fills all the issues I have posted. Yes, any player can resource screw/flood. However it affects the top players less often because of their "skill".

Secondly, e-sports... No one knows how effect e-sports for a TCG will become. because they are slower paced than arena in WoW, LoL, DOTA2, HoN, SC2. And don't say hearthstone is a big viewership because it is the only TCG that has been out long enough to gain some backing, but even then I know casual Hearthstone players that can call out what card will be played every turn because there is basically no randomness because of the horrible resource system they run. (And by turn 6-7 you almost already know who is going to win because of the decks curve screw/flood.)

So no I never said it never happens. What i said is there is skill available to minimize it and have a much higher win percentage. When you look at only 1 or 2 games. That isn't enough.

mach
05-25-2014, 03:33 PM
So by that logic when we change the system and then a new set of people complain about the new system over and over again we will have to change it yet again? Their is no perfect solution as you can't have randomness and non-random co-exist and everyone wants different mixtures of the two.

Do we get to make a circle of life where we change systems every few months so everyone gets at least some time with their preferred system?

There is no perfect system, but there are better and worse systems. Why are you so confident that the current system is the best?

And you absolutely can have different systems coexist. This is a digital game. Implement an alternate system, such as the smart shuffler Yoss suggested. Continue offering queues which use the current system, but offer queues using the new system as well. See which people like more, then decide whether to make a permanent change based on this.

Diesbudt
05-25-2014, 03:36 PM
I am not new to TCG's.

Are you saying you only listen to people who have *never* said anything in Hex should be changed? Talk about living in an echo chamber!

Are you suggesting all threads by people who have suggested changing Hex be auto-locked? I'ts hard to tell what you want here.

That said, attempting to paint me as a serial detractor of Hex just shows you are arguing in bad faith. I've been a big defender of hex on these forums.

I have not seen a single thread so far devoted to the weakness of the current system in regards to high stakes high viewers e-sports events. Hearthstone has tons of viewers and does not have mana screw. Obviously, since it's still just a card game, you can get a bad draw in other ways, but this is less bad for viewers as I have pointed out already.

There was one high profile series of events that was decided entirely by a single random card. It drew so much outcry that blizzard promptly nerfed the card so that it wasn't competitive in tournament decks.

It's definitely a topic worth discussing, in my opinion. At least, if you want hex to succeed and do well, it is.

And I'm not sure how much weight to give to emphatic statements that "This thing we copied from MTG is 100% not going to change" given the ongoing lawsuit.

Never said you were new. But I know I have seen your name on a few threads with complaints and at least 1 was about resources. That being said if you wish to believe I am painting you in any light, fine. But it is you doing it yourself as I can go back and find a few posts of yours in which you examplify what I am saying.

And with e-sports.

1) We dont know how popular e-sports with TCGs will even be. So you cannot even compare anything right now. And even if a system would change it would have to start over from scratch. So it is not happening.

2) Hearthstone was the only decent online TCG that could stream until recently. And sure it does not have resource screw, but it has curve screw that if you miss even a single turn of it, you are more or less done for. It isn't fun watching a game and predicting every move from turn 3-turn 7 and knowing by turn 7 who won and lost. Sorry some randomness is required to make a game fun to watch.

3) Again they will not change. a) we have no idea the outcome and odds are from what I understand of law and what lawyers I know personally from my workplace say not to worry. b) It would take 2 years of rework to implement a new resource system into the base coding. It is too far along to start from scratch, especially with a system that a lot of backers probably won't like as most of the backers chose to back this game with said resource system.

Diesbudt
05-25-2014, 03:38 PM
There is no perfect system, but there are better and worse systems. Why are you so confident that the current system is the best?

And you absolutely can have different systems coexist. This is a digital game. Implement an alternate system, such as the smart shuffler Yoss suggested. Continue offering queues which use the current system, but offer queues using the new system as well. See which people like more, then decide whether to make a permanent change based on this.

Smart shufflers can be gamed / planned on for deck making. Not a good idea.

Also any resource change would take years, on top of people backed this game knowing what the resource system would be. How many would quit if it dramatically changed? I would. I know a few others. And that is just the people I personally know who backed it.

Why was MTG the most popular paper TCG if it uses the same resource system? Why was pokemon and Yugioh, even though good, never as popular? Why didn't WoWTCG ever become as popular even though it had close to the same Hearthstone current resource system?

Understand. When people post on a topic it is a complaint if:

A) It is shown with a negative-typeing attitude. The unfortunate thing is, online you cannot tell the tone people use when typing. So wording is important. B) And poster posts no possible ideas to fix or improve said issue with reasoning why.

So the issue is more no one posting what alternatives that people would want that are

A) DOABLE (key importance here)
B) People who have backed the game as is would like it
C) Not a smart shuffler, as these can be gamed or gimmicked and has been proven months ago, as this topic does come around in a set pattern much like the moon.

incitfulmonk21
05-25-2014, 03:43 PM
There is no perfect system, but there are better and worse systems. Why are you so confident that the current system is the best?

And you absolutely can have different systems coexist. This is a digital game. Implement an alternate system, such as the smart shuffler Yoss suggested. Continue offering queues which use the current system, but offer queues using the new system as well. See which people like more, then decide whether to make a permanent change based on this.

I am not saying this is the best system or the worst system just the system chosen. It is not a surprise, they did not sneak it in on us, and it is the one chosen for this particular game.

I personally like the system, sure I get frustrated just like everyone else but I think it is a good system. The problem with having concurrent queues is the amount of programming needed for each new variance plus balancing issues. I could understand if the games system hadn't been finalized or even if CZE's programmer's were bored with nothing to do the point of discussing different systems, but you have seen the pace of the game it is going to be a very very long time before variant games can be considered and this topic will have fallen out of memory.

Post away about this topic if it makes people happy, but in the end nothing will come of it anywhere in the foreseeable future.

Yoss
05-25-2014, 03:44 PM
Yea because that would be fun... No thank you.

Also People could predict when their resources will come, thus taking away a lot of the factor that drawing cards in TCG is ment to be. On top of that, some people may want more mana involved hands at the start, or less. Depending on the deck curve factor.

This also will not stop complaints from people with threshold issues.

~90% of the complaints and problems people see, are poor/weak deck constructions and/or how they play the opening hand and/or how they mulligan. The rest are legit, but 10% is not that bad of a ratio. That is the challenge in TCGs. How do you influence the "luck" in your favor based on playstyles and mulligans and how you build your deck.

Since I'm running a draft 3.0 EV against a 1.5 EV for an "average" player, I guess I'm in your "10%". From your comments, I'm wondering if you even read the proposed system I quoted. I talked about predicting your draws (you can't). I talked about (in the quoted thread) differing resource curves, combo decks, threshold fixing, and more. Did you read it? Or are you just shooting from the hip?


