PDA

View Full Version : New Mulligan rules on Magic taking effect on July



Jenner
06-30-2015, 04:33 AM
Thought this topic could be interesting to reduce amount of non interactive games http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/changes-starting-pro-tour-magic-origins-2015-06-29

In summary, anyone starting the game with a smaller hand (due to mulligans) has scry 1.
Smart decision!

Lafoote
06-30-2015, 04:52 AM
I have mixed feelings. It's better for people who are screwed, but also encourages aggressive mulligans for optimal draws.

Xenavire
06-30-2015, 05:43 AM
I have mixed feelings. It's better for people who are screwed, but also encourages aggressive mulligans for optimal draws.

Eh, only slightly more than the original system. If the top card is good for you, you are behind by 1 card but with a decent hand. If the top card is bad for you, you potentially have an OK hand and a bad top card again. It is lowering variance by the slimmest of margins. (Well, maybe not that slim, but in comparison to existing aggressive mulligan decks it is fairly slim.)

I think people will much rather play with an OK hand than mulligan for a better one, on the offchance they get a bad one (which is basically where MTG is right now anyway.)

Mahes
06-30-2015, 06:30 AM
I approve of this idea. It would decrease the chance of getting an awful starting hand by allowing a player to keep a 5 or 1 shard hand on the 2nd draw with a higher chance of not being resource hosed. 1 mulligan is fine, but going down to 5 cards can put a player at a large disadvantage unless they top draw what they need.

Since a scry effect already exists in the programming this would be a potential solution for Hex. It is a shame that it might be something they cannot do for legal reasons.

RamzaBehoulve
06-30-2015, 07:16 AM
It would obviously be pushing a bit to take in that rule with the lawsuit still pending. However, a gameplay rule/mechanic cannot be copyrighted no matter who you are...

Vorpal
06-30-2015, 07:31 AM
Seems like a great idea to me.

Thrawn
06-30-2015, 07:40 AM
It would obviously be pushing a bit to take in that rule with the lawsuit still pending. However, a gameplay rule/mechanic cannot be copyrighted no matter who you are...

You're not wrong though.

"We are not a copy of Magic."
"Ooo, Magic changed a rule, we should copy it."

Audens
06-30-2015, 07:41 AM
It would obviously be pushing a bit to take in that rule with the lawsuit still pending. However, a gameplay rule/mechanic cannot be copyrighted no matter who you are...

Could theoretically be patented, but no idea whether they would be able to meet the requirements for that.

Audens
06-30-2015, 07:45 AM
You're not wrong though.

"We are not a copy of Magic."
"Ooo, Magic changed a rule, we should copy it."

In fairness, you're allowed to copy the functional aspects of Magic that are no longer under patent protection. Just can't copy the art (due to copyright law) or do things that are likely to cause people to think your product is Magic (due to trademark and trade dress law).

Thrawn
06-30-2015, 07:49 AM
In fairness, you're allowed to copy the functional aspects of Magic that are no longer under patent protection. Just can't copy the art (due to copyright law) or do things that are likely to cause people to think your product is Magic (due to trademark and trade dress law).

Correct, my point was simply that it doesn't help the discussion or image much when people already accuse Hex of just being a MTGO clone if we also start copying rules changes.

rjselzler
06-30-2015, 07:58 AM
Correct, my point was simply that it doesn't help the discussion or image much when people already accuse Hex of just being a MTGO clone if we also start copying rules changes.

Agree. Plus, our resource system is just demonstrably better, so I don't see as much of a need. I like to think that WoTC made this change because they recognized the inferiority of MtG's resource system to Hex... ;)

Tinfoil
06-30-2015, 08:27 AM
Not copying a functional aspect, when you have already copied many other functional aspects, for the sake of not wanting to appear to copy functional aspects seems...silly.

If Wizards have not patented it, I hope Hex copies it unless I hear a good argument about why it is bad idea. I am playing Hex so I want it to be the best possible game and this seems like a small improvement.

magic_gazz
06-30-2015, 08:29 AM
Isnt this new rule JUST for the pro tour so they can test it out?