Anyway, I know there are no plans to change the system.

incitfulmonk21
05-25-2014, 03:49 PM
Why was MTG the most popular paper TCG if it uses the same resource system?


Can we please stop with these misstatements the other calling it mana when hex never calls it that. This is partially the reason hex currently has the problems it does. The resource systems are similar but in no way the same change in hex's resource system for mtg's and you get a different meta game the same if you change mtg's with hexes they are similar but in no way the same.

Unhurtable
05-25-2014, 03:51 PM
I am not new to TCG's.

Are you saying you only listen to people who have *never* said anything in Hex should be changed? Talk about living in an echo chamber!

Are you suggesting all threads by people who have suggested changing Hex be auto-locked? I'ts hard to tell what you want here.

That said, attempting to paint me as a serial detractor of Hex just shows you are arguing in bad faith. I've been a big defender of hex on these forums.

I have not seen a single thread so far devoted to the weakness of the current system in regards to high stakes high viewers e-sports events. Hearthstone has tons of viewers and does not have mana screw. Obviously, since it's still just a card game, you can get a bad draw in other ways, but this is less bad for viewers as I have pointed out already.

There was one high profile series of events that was decided entirely by a single random card. It drew so much outcry that blizzard promptly nerfed the card so that it wasn't competitive in tournament decks.

It's definitely a topic worth discussing, in my opinion. At least, if you want hex to succeed and do well, it is.

And I'm not sure how much weight to give to emphatic statements that "This thing we copied from MTG is 100% not going to change" given the ongoing lawsuit.

I've disagreed with Diesbudt quite a few times, but your entire post just screams "I'm in a corner".

There is nothing in the post you quoted that points towards him not listening to people who wants certain things in Hex to change.

There is absolutely nothing that suggests something even close to auto-locking.

Hearthstone does have curve screw instead, and WAY simpler mechanics. Although the mulligan system in that game allows for a smoother recovery from being curve screwed, the idea of being screwed on your opening hand definitely exists in that game. The only reason Hearthstone is an "eSport" (it really isnt compared to the bigger eSports) is because Blizz did a huge hype stunt by essentially sending out beta keys to all streamers.

The outcry in question was the Nat Pagle that essentially decided who was going to win the games in some cases, a card so powerful it was essentially run in every single legendary-tier deck and most tournament decks. It was not "randomness" that was the problem but the overall strength of the card. The card still has the same random mechanic right now as it had before, but its weaker at the moment, and the outcry is not there anymore. Its not a matter of randomness but a matter of balance.

mach
05-25-2014, 03:55 PM
Smart shufflers can be gamed / planned on for deck making. Not a good idea.

Also any resource change would take years, on top of people backed this game knowing what the resource system would be. How many would quit if it dramatically changed? I would. I know a few others. And that is just the people I personally know who backed it.


Smart shufflers can be gamed, but they can also detect this and act accordingly. It's at least worth trying.

If some backers quit because the resource system is changed...so what? I'm only advocating changing the system on a permanent basis if it proves popular. So if it's going to cause more people to leave than new players it attracts, I'd be against the change as well.



Why was MTG the most popular paper TCG if it uses the same resource system? Why was pokemon and Yugioh, even though good, never as popular? Why didn't WoWTCG ever become as popular even though it had close to the same Hearthstone current resource system?


Because the resource system isn't the only thing which matters. MtG's resource system sucks, but most of the rest of the game is very good. Plus they were first-to-market, which is a big advantage.

Sergan
05-25-2014, 04:03 PM
Still whining about the mana screw? =/

Banquetto
05-25-2014, 04:20 PM
People watch Poker on television. Don't tell me that every hand of Poker is competitive and exciting.

Fact is, in every card game, there are going to be hands/games where one player gets the draw from hell and another gets an absolute limousine ride. In Hex and Magic that can be because of resource/land draws. In other card games it takes other forms. But it can always happen.

Werlix
05-25-2014, 04:39 PM
People watch Poker on television. Don't tell me that every hand of Poker is competitive and exciting.

Fact is, in every card game, there are going to be hands/games where one player gets the draw from hell and another gets an absolute limousine ride. In Hex and Magic that can be because of resource/land draws. In other card games it takes other forms. But it can always happen.

Decent point. But I guess the counterpoint here is that at least the player with a bad hand in poker can still make important decisions and can even still potentially win by bluffing. Sometimes in TCGs you just can't do anything which isn't fun to watch.

An example of bad luck in poker is one guy with a 95% chance of winning on the river card but his opponent gets the 5% lucky win... that's an example of someone playing well but losing due to luck. However in this case the important thing is it's actually exciting to watch this. You hear/see the excitement in the crowd/commentators when this kind of thing happens. The bad luck the OP is referring to here is boring bad luck rather than exciting bad luck.

Again in a game like HS at least a good/bad luck situation still involves people playing shiny cards that whizz around and bash things. It's much better to watch.

Whether or not you think Hex should/could actually do anything about this, you can't disagree that the OP has a point about the possibility of bad hands harming Hex's eSports potential. Doesn't mean that Hex won't be a good eSport, it's just a downside to it's potential.

Diesbudt
05-25-2014, 04:42 PM
I've disagreed with Diesbudt quite a few times, but your entire post just screams "I'm in a corner".

There is nothing in the post you quoted that points towards him not listening to people who wants certain things in Hex to change.

There is absolutely nothing that suggests something even close to auto-locking.

Hearthstone does have curve screw instead, and WAY simpler mechanics. Although the mulligan system in that game allows for a smoother recovery from being curve screwed, the idea of being screwed on your opening hand definitely exists in that game. The only reason Hearthstone is an "eSport" (it really isnt compared to the bigger eSports) is because Blizz did a huge hype stunt by essentially sending out beta keys to all streamers.

The outcry in question was the Nat Pagle that essentially decided who was going to win the games in some cases, a card so powerful it was essentially run in every single legendary-tier deck and most tournament decks. It was not "randomness" that was the problem but the overall strength of the card. The card still has the same random mechanic right now as it had before, but its weaker at the moment, and the outcry is not there anymore. Its not a matter of randomness but a matter of balance.

Bolded: Yes, yes you have. I may need to change my stance now that you put some agreement with me... lol (i am kidding)

Diesbudt
05-25-2014, 04:45 PM
Decent point. But I guess the counterpoint here is that at least the player with a bad hand in poker can still make important decisions and can even still potentially win by bluffing. Sometimes in TCGs you just can't do anything which isn't fun to watch.


This isn't true. You can bluff in Hex. Say you are 1 mana from dropping your 3 6 cost mana cards because you built your deck bad and the TCG gods hate you.

You draw a card and it happens to be a 3 cost weak troop. Don't play it, save all your mana. Your opponent may or may not attack thinking you have combat tricks (repel, wild growth, etc.) and doesn't want to lose board control. Buying you a turn. This has worked for me a few times. It is important to make your opponent think you have a combat trick, to stop him from attacking, or going all out because he knows you have nothing

I bet people would enjoy a TCG streamed more (a la esport) if you couldn't see the streamers hand either. Basically a 3rd point of view. because you would be on your seats as well wondering what both players have, instead of knowing what 1 has and seeing more into a person bluffing/not bluffing than otherwise.

LLCoolDave
05-25-2014, 05:03 PM
There's plenty of games with no meaningful decision points that don't involve resource flood or screw. I've played 15 turn games with control decks that involved no actual decisions on my point because there was always an obviously best play. Not every game is interesting, not every game is interactive, and not every game can be won. The things that make the borderline games seem dull or unfun to you are the same mechanics that make the good games all the better. If you want to have your cake and eat it, you'll have to munch through the dry parts as well.

If anything, screw/flood games tend to end relatively quickly, so they take up less relative screentime than the games we'd wish to see most frequently.

Vorpal
05-25-2014, 05:17 PM
There is nothing in the post you quoted that points towards him not listening to people who wants certain things in Hex to change.

There is absolutely nothing that suggests something even close to auto-locking.

You need to read more carefully.


Alright Kami please lock. So many times these threads pop up from like the same 4-5 people.


It is always people who are new to TCGs or people who have complained in the past. Like this thread starter. This isn't his first, or his last complaint I am sure.

He's asking for Kami to run around locking threads by people who 'complain' about hex.

It's also obvious that you didn't read the rest of my post, as I addressed why curve screw is not as bad from a viewer perspective as mana screw, and I pointed out that pagle was nerfed because he was random and everyone was greatly unhappy that he was, by himself, deciding games, and they nerfed him by making him so bad he's unplayable in tournament decks.

There are plenty of powerful cards run in all top tier control decks, but since they aren't random (or as random), the game wasn't being decided entirely by random effects so viewers of HGTV tournaments and such didn't complain as much.

Xenavire
05-25-2014, 05:26 PM
I would say that this thread is getting to the point it needs to be closed anyway (as a preemptive strike - getting dangerously close to targeted attacks.)

Keep it civil if you insist on making these threads.

Vorpal
05-25-2014, 05:30 PM
I would say that this thread is getting to the point it needs to be closed anyway (as a preemptive strike - getting dangerously close to targeted attacks.)

Keep it civil if you insist on making these threads.

My post was extremely civil.

It is the responses that lacked civility.

EntropyBall
05-25-2014, 05:30 PM
I think its funny that the arguments for the current system include "well, you just need to learn to build around this system" but the arguments against other systems include "well, if you change it to X, people will build around it and game the system" So building around the current system is just solid TCG fundamentals, but building around a pseudo-random system would be game-breaking?

I always think of threads like this when reading the lawsuit debates, because countless times in alpha/pre-alpha, there would be a game system debate and people would fight tooth-and-nail against any change that made the game less MTG-like. Including using the argument of "MTG does it so it must be the best". Hell, I think this thread got to that argument on the 2nd post.

sukebe
05-25-2014, 05:32 PM
I don't think you understand the OP's point. Regardless of player skill, the resource system can lead to auto losses and very boring games for players and viewers. This can hinder the game's eSport potential.

This point is undeniable. However as has been pointed out this is just what we have to live with for Hex. CZE decided early on that the benefits of such a system outweighs the downsides. So we have to move on...

But let's not pretend that even the best player with the best deck in the world can't lose because of an unlucky distribution of resource cards.

This is not only something we "have to live with" in Hex, it is part of the design. Cory has made it clear (by outright stating it) that it is intended for even pro players to sometimes lose the game because of poor resource draws. He did not want it to be like chess, where the better player is all but 100% guaranteed to win. With the current mana system there is a chance that even the worst player can randomly beat the best due to shards alone.

This is not going to change. Cory has said this many times. As many have said already in this thread and all the other copies of it: No player is immune to being shard screwed or flooded but the better players have it happen less often.

As for this making for poor viewing, how do you explain the popularity of poker and even MTG tournaments on youtube and twitch streams? The fact that even a pro can loose to a poor draw is part of what makes every game but the last worth watching.

Vorpal
05-25-2014, 05:35 PM
I always think of threads like this when reading the lawsuit debates, because countless times in alpha/pre-alpha, there would be a game system debate and people would fight tooth-and-nail against any change that made the game less MTG-like. Including using the argument of "MTG does it so it must be the best". Hell, I think this thread got to that argument on the 2nd post.

It was actually the very first response!

The unwillingness to make any deviation from MTG makes even less sense now.

Maybe MTG's system is a good one. That's fine. Is anyone seriously going to argue a 20 year old system developed for a physical CCG absolutely cannot be improved upon by any of the means a digital only CCG unlocks?

Discussing 'building around' is all rather beside the point when considering the perspective of a viewer watching an anticipated key match between pros. Obviously they are all building around the limitations of the system, obviously they are all good players who will win most of their games, obviously long term they can overcome randomness, etc.

None of that matters for viewers of a particular highly anticipated tournament or event.

Vorpal
05-25-2014, 05:39 PM
This is not only something we "have to live with" in Hex, it is part of the design. Cory has made it clear (by outright stating it) that it is intended for even pro players to sometimes lose the game because of poor resource draws. He did not want it to be like chess, where the better player is all but 100% guaranteed to win. With the current mana system there is a chance that even the worst player can randomly beat the best due to shards alone.

Cory's goal would still be met if the mana screw was shifted to a curve screw.

All CCG's have randomness. It's always going to be possible for the better player to lose to a less good player because he drew the wrong cards.

Hearthstone, for example, has no mana screw but obviously good players get curve screwed all the time and lose that way.

I've discussed why, from a viewer perspective, it is better to see curve screw rather than mana screw.

I'm not saying we should use hearthstone's system: it is too simplistic and has it's own issues.

But Cory and the gang at CZE are obviously a very bright and innovative bunch. I'm confident given all their skill and creativity and 20 years of experience and the boundless frontiers of a digital only CCG they can come up with something more viewer friendly.

Xenavire
05-25-2014, 05:47 PM
My post was extremely civil.

It is the responses that lacked civility.

Did I mention names, or implicate anyone? No. I just said 'look out, or this will get shut.'

Every time these threads start, civility goes out the window very quickly, no matter what side tries to take the high ground.

EntropyBall
05-25-2014, 05:49 PM
As for this making for poor viewing, how do you explain the popularity of poker and even MTG tournaments on youtube and twitch streams? The fact that even a pro can loose to a poor draw is part of what makes every game but the last worth watching.