Seems they are not sure if its a good idea or not yet.

Malakili
06-30-2015, 08:33 AM
I'm fine with this change. I think it DOES make mulliganning substantially more appealing - particularly in matchups where simply having a "playable" hand isn't enough. Against linear strategies in particular you often need specific ways to disrupt what your opponent is doing. I think their approach of trying this at a Pro Tour is a good way to test it out. I suspect this will have a substantially bigger effect on Modern and Legacy than on Standard.

frychikn
06-30-2015, 09:22 AM
why is everybody so quick to copy yet another thing from magic into hex?

you guys claim this game is nothing like magic yet this?

Xenavire
06-30-2015, 09:26 AM
why is everybody so quick to copy yet another thing from magic into hex?

you guys claim this game is nothing like magic yet this?

People who want less variance don't mind copying as long as it means they get what they want. And this one is clever enough that most people like it.

It doesn't mean it would be wise to copy it, but the sheer fact MTG is considering a change means that HexEnt may see more of these threads pop up using MTG as an example of why our resource/mulligan system needs work.

EntropyBall
06-30-2015, 09:41 AM
I'd love to see even more forgiving mulligan rules in Hex. Hex is better than MTG, so if MTG has Scry 1, Hex should have Scry 2. :-p

I've said this in every mulligan thread, but the argument that less punishing mulligans will favor certain deck archtypes doesn't matter. The decks we have now are the best for the cards/rules we have now. Changing the cards or the rules will change the meta. If it gets to the point where only 1 deck archetype is viable, the next set of cards will just be weaker for that archetype, same as the fact that Set 2 put in a cheap AoD counter and Set 3 has a cheap CMK counter. They can still balance the game after making a slight tweak to the rules.

israel.kendall
06-30-2015, 10:09 AM
why is everybody so quick to copy yet another thing from magic into hex?

you guys claim this game is nothing like magic yet this?

I don't know anyone who claims HEX is nothing like MTG.

Zophie
06-30-2015, 10:37 AM
Thought this topic could be interesting to reduce amount of non interactive games http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/changes-starting-pro-tour-magic-origins-2015-06-29

In summary, anyone starting the game with a smaller hand (due to mulligans) has scry 1.
Smart decision!

This was already being discussed (http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=44099&p=500834) in the other mulligan thread started yesterday, did we really need to create a second thread to discuss this further? Just wondering.

wolzarg
07-01-2015, 01:23 AM
Thought this topic could be interesting to reduce amount of non interactive games http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/changes-starting-pro-tour-magic-origins-2015-06-29

In summary, anyone starting the game with a smaller hand (due to mulligans) has scry 1.
Smart decision!
This is only for one protour to begin with so lets make that very very clear. This is still insanity and i don't know what they are smoking at wizards HQ. If the protour format isn't standard combo is going to have a field day with that one.

malloc31
07-01-2015, 07:17 AM
picking 6 of 7 cards as opposed to keeping all 7 is still a big enough penalty that people will not be able to just mulligan to phish for a combo, and expect it to work for them

Sparrow
07-01-2015, 07:32 AM
If Hex wants to make a mulligan change that has a small impact on the game, I'm confident they can come up with a way to do it that is different from Magic's. Personally I think it's too early for that as I'm not seeing any problems with the system we have now. As more sets enter the field and we have larger constructed blocks to build decks from, the perceived need should diminish further.

Shivdaddy
07-01-2015, 07:55 AM
With the lawsuit and all, you know they are not going to follow suit.

IronPheasant
07-01-2015, 12:20 PM
the perceived need should diminish further.

A system where you don't even get to play a game 6% of the time will always be perceived as broken.