You can't compare this to poker. The final table of poker is not a 3 hand game where getting dealt a 2-7 offsuit means you lose the tournament. There are far more hands played, so the randomness of a single initial hand has less of an impact.

EntropyBall
05-25-2014, 05:51 PM
Keep it civil if you insist on making these threads.


Did I mention names, or implicate anyone? No. I just said 'look out, or this will get shut.'

If I was the OP, I certainly would assume you were talking to me.

Perfectblue
05-25-2014, 05:52 PM
Why not follow a system similar to the WoW tcg (also created by crypto). In that game you could play any card in your hand face down and count it as a resource. You would sac the card, but it helps prevent mana screw.

Vorpal
05-25-2014, 05:55 PM
Did I mention names, or implicate anyone? No. I just said 'look out, or this will get shut.'

That's not actually what you said. You said:


I would say that this thread is getting to the point it needs to be closed anyway (as a preemptive strike - getting dangerously close to targeted attacks.)

Keep it civil if you insist on making these threads.

There was only one person who made the thread, me. I wouldn't even say you implied it was me being uncivil, I'd say you explicitly identified me as the source of incivility. I think if you address comments specifically aimed at the person who made the thread, it's not unrealistic to assume they will take those comments as aimed specifically at them.

If you had said something like 'keep it civil if you insist on participating in these threads' then I'd agree it was a welcome an all encompassing plea for civility :)

Xenavire
05-25-2014, 06:00 PM
That's not actually what you said. You said:



There was only one person who made the thread, me. I wouldn't even say you implied it was me being uncivil, I'd say you explicitly identified me as the source of incivility. I think if you address comments specifically aimed at the person who made the thread, it's not unrealistic to assume they will take those comments as aimed specifically at them.

If you had said something like 'keep it civil if you insist on participating in these threads' then I'd agree it was a welcome an all encompassing plea for civility :)

I am sorry, but that was a broad 'you', not a targeted 'you'. I am certain you are not the only one making these threads, so unless you would like to take credit for them all, stop splitting hairs and trying to attack me.

In the context of the whole quote, it is obvious who I am talking about, and it isn't Vorpal.

sukebe
05-25-2014, 06:21 PM
Cory's goal would still be met if the mana screw was shifted to a curve screw.

All CCG's have randomness. It's always going to be possible for the better player to lose to a less good player because he drew the wrong cards.

Hearthstone, for example, has no mana screw but obviously good players get curve screwed all the time and lose that way.

I've discussed why, from a viewer perspective, it is better to see curve screw rather than mana screw.

I'm not saying we should use hearthstone's system: it is too simplistic and has it's own issues.

But Cory and the gang at CZE are obviously a very bright and innovative bunch. I'm confident given all their skill and creativity and 20 years of experience and the boundless frontiers of a digital only CCG they can come up with something more viewer friendly.

Cory talked about this at length in one of the interview, even mentioning the WoW resource system. They disagree with you on what leads to a better gameplay/watching experience as he stated the exact opposite of you.

The people who hate this system and want it changed in the vast minority (however loud and repetitive that minority may be).

I understand you do not like the resource system in this game, you have stated it many, many, many, many, many times. However, most people (including the games creator) disagree with you.

As for yoss's idea, I do not like it. I like the system we have now, more random the better. There are times I hate it and times I love it and that is how a shuffle should be.

Fateanomaly
05-25-2014, 07:03 PM
I am ok with the current system but how about giving all champs an additional ability. Something like void 3 cards in hand to play any 1 resource from your deck. This ability counts as playing a resource.

From my personal play experience, most of the time you really only need that 1 more resource to actually do something. The penalty to use this ability ensures that players only use it when they really need to.

Thrawn
05-25-2014, 07:22 PM
Every time another "Wah, I got mana screwed" thread is made, Hasbro kills a kitten.

Diesbudt
05-25-2014, 07:47 PM
You need to read more carefully.





He's asking for Kami to run around locking threads by people who 'complain' about hex.

It's also obvious that you didn't read the rest of my post, as I addressed why curve screw is not as bad from a viewer perspective as mana screw, and I pointed out that pagle was nerfed because he was random and everyone was greatly unhappy that he was, by himself, deciding games, and they nerfed him by making him so bad he's unplayable in tournament decks.

There are plenty of powerful cards run in all top tier control decks, but since they aren't random (or as random), the game wasn't being decided entirely by random effects so viewers of HGTV tournaments and such didn't complain as much.

Not true. I am asking Kami to lock threads that already has 10+ open of the same topics (mostly with the same people everytime). It is forum etiquette that if you wish to post about something that is already posted, you use the search forum function and add on to a previous post. Not a new one. I was asking kami to lock threads that keep repeating topics.

Also curve screw is worse than resource screw. And it is easily simplified for 2 reasons.

1) CZE that ran WoWTCG with curve screw looked it over many times and decided that resource screw's positives out weighed its negatives more than curve screw. And I agree. I enjoy playing and watching MTG and hex games way more than hearthstone. Hearthstone bored me. It was too easy without the resources.

2) Also Pagle was not nerfed because he was random. He was nerfed because he was too powerful. It is as if hex introduced a card:

Destruction 50/50. Colorless. cost 10

Randomly one champion loses the game. It isn't that this is random that people would hate it, it is the fact it is so powerful someone at 1 life against someone at 99 life can win with 1 card instead of fighting back.

Werlix
05-25-2014, 08:28 PM
This is not only something we "have to live with" in Hex, it is part of the design. Cory has made it clear (by outright stating it) that it is intended for even pro players to sometimes lose the game because of poor resource draws. He did not want it to be like chess, where the better player is all but 100% guaranteed to win. With the current mana system there is a chance that even the worst player can randomly beat the best due to shards alone.

This is not going to change. Cory has said this many times. As many have said already in this thread and all the other copies of it: No player is immune to being shard screwed or flooded but the better players have it happen less often.


You just reiterated exactly what I said. I'm agreeing with you :) "We have to live with it" == "This is not going to change" This doesn't have to be a black & white issue. I don't exactly like the way the resource system was designed, and I do think that the eSport side of it is one of the big downsides. But I also realise that this is here to say so we need to deal with it and enjoy the upsides of it :)



As for this making for poor viewing, how do you explain the popularity of poker and even MTG tournaments on youtube and twitch streams? The fact that even a pro can loose to a poor draw is part of what makes every game but the last worth watching.

This has already been answered. But in short, the bad luck parts of poker can actually be very exciting and good to watch whereas being unable to play your cards at all (bad luck in Hex/MTG) is not good to watch.

Given the massive playerbase of MTG I'd argue that it is not very popular as viewer sport.

LargoLaGrande
05-25-2014, 08:41 PM
I was watching this draft video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBtyXUguUag

It was quite good and really exciting! Our heroes had battled their way to the final match. They lost the first game narrowly in a very close tense game, then made a bunch of changes to their deck to counter what the enemy had.

Drama and suspense fills the atmopshere as they boot up. (Feel free to skip to 1:30:28 and follow along!) Will their plans have succeeded? Have they given their deck the edge it needs to come out on top? What will happen? How will the epic penultimate match play out?

Rather quickly, as it happens.

Unplayable hand.
Mulligan to 6.
Unplayable hand.
Mulligan to 5.
No lands.
Mulligan to 4.
Terrible hand, no plays, down 3 cards compared to opponent.
Game over before it begins.

GG! Wow, what fun!


So, our heroes side down to 15 lands with a deck that isn't as hyper aggressive as they think since they have a glut at 3, 5 cards that cost 4+ AND a ruby lance. Then they mulligan away a 6 that is, in fact, keepable and you expect the game to be close? The problem here isn't the resource system.

Werlix
05-25-2014, 09:23 PM
So, our heroes side down to 15 lands with a deck that isn't as hyper aggressive as they think since they have a glut at 3, 5 cards that cost 4+ AND a ruby lance. Then they mulligan away a 6 that is, in fact, keepable and you expect the game to be close? The problem here isn't the resource system.

Yeah fair point - 15 resources is asking for trouble. Also not sure what the Savage Raiders and Snipers are doing in the deck. Take those 4 out, put in 2x shards, 1x Mortar Strike and 1x Goreseeker.

sukebe
05-25-2014, 10:09 PM
So, our heroes side down to 15 lands with a deck that isn't as hyper aggressive as they think since they have a glut at 3, 5 cards that cost 4+ AND a ruby lance. Then they mulligan away a 6 that is, in fact, keepable and you expect the game to be close? The problem here isn't the resource system.

I actually hadn't watched the game and just assumed the OP was correct. Watching it now though this was not a case of random chance costing a player the match, it was just poor decision making. Not that things like that don't happen of course but the whole op referred to that match when the topic had nothing to do with said match.

Jyndreytu
05-26-2014, 01:21 AM
I'm glad we are discussing the resource system again. It needed to be discussed more. Maybe we should make an entire new subforum for it.

YourOpponent
05-26-2014, 02:18 AM
Introduce the viewers to the Champion that has a cost of 6 and makes a troop that gives a troop that is 1/1 for each resource in the top 10 cards of your deck...then have a deck with 40 resources....that helps shows some of the creativity of this game and how in some cases decks really can't be mana flooded or screwed easily.

Sadeyx
05-26-2014, 04:52 AM
So, our heroes side down to 15 lands with a deck that isn't as hyper aggressive as they think since they have a glut at 3, 5 cards that cost 4+ AND a ruby lance. Then they mulligan away a 6 that is, in fact, keepable and you expect the game to be close? The problem here isn't the resource system.

This!

I also find these guys attitude to players throughout the video utterly rotten. All they seem to do is slag players off, players who may never have even played a ccg before, and yet, when they make a shocking mistake like this, they pass it off to luck. Shameful.

Diesbudt
05-26-2014, 06:35 AM
I went ahead and watched the video more closely for fun.

1) Pitiful drafting. Didn't grab many, if any combat tricks. Only put 3 useful ones in deck, rest were troops. So it would be hard to win should opponent throw a big troop on the field, as he would have almost no way of dealing with it except with 1 card.

2) 17-18 resources is the considered amount in draft. They ran 15/16. So of course they will see a bit less mana.

3) They gemmed weirdly. Even for an aggro deck, the gem that allows the cards to not be blocked except by artifacts and same shard is better than speed in a creature that has 1 def.

Game 1:

Opening hand 5 shards, 2 troops (1 cost and 2 cost). Draws another 1 cost troop. [No resource screw detected]
Ended game with 8 total resources in hand and in play. [No resource screw detected]

Game 2:

Opening hand 3 shards, 4 troops (cost 5, 3, 3, 3). MULLIGAN [No resource screw detected. Decent enough Opening hand in draft as 1,2 cost creatures are not always played in a draft setting so having plenty of 3's works (Speak from experience). Thrown away, because the player in the video is not good]

NEW opening hand 3 shards, 2 troops (cost 1,3), 1 quick action. First draw was another 3 cost creature. [No resource screw detected]

Ended game with 5 total resources in play (only 6-7 turns). No cards ever drawn were not able to be played. They all could be played, only Ruby lance sucked because of the too few ruby threshold to use it in said deck. [No resource screw detected]

Game 3

Opening hand 3 shards, 3 troops (cost 1,2,3) and 1 quick action. First draw = resource. [No resource screw detected]
Ended game at 7 mana. Only complaint was he missed 1 turn playing a card because of too many resources. But in the end still had a good amount of spells and resources. [No resource screw detected]

EDIT DECK - Removed 1 quick action and 1 resource to add 2 quick actions. They even said "I say let us try balls to the wall and cut a land." "Really??" --So they knew they were asking for trouble dropping more resources.

Game 4

Opening hand 3 shards, 2 troops (3,5) 2 quick actions. First draw = a resource. [No resource screw detected].
Ended game with 6 resources in play. Good set of 3-4 costing cards. Ended quickly [No resource screw detected].

Game 5

Opening hand 4 shards, 2 troops (1,3), 1 quick action. First draw = 3 cost quick action. [No resource screw detected].
By turn 6, exactly 6 resources drawn / played. And decent cards played/in hand that match said resources.
Ended game at 9 resources, opponent had just as many on the field / was playable but discarded as bluffs. Game went a long time as well. [No resource screw detected].

Game 6

Opening hand 3 shards, 3 troops (3,3,1) and 1 quick action. HOWEVER shards = blood, all other cards = ruby. [No resource screw detected. Threshold screw detected] {Still usable hand. 3 turns to draw a ruby to play the bigger creatures.}

MULLIGAN

Opening hand 2 - 2 shards, 3 troops (2,3,5), 1 quick action. HOWEVER shards = blood, all other cards = ruby. [No resource screw detected. Threshold screw detected] {Still usable hand, just need 1 ruby shard by turn 3-4 again.}

MULLIGAN

Opening hand 3 - 0 shards, 5 troops (1,3,3,3,3). [Resource screw detected. However took 2 mulligans to get there.]

MULLIGAN

Opening hand 4 - 2 sahards, 1 troop (4), 1 quick action. [Hand is small. Cannot detected any screws. ]

>>> Still got to 4 resources in play with hand full of 3-4 cost cards. However opponent took advantage from the triple mulligan and he could never comeback against him.

Xenavire
05-26-2014, 07:09 AM
Can I just say I watched that, and while Boomer might know how to play well, he is still a massive idiot for fundamentally misunderstanding Nelebrin Skirmisher. I mean, come on, that card is one of the biggest cards in the draft meta (especially with spellshield and flight.)