Scry whatever doesn't change the nature of land - absolutely necessary oxygen, until you curve out and they become a dead draw that could really use some

http://hex.tcgbrowser.com/images/cards/big/DementedDemolisher.jpg

roKz-
07-02-2015, 06:20 AM
Actually for a tcg with ressource the best innovation is Spellweaver system ; I quote this :
''If Cryptozoic’s HEX: Shards of Fate feels a bit like “Magic 2.0″, Spellweaver would be light-years ahead at “Magic 3.0″ – such is the innovation shown here in updating and evolving so many of Magic’s dated design flaws. With that said, assuming you’re familiar with the fundamentals of Magic: the Gathering, what makes Spellweaver so different and such an improvement over and above Magic?''
Link
http://tradingcardgames.com/spellweaver-preview/

Poetic
07-02-2015, 06:26 AM
I wasn't too big a fan of spellweaver's system.

ziggarius
07-02-2015, 06:47 AM
I tried spellweaver, it's system isn't better than hex. You choose to get threshold OR resource + extra draw. In the matches i played, i felt like double threshold cards were a bane to the deck and curve. When i could be getting card draw and more resources to pump my troops with. I admit i played vampires and maybe they're the only one with a troop that has quick action +1+1 which is op as hell for s three speed troop.

Bottom line, any time i drew a card that needed two or more threshold i felt PENALIZED to play a shrine to get it. The only aspect i liked about spellweaver that I'd love for hex, is the once per turn discard a card and pull a shrine(think shard) from the top four of your deck. If there are none, you lose out. I didn't feel like that changes the ideal resource count for a deck due to the inherent risk of discarding and getting nothing.

I still prefer hex's shards being threshold and resource, compared to spellweaver's threshold OR card draw + resource.

Diesbudt
07-02-2015, 06:50 AM
Actually for a tcg with ressource the best innovation is Spellweaver system ; I quote this :
''If Cryptozoic’s HEX: Shards of Fate feels a bit like “Magic 2.0″, Spellweaver would be light-years ahead at “Magic 3.0″ – such is the innovation shown here in updating and evolving so many of Magic’s dated design flaws. With that said, assuming you’re familiar with the fundamentals of Magic: the Gathering, what makes Spellweaver so different and such an improvement over and above Magic?''
Link
http://tradingcardgames.com/spellweaver-preview/

Hate this mechanic and spellweaver was marginally on the low side of average at best. Easily choose hex or Mtg over it.

frychikn
07-02-2015, 07:03 AM
why do you hate the mechanic exactly? i'm playing spellweaver right now, and it feels good mechanically. balance wise it could use some help, but i've never played a game where i felt i couldnt do anything because resources were scared of me. that feels pretty good. that alone i think makes spellweaver a better game. what spellweaver doesnt have is the money to put in the effort that this or magic can.

Axle
07-02-2015, 07:09 AM
On the other hand, the cards themselves in Spellweaver are very basic and boring, with no proof of concept digital cards. People don't pay attention to the cards when talking game mechanics, but they play an important role.

And the resource choice of HEX is balance based. They could easily use something like Hearthstone, but that game is very stagnant with the same strategies always winning on top. If spellweaver is having balance problems it could be the fault of said mechanics.

Diesbudt
07-02-2015, 07:13 AM
why do you hate the mechanic exactly? i'm playing spellweaver right now, and it feels good mechanically. balance wise it could use some help, but i've never played a game where i felt i couldnt do anything because resources were scared of me. that feels pretty good. that alone i think makes spellweaver a better game. what spellweaver doesnt have is the money to put in the effort that this or magic can.

System is over complicated and takes out a good chunk of skill when it comes to deck building a curve and skill of mulligan when it comes to a deck. The better/more intune players MTG, and n ow recently Hex understand that. That is why good players win way more often even though when the good and bad players both flip coins they have the same 50/50 chance to get heads or tails.

It is THAT skill that I love about TCGs. When you kill some of the skill of deck building or understanding what a good hand, keepable but slightly risky, or very risky you need to mulligan hands, the game isnt nearly as good in my opinion. After I learned MTG years ago when I used to complain about mulligans needing change or that hated resources, I spent time to understand the deck building portion and realized how to get better. Now I rarely have shard issues in Hex because of the threshold system (after learning how to build decks and mulligan my decks i make), but MTG still get hit once in a while from the land not being the same as thresholds. So to me personally the spellweaver system is uninteresting and takes a portion of the skill away from my favorite part of TCGs.

frychikn
07-02-2015, 07:34 AM
deck building isnt much of a "skill" when we live in a world of netdecking. imo. skills such as reading the field and just knowing your deck seem much more important.

This is coming from somebody thats played since Prophecy and pretty much flat out quit with Theros. With much success competitively barring the Pro Tour.

ziggarius
07-02-2015, 07:36 AM
Something else to be noted, basic shrines in spellweaver can show up as a replacement for a common card in a booster. I've gotten cards for different colors than my starting deck but i can't even try them out because i don't have the shrines for that color type.

It's a pretty big negative to a new player being unable to try that awesome off color card and for veterans getting that instead. I'm not taking about ones equivalent to shards of fate, dual shards nor the upcoming rares. I'm talking about basic resource cards that hex gives us 200 of each free.

Diesbudt
07-02-2015, 07:55 AM
deck building isnt much of a "skill" when we live in a world of netdecking. imo. skills such as reading the field and just knowing your deck seem much more important.

This is coming from somebody thats played since Prophecy and pretty much flat out quit with Theros. With much success competitively barring the Pro Tour.

Never said I was for just competitive deck building. I also love to allow combos and finding the best way to make them go off without being a competitive level deck. So net-decking is a weak reason/excuse.

Vorpal
07-02-2015, 09:27 AM
System is over complicated and takes out a good chunk of skill when it comes to deck building a curve and skill of mulligan when it comes to a deck.

This opinion will not be popular, but I find Hearthstone's mulligan system requires a lot more skill to use to its full extant than Hex's, due to the vastly greater number of choices.

In Hex you have one choice, do I mulligan or not? A player who is just guessing could stumble into the right answer half the time. (Well, more than half, since mulliganing always carries a cost in the sense you always lose a card and with proper deck construction you do not need to mulligan anything like half the time)

In Hearthstone, mulliganing is not some punishment visited upon you for being insufficiently favored by the RNG cards, which you seek to avoid to not lose a card. Mulliganing is an integral part of every single game and properly understanding your key cards and your opponents key cards for each matchup is crucial in winning against certain decks, primarily those which rapdily pursue a linear strategy. Each card you decide to keep or throw back, and then for each card you throw back, you get another draw from your deck.

People will say that this favors combo decks, but that is certainly not how it has played out in Hearthstone, where aggro decks are so prevalent it has generated a lot of whining. Combo decks exist and are powerful (as do control decks) but these decks are not mulliganing for their combo, they are looking for cards to help them survive the initial onslaught of aggro decks. Aggro decks almost never mulligan because their whole deck is stuff you can play on turns 1-3 anyway.

You can always mulligan into a better hand in Hearthstone. In hex, you can get a bad hand, decide to (correctly) mulligan, and then end up with an even more unplayable hand - that is now one card smaller. Losing a card is seen as a steep penalty that dissuades many people from mulliganing or even thinking about it as a tool to use in part of playing. Hearthstone has done a better job of convincing new players of the benefits of mulligans in this regard.

Hex's larger hand size wouldn't fit well for Hearthstone's system (as well as the resource system difference) but I do wish there were ways to lead new players into aggressively mulliganing instead of almost never doing it.

EntropyBall
07-02-2015, 10:20 AM
Hex's larger hand size wouldn't fit well for Hearthstone's system (as well as the resource system difference) but I do wish there were ways to lead new players into aggressively mulliganing instead of almost never doing it.

I'm not a "new" player, but I almost never mulligan in limited if I have a 2/5 or 3/4 split. I'm sure there are other times when I should, but I'm worried about being unable to play if i mulligan to 6.

katkillad
07-02-2015, 12:38 PM
Spellweaver wasn't very fun, I would prefer it if Hex adopts nothing from that game.