Unhurtable
05-26-2014, 08:18 AM
Bolded: Yes, yes you have. I may need to change my stance now that you put some agreement with me... lol (i am kidding)

:D


You need to read more carefully.
He's asking for Kami to run around locking threads by people who 'complain' about hex.


There is nothing in the post you quoted

Also, he is asking for Kami to lock threads that discuss the exact same thing as many other threads. Its much better for the forum as a whole to keep discussions in single threads instead of having 10 different threads discussing the same thing at the same time.


It's also obvious that you didn't read the rest of my post, as I addressed why curve screw is not as bad from a viewer perspective as mana screw, and I pointed out that pagle was nerfed because he was random and everyone was greatly unhappy that he was, by himself, deciding games, and they nerfed him by making him so bad he's unplayable in tournament decks.



There was one high profile series of events that was decided entirely by a single random card. It drew so much outcry that blizzard promptly nerfed the card so that it wasn't competitive in tournament decks.

This text here indicates that it was the card being random that was the problem, which I pointed out was not the case.


There are plenty of powerful cards run in all top tier control decks, but since they aren't random (or as random), the game wasn't being decided entirely by random effects so viewers of HGTV tournaments and such didn't complain as much.
There is a difference between "All control decks run X" and "All decks run X", mainly since some decktypes only have one option for certain things, at which point it becomes acceptable.

This is not only something we "have to live with" in Hex, it is part of the design. Cory has made it clear (by outright stating it) that it is intended for even pro players to sometimes lose the game because of poor resource draws. He did not want it to be like chess, where the better player is all but 100% guaranteed to win. With the current mana system there is a chance that even the worst player can randomly beat the best due to shards alone.
Chess is a horrible example since its a complete-information game with simple mechanics. Essentially no room for pocket strats or other things that could sway the game towards the "weaker" player.


The people who hate this system and want it changed in the vast minority (however loud and repetitive that minority may be). I think you mean "tiny minority" since a "vast" minority could be close to 50% :)

frychikn
05-26-2014, 10:29 AM
Yes, even the best. But the best make it to the top almost every time. Why is that? Because they know how to manipulate the luck best when it comes to building a deck. Making sure it has a good curve, making sure they can mulligan if needed, making sure they have the right amount of resources and/or resource support. That is why you cannot take 1 game as a sample size. Just like statistics. You have to have a much bigger pool, and those players have good win % at those numbers. So in that simple math it shows that it is fine, because the better plays always manage to do well with the same resource system others struggle on.

Because, they are complaining on issues they don't fully realize. A lot of people who never had mana issues in MTG, resource issues in WoWTCG with their curve system or any game, people would mana-weave. Not a true shuffle. This is why opponents get to cut decks before a game begins. Also if it is the same person over and over, after their first complaint it is no longer valid as they have been heard. No reason to go shouting about it more and more and be looked at like the crazy village crier.

Also CZE has said they will not change the system, as it is what majority likes and is what they built the game off of. They have said it time and time again, so repeat complainers need to stop. New ones I can understand as they have not heard this yet.

you sound so full of yourself.

i've been playing card games competitively for 16+ years and nobody likes mana screw. i dont like being mana screwed, i dont like playing against opponents who are mana screwed. it just is not good for a spectator sport to have games where only 1 person is playing.

being a good player in magic and hex i can safely say that just because you're good, doesnt mean you dodge variance.

Xenavire
05-26-2014, 10:32 AM
you sound so full of yourself.

i've been playing card games competitively for 16+ years and nobody likes mana screw. i dont like being mana screwed, i dont like playing against opponents who are mana screwed. it just is not good for a spectator sport to have games where only 1 person is playing.

being a good player in magic and hex i can safely say that just because you're good, doesnt mean you dodge variance.

You can't dodge a bullet, but you can wear a vest. The point being made is that deckbuilding can limit the issues, not eliminate them.

Quasari
05-26-2014, 10:37 AM
you sound so full of yourself.

i've been playing card games competitively for 16+ years and nobody likes mana screw. i dont like being mana screwed, i dont like playing against opponents who are mana screwed. it just is not good for a spectator sport to have games where only 1 person is playing.

being a good player in magic and hex i can safely say that just because you're good, doesnt mean you dodge variance.
I enjoy watching games with screw as it often shows skills that prove that players are at a higher level. Watching some one recover and then win after screw is awesome. If they recover then lose it's still cool because I'm invested in them. You can't dodge varience, but there is a lot you can do to mitigate it when it arrives. The resource system makes the game deeper with screw.

Xenavire
05-26-2014, 10:38 AM
I enjoy watching games with screw as it often shows skills that prove that players are at a higher level. Watching some one recover and then win after screw is awesome. If they recover then lose it's still cool because I'm invested in them. You can't dodge varience, but there is a lot you can do to mitigate it when it arrives. The resource system makes the game deeper with screw.

Having done this myself, it is satisfying. It is sadly rare when two evenly matched players meet.

frychikn
05-26-2014, 10:39 AM
You can't compare this to poker. The final table of poker is not a 3 hand game where getting dealt a 2-7 offsuit means you lose the tournament. There are far more hands played, so the randomness of a single initial hand has less of an impact.

i do wonder if any of the people who keep bringing up poker actually play poker regularly.

Quasari
05-26-2014, 10:40 AM
Having done this myself, it is satisfying. It is sadly rare when two evenly matched players meet.

I will still say it leads to some more intense moments.

Bells
05-26-2014, 10:45 AM
The reason most competitive play is ''best out of 3'' is because, with cards and decks, you have luck as a real factor in... and having someone loose because of a bad hand sucks. But 3 Unplayable games in a row is much less likely than you building your deck poorly...

darkwonders
05-26-2014, 10:49 AM
Of course everyone is going to get mana screwed in this game. Mana does not exist in the Hex world :p

Diesbudt
05-26-2014, 11:08 AM
Of course everyone is going to get mana screwed in this game. Mana does not exist in the Hex world :p

100+ games and I have yet to draw an island... :'(

Diesbudt
05-26-2014, 11:14 AM
you sound so full of yourself.

i've been playing card games competitively for 16+ years and nobody likes mana screw. i dont like being mana screwed, i dont like playing against opponents who are mana screwed. it just is not good for a spectator sport to have games where only 1 person is playing.

being a good player in magic and hex i can safely say that just because you're good, doesnt mean you dodge variance.

Want to bring experience in? Aite.

18 years myself.

Pokemon, Yugioh, MTG, WoWTCG, Dragonball Z CCG, Yuyu hakusho, Duel Masters, Vs System, Digimon, Hearthstone.