Malakili
07-02-2015, 01:14 PM
I think the other part of this conversation that no one is really having is that there is a huge difference between living with a change that is already made and advocating for that change in the first place. I was in no way an advocate that Magic needed to change its mulligan rules. On the other hand, as a Magic player its my job to play as well as I can within the rules. I tend not to think its not productive to think "it would be better if the game worked this way instead" unless I think something is absolutely busted. People waste a lot of time arguing about stuff that they could better overcome by getting better at it instead of wishing it would change.

And that leads to mulliganning itself. It's really hard. Like, very difficult to do well. I'm by no means a genius at it, but there is a lot more here than keeeping playable hands or not (or, to put it another way, hands that allow you to play cards). Know what you are trying to do against the deck you're about to play. You aren't going to mulligan the same way in game 1 as in game 2 or 3 when you know the cards the person is playing and after you have sideboarded. A hand that is perfectly fine against deck X is going to be close to a dead draw against deck Y. People like to key into the fact that they mulled to 5, didn't draw enough lands and lost. But how many games have you lost because you kept 7 that was bad for the current matchup? With my mindset, when you mull to 5 and don't draw the lands you're in more or less exactly the same position as keeping the bad but playable 7 and needing to draw into whatever other card and not drawing it. In fact, you had a BETTER chance of drawing into the lands than the cards you needed, most likely. Sometimes you mulligan and lose to raw card disadvantage, but that's a feature, not a bug, of the system.

BlackRoger
07-02-2015, 01:21 PM
why do you hate the mechanic exactly?

Their entire land mechanic feels pointless.
If your lands are cantrips, and you can always discard a card to get one, you're basically guaranteed a land every turn till the end of the game without losing out on actual cards.
So basically, it's an overcomplicated HS variant.
Might and Magic CCG also does it better.
Not too surprising though, that entire game is overcomplicated and under-explained.

P.S. Agree that MTG's new rule is merely trying to close a big hole with a small thread.
If you're looking for a way to get rid of mulls to 4, look for a solution that solve 95% of those cases, not 25%
Besides, if you're only getting the scry after you decide to mull no more, how do you know if your 6/5/4 size hand has a chance to work out?

Malakili
07-02-2015, 01:26 PM
You can always mulligan into a better hand in Hearthstone.

Is this really a good thing?

Tazelbain
07-02-2015, 01:43 PM
Just me a choice of 3 opening hands. Quick and painless in the digital space.

Malakili
07-02-2015, 01:47 PM
Just me a choice of 3 opening hands. Quick and painless in the digital space.

Not sure if serious.

Diesbudt
07-02-2015, 01:52 PM
You can always mulligan into a better hand in Hearthstone.



And here is where I realize you do not fully understand what you are talking about. I have played hearthstone. And I have seen many times both in person and streams people mulliganning into worse hands. Since it is just redrawing cards, it could give you much worse cards.

It is also their mulligan method that is causing a major issue with the game leaving 2-3 decks relevant only, at least when I played. Every other deck was subpar once you hit high enough rank, and even then there are more random effects in game to offset this mulligan that has caused more issues with players and giving it way more RNG than it used to.

You also can't mulligan a second time. There have been many times when I am not on the play (get to draw a card and get the token card!) where I would have gladly dropped down 1 card for another chance at different starting hand.



Hex's larger hand size wouldn't fit well for Hearthstone's system (as well as the resource system difference) but I do wish there were ways to lead new players into aggressively mulliganing instead of almost never doing it.

(I agree) This is specifically the kicker. While that mulligan system is not bad with Hearthstone, it only works in a game that doesn't use resources, specifically one that generates 1 resource a turn regardless, and because of its smaller starting hand size.

While I do not mind that mulligan method in HS, it is in no way "Great" nor would it ever work for a game like Hex without changing the entire game.