I have yet to enjoy a game as much as YuYu hakusho CCG or MTG until hex. The resources is what makes it fun, and as already a few others posted it is more enjoyable to watch someone make a huge comeback because of it. In a game w/o resources, once someones ship starts falling its almost impossible to turn it around.

Do people enjoy getting screwed? No. It is a good system that CZE studied and decided on that the pros outweight the cons more than a WoWTCG/hearthstone system did. And mana screw/flood does not happen near as often as people think. It depends on ones ability to build a deck, mulligan correctly, play smart, and support cards that help deck with resources if needed. I have watched a lot of competitive card tournaments and the top players 9 times out of 10 find their ways back to the top. Not because they are naturally more lucky, but because they have mastered how to mitigate luck more than amatuers.

Hatts
05-26-2014, 12:30 PM
Ahh this thread again. For anyone wanting more details on why CZE thinks this is the best resource system for Hex, watch this interview with Ben Stoll (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQX028AG7XU) from around the 10 minute mark forward.

For those who don't want to watch, here's the tl;dw

- They feel their resource system is very streamlined compared to other resource based system because everything is handled digitally, the cards disappear (i.e no tapping resources each turn to play cards)
- They feel that Hex's resource system leads to higher variance than the WoW TCG system, which they feel leads to a much more exciting/tense game in the mid game
- They feel the charge power makes you get less punished by resource flooding, people will adapt and start to run more.

Obviously the person doing this draft decided to go the other way on that one...

Werlix
05-26-2014, 01:17 PM
I do feel a bit sorry for the OP that so many people missed the point of his post and derailed this thread into another generic argument about the resource system. Oh well... at least I heard what you were saying :) I think the resource system is OK but it has its flaws and eSports viewing is one of them.

sukebe
05-26-2014, 02:19 PM
:D

Chess is a horrible example since its a complete-information game with simple mechanics. Essentially no room for pocket strats or other things that could sway the game towards the "weaker" player.

I think you mean "tiny minority" since a "vast" minority could be close to 50% :)

I did mean tiny minority :-)

Why is chess a bad example for what I said? What you just said is exactly why I used it my example of what cory did not want this game to turn into.


You can't dodge a bullet, but you can wear a vest. The point being made is that deckbuilding can limit the issues, not eliminate them.

This was a good way of explaining it, well done :-)


I do feel a bit sorry for the OP that so many people missed the point of his post and derailed this thread into another generic argument about the resource system. Oh well... at least I heard what you were saying :) I think the resource system is OK but it has its flaws and eSports viewing is one of them.

We did not miss the point, many of us spoke directly to it. We just didnt agree with him (which isn't the same thing). I personally enjoy watching the big magic tournaments on youtube. Our reason for talking about the resource system is directly related to OPs point. We think the chance for mana/shard screw is a part of the game that was intended and can lead to some very entertaining games as often (or i think more often) than it leads to boring ones, especially if the players are good at the game.

To Hatts: Thank you for that link, I was trying to remember where this one was. Do you have the link to interview where Cory says pretty much the same thing? I would like to add it to my link arsenal :-)

Werlix
05-26-2014, 02:56 PM
We did not miss the point, many of us spoke directly to it. We just didnt agree with him (which isn't the same thing).

Oh you did address the eSports concerns of the OP and I'm fine with that, I'm meaning posts like the below:


The resource system is not going to change. Unfortunately, if you want a different resource system, you probably need to find a different game. That's a 100% incontrovertible fact


End thread.
Alright Kami please lock. So many times these threads pop up from like the same 4-5 people.


Oh, is it time to do the pointless rehashing of the resource system again already? I thought we just started re-whining about the Kickstarter rewards being exclusive. Boy, time sure does fly.



~90% of the complaints and problems people see, are poor/weak deck constructions and/or how they play the opening hand and/or how they mulligan. The rest are legit, but 10% is not that bad of a ratio. That is the challenge in TCGs. How do you influence the "luck" in your favor based on playstyles and mulligans and how you build your deck.


It really does seem to be the same few topics over and over again. I look forward to the mulligan topic incoming soon. At least I think that's the next one on the list.


1. It is not a problem. It is people who are not "skilled" in manipulating building decks well to influence the "luck" factor better in your favor. There is a reason why people who do well, do well more often than others.

2. It isn't different people. It is always people who are new to TCGs or people who have complained in the past. Like this thread starter. This isn't his first, or his last complaint I am sure.

Diesbudt
05-26-2014, 03:20 PM
Oh you did address the eSports concerns of the OP and I'm fine with that, I'm meaning posts like the below:

We did speak directly to it. The point of the OP was the resource system watching via esports. The underlying issue becomes the resource system since there is no other way to "change it" for esport viewship.

Thus we cut out the pointlessness of the false front of the complaint straight to the meat. Which is, exactly what we were talking about.

If I am wrong, give a suggestion how to make watching the esport better when screw/flood happens without changing a single thing with the resource system. Otherwise, all we did was shortcut the complaint to the main topic at hand.

Sorry you can't understand that.

Arbiter
05-26-2014, 04:51 PM
While e-sports are important to some, they don't have the saturation or appeal that can drive change. The game needs to catch on before that. Basketball had to catch on with people before network television could get in and force rule changes to better fit their broadcast (and pay massive amounts of money to the sport to do so). It's also important to realise that many casters will ask for things that they want personally and try to justify that with an e-sports or competitive tag but it just isn't the case.

For example there were many requests to tone down the randomness in Hearthstone "because of e-sports for the viewers". The randomness, however, was one of the most exciting things for the viewers. In the end, some randomness was removed or toned down, because it was too important in determining games and was a detriment to the game, not to the viewing of the game.

It's a similar thing here, as this issue is one of randomness that can determine games. Overall though, it is healthy for the game experience and can be mitigated through skill and experience so that, overall, you still end up with the skilled players at the top. Does this produce some one-sided games? Yes. Look at sports though, there are massive viewership numbers for sports such as Tennis, football, cricket, etc. All have elements of randomness (weather, wind, referees and so on), and all can produce the occasional one-sided contest that people will still watch if the commentators (casters) can make it interesting, especially if they are invested in the game.

It is really up to the casters to make the commentary of lopsided games interesting for their viewers. Randomness lets them win games that they shouldn't and costs them games that they should on paper win, but that's fine. That should give them better stories and the capability to engage their viewers than "I won/lost against X because they are less/more skilled". You know you will have the occasional game where you are just drawing dead and never getting the cards you need, if you want to cast successfully, plan ahead for the sorts of things you can say then.

hexnaes
05-26-2014, 06:11 PM
If I am wrong, give a suggestion how to make watching the esport better when screw/flood happens without changing a single thing with the resource system. Otherwise, all we did was shortcut the complaint to the main topic at hand.


I wanted to offer a suggestion that would fit this criteria. There is no reason to "shortcut to the complaint" because it's not necesarily the resource system that needs to be changed. (I wouldn't mind seeing it changed, but that's already been discussed.) I feel some people have been getting overly defensive on these boards for no reason lately, so hopefully we can get this thread back on track.

Anyhow, idea:

The champion powers could be buffed in future sets to offer more incentive to play more resources. This would curve having games decided by not drawing any resources, and with powerful champion abilities drawing extra lands might be what wins the game.

As it stands now, you're lucky to get most abilities off once or twice per game, and it's rare they decide games. Honestly, the champion powers feel like an afterthought. It would be nice to see champion abilities have more importance.

Gwaer
05-26-2014, 06:15 PM
I am positive that champion powers will get more meaningful as time goes on.

hexnaes
05-26-2014, 06:18 PM
I am positive that champion powers will get more meaningful as time goes on.

Has this been stated officially anywhere? I'd love to watch an interview/read up on where it was mentioned.

Diesbudt
05-26-2014, 06:31 PM
I wanted to offer a suggestion that would fit this criteria. There is no reason to "shortcut to the complaint" because it's not necesarily the resource system that needs to be changed. (I wouldn't mind seeing it changed, but that's already been discussed.) I feel some people have been getting overly defensive on these boards for no reason lately, so hopefully we can get this thread back on track.

Anyhow, idea:

The champion powers could be buffed in future sets to offer more incentive to play more resources. This would curve having games decided by not drawing any resources, and with powerful champion abilities drawing extra lands might be what wins the game.

As it stands now, you're lucky to get most abilities off once or twice per game, and it's rare they decide games. Honestly, the champion powers feel like an afterthought. It would be nice to see champion abilities have more importance.

Problem is, there is a fine line to tread with this. It is so hard to make them interesting and unique, while also making them useful (for the most part, there are a few champs that...) but not overpowered and game changing.

hexnaes
05-26-2014, 06:41 PM
Problem is, there is a fine line to tread with this. It is so hard to make them interesting and unique, while also making them useful (for the most part, there are a few champs that...) but not overpowered and game changing.

Naturally you wouldn't want 60 resource decks and have hero powers win games by themselves.

But how do you feel about them being buffed as a way to prevent resource screw? Wouldn't it alleviate the problem some are seeing if there was actually incentive to being a little flooded from time to time?

Diesbudt
05-26-2014, 06:54 PM
Naturally you wouldn't want 60 resource decks and have hero powers win games by themselves.

But how do you feel about them being buffed as a way to prevent resource screw? Wouldn't it alleviate the problem some are seeing if there was actually incentive to being a little flooded from time to time?

Buff them so people will run more resources? Fine with that, but again make them too good they will be more important than the deck itself.

Buff them so they can do something that makes them gain resources? No. You are taking away a chunk of the skill part of deck building with that idea. And I feel it would hurt the game more than help.

hexnaes
05-26-2014, 07:02 PM
Buff them so people will run more resources? Fine with that, but again make them too good they will be more important than the deck itself.

Buff them so they can do something that makes them gain resources? No. You are taking away a chunk of the skill part of deck building with that idea. And I feel it would hurt the game more than help.

I never said to buff them to make them gain resources. That would be a bit crazy (resources would be basically 1.25 or 1.5 resources each).

I think champion powers really need to be more of a focus of game play than they are now. It's one of the features that makes the game stand out, I thought they were a great idea during the kickstarter. However, after playing the game, they feel incredibly lackluster.

They were a good idea in a step towards mitigating resource problems, but I don't think they went anywhere near far enough.

Diesbudt
05-26-2014, 07:18 PM
I never said to buff them to make them gain resources. That would be a bit crazy (resources would be basically 1.25 or 1.5 resources each).

I think champion powers really need to be more of a focus of game play than they are now. It's one of the features that makes the game stand out, I thought they were a great idea during the kickstarter. However, after playing the game, they feel incredibly lackluster.

They were a good idea in a step towards mitigating resource problems, but I don't think they went anywhere near far enough.

Problem is, some of the champion abilities cannot get any better without putting them in the too good category. (The ones you seen played often enough). Make them too Prominent, and those who draw more resources will have the advantage thus more resource flood, thus a few less plays a game making it imo more boring/less entertaining to watch.

I

hexnaes
05-26-2014, 07:37 PM
Problem is, some of the champion abilities cannot get any better without putting them in the too good category. (The ones you seen played often enough). Make them too Prominent, and those who draw more resources will have the advantage thus more resource flood, thus a few less plays a game making it imo more boring/less entertaining to watch.

I

Well right now the abilities are basically forgettable.

Does any deck rely on a champion's power? I can't think of one. It seems strange to me that the champion's power (which IMO should be the center of the deckbuilding process) is a complete after thought.

I understand and completely agree that they shouldn't be too powerful, but I think you're being overly cautious.

How is having resource flood, and therefore more champion power activation, less plays than having resource shortage? There is no play when you don't have a resource to play/champ to activate/card to put down because you don't have enough resources.

Diesbudt
05-26-2014, 07:43 PM
Well right now the abilities are basically forgettable.

Does any deck rely on a champion's power? I can't think of one. It seems strange to me that the champion's power (which IMO should be the center of the deckbuilding process) is a complete after thought.

I understand and completely agree that they shouldn't be too powerful, but I think you're being overly cautious.

How is having resource flood, and therefore more champion power activation, less plays than having resource shortage? There is no play when you don't have a resource to play/champ to activate/card to put down because you don't have enough resources.

Dwarf and shin'hare really power up the right decks for the 0/1 token pieces.

The +1/+1 and -1-/1 are also pretty good. The 2 cost 1 life gained and opponent loses one is pretty powerful in stalling early game for curve to work your way. The lifedrain champion can be insanely OP.

And because the deck should be around a style. Not a champion. If a deck has to revolve around a champion, you will need 30+ champions in game.

1 for : flight, spellshield, swiftstrike, lifedrain, rage, steadfast, crush, +1/+1, -1/-1, milling, Humans, orcs, vennen, coyotle, shin'hare, necrotics, dwarves, (and the 8th i cannot remember atm), a rush, a control, a draw power. (and so on and so on)

This is why all deck building step 1 is: Pick a card you want to build a deck around. NOT build around a champion.

Gwaer
05-26-2014, 07:58 PM
Tetzot enables some fun high resource decks.

hexnaes
05-26-2014, 07:58 PM
This is why all deck building step 1 is: Pick a card you want to build a deck around. NOT build around a champion.

This is not a very convincing argument for keeping champion powers weak.

Other TCGs/CCGs don't adhere to this first step.

For example: When I build decks in Hearthstone, sometimes I pick a card, sometimes I pick card abilities. But the majority of the time, I pick the hero I want to build a deck for and I pick cards that have synergy with that hero's power.