And asking players to mulligan more aggressively, I understand what you mean, but you worded that poorly. I have seen games in all TCGs where players kept risky hands and got beat because they wanted that uber 4-5 turn I can destroy you, risking the flood/screw. I have also seen players get rid of average starting hands (aggresive) looking for a better hand hoping for their ultra combo and then end up complaining when they do not get the cards they want. So saying you want to see them more aggressive could easily backfire as they are not giving up average hands and ending up with worse ones.

PureVapes
07-02-2015, 05:06 PM
The mulligan system in Hex and TCG should not be compared to Spellweaver or Hearthstone because the game mechanics are too different. Estimating Scry 1 is worth about 1/3rd of a card on average (more for some decks, less for others), you now lose 0.7 cards instead of 1 on your first mulligan, 1.7 instead of 2 on your second, etc. For those unfamiliar, Scry 1 lets you look at the top card of your deck and put it on the bottom or keep it on top.

If HEX wants to reduce the penalty for mulligan without heavily impacting current balance, there aren't a lot of ways to do it, but they need to do it soon if they don't want to be pigeon-holed into only having the option that MtG has, which is still not entirely balanced for all decks.

One example of a mulligan system that wouldn't work as a change in an old game but could work in this still young game is partial mulligan, where you can put a certain number of cards from your hand back into the deck and replace those minus 1. This way you can keep the 1 resource card you had and maybe your bomb and toss back the other 5 during the first mulligan. However, this greatly helps combo decks and may have to be limited to a specific number (i.e. you can only keep 1 or 0 cards for your first mulligan). So you still end up with a 6 card hand, but you cherry picked 1 of those cards, which is better than Scry 1 - and you can keep that card again each mulligan.

I think there is definitely room to improve the system MtG has in place, but the game has to be balanced around it as well, and there are already 4 or 5, or maybe more sets fully designed I'm sure. Knowing when to mulligan is a skill and variance is part of what makes card games fun, so a change is not necessarily needed when resources in Hex already give charges to impact late game. Also of note is that MtG didn't have a mulligan system to start with, and didn't have the recent system for some time - http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr112b

Biz
07-02-2015, 05:30 PM
the mtg rules were probably invented because they were simple (which is important in a physical game), not because they actually accomplished any great balancing feat

starting hand selection doesn't have to just be about card disadvantage and taking away choices from the player. that just leads to a boring game of people simply playing topdecks since they're both out of cards by turn 5

selpai
07-02-2015, 06:50 PM
One example of a mulligan system that wouldn't work as a change in an old game but could work in this still young game is partial mulligan, where you can put a certain number of cards from your hand back into the deck and replace those minus 1. This way you can keep the 1 resource card you had and maybe your bomb and toss back the other 5 during the first mulligan. However, this greatly helps combo decks and may have to be limited to a specific number (i.e. you can only keep 1 or 0 cards for your first mulligan). So you still end up with a 6 card hand, but you cherry picked 1 of those cards, which is better than Scry 1 - and you can keep that card again each mulligan.


Unfortunately, cards like Princess Victoria and Angel of Dawn have made this idea impossible for Hex.

I don't think it's a good idea anyways. I would rather see every player champion come with a secondary power; one that lets you revert and transform a non-resource card into a 0/1 shard of it's type, with no charges granted from the shard. This wouldn't help shard flooding of course, but it would address shard screw, which is more important since it would keep games engaging, at least early on. If your players are literally unable to act for prolonged periods of time, then something is probably wrong with your system. The engagement of the player is everything.

There are all kinds of things that could be done with this kind of system. The type, and power of the shard made could depend on the cost of the card transformed, forcing a tradeoff between late game and early. 0/1 floor, 1/1 mid cost 1/1 and a charge high cost. Could transform all copies of the card, in hand and deck, into shards. could be an ability only used once. Could cost 1 or 2 charges, so it can't be used on the first turn. The fact is that they have to do something. The system right now is just not adequate for a competitive game.

IronPheasant
07-02-2015, 07:16 PM
A lot of people would not consider rock paper scissors "competitive". I have to agree with Sirlin on that much.

TOOT
07-02-2015, 07:16 PM
Just me a choice of 3 opening hands. Quick and painless in the digital space.

I actually think some variant of that wouldn't be too bad, and can be a digital only feature/gimmick.

You are shown 2, seven card hands and can choose to pick one of those two or mull. If you choose to mull, you mull straight to 5 and can choose to mull to 4 etc. like how it is now.

The 2 seven card hands you are shown can have overlapping cards even if you only had 1 of that card in your deck. It would be the same as showing the first 2 results of the sample opening hand thing in the deck building.

wolzarg
07-02-2015, 08:39 PM
I actually think some variant of that wouldn't be too bad, and can be a digital only feature/gimmick.

You are shown 2, seven card hands and can choose to pick one of those two or mull. If you choose to mull, you mull straight to 5 and can choose to mull to 4 etc. like how it is now.

The 2 seven card hands you are shown can have overlapping cards even if you only had 1 of that card in your deck. It would be the same as showing the first 2 results of the sample opening hand thing in the deck building.
So basically one free mulligan but with other words and even more information? I mean the one free mulligan idea isn't good this would just be a much worse version of that.

TOOT
07-02-2015, 08:44 PM
I don't think the game needs any change as is. I was just going off the unique idea Tazelbain posted trying to come up with something that utilizes the digital space.

PureVapes
07-02-2015, 09:30 PM
Unfortunately, cards like Princess Victoria and Angel of Dawn have made this idea impossible for Hex.

The fact is that they have to do something. The system right now is just not adequate for a competitive game.

Though the partial mulligan was just an example, and I have no particular desire for it, how does Vic or AoD have any bearing on it? Also, I and many others disagree with your 'fact' - not that I'd be against mitigating the effects of fringe cases of variance.

wolzarg
07-02-2015, 10:50 PM
What part exactly is it that doesn't make it adequate for a competitive game?

Biz
07-02-2015, 11:06 PM
What part exactly is it that doesn't make it adequate for a competitive game?

the best of 3 format isn't a great measure of performance in a game with this much variance

that's a common problem with card games (not just Hex), but if people keep trying to treat the game competitively (see the popularity of single-elimination vs swiss) then it's hard to say that everything is fine

wolzarg
07-02-2015, 11:12 PM
Sure best out of 300 would be better but that's not really feasible. What part exactly is it that makes it less suited to competitive play as compared to other games with any form of variance in them tho? Very few games are entirely skill based these days competitive or not.

Also the reason single elimination is more popular is because it pays out more prizes in general if you do well and also has a faster drop off if you aren't doing so well giving people with little time a good way to earn two packs and drop.

siegfried
07-02-2015, 11:36 PM
why do you hate the mechanic exactly? i'm playing spellweaver right now, and it feels good mechanically. balance wise it could use some help, but i've never played a game where i felt i couldnt do anything because resources were scared of me. that feels pretty good. that alone i think makes spellweaver a better game. what spellweaver doesnt have is the money to put in the effort that this or magic can.

Agree
I find it amazing and having so much fun
whilst waiting for set 3 in one week i reached lvl 16 ;p

Biz
07-03-2015, 01:30 AM
What part exactly is it that makes it less suited to competitive play as compared to other games with any form of variance in them tho?

different games have different amounts of variance

a game where the better side has a 80% chance of winning has a 90% chance that a bo3 will correctly pick the better side
a game where the better side has a 60% chance of winning has a 65% chance that a bo3 will correctly pick the better side

to make the second game as "competitive" as the first one, you need to play it in a bo39 even though they're both very far from "entirely skill based"
if correctly picking the better side isn't of interest, then you might as well call it something else instead of "competitive"

i have no idea what the actual numbers are for hex or magic or other card games, but the whole resource mechanic and design on some of the cards (angel of dawn/vampire king/reese) are reasons why it's competitiveness is lower than it could be

just because something is low on competitiveness doesn't make it bad. there are more important things in games than how competitive it is (like fun and excitement and suspense).

Sparrow
07-03-2015, 02:47 AM
There are too many resource/mulligan threads so I apologize in advance for not reading all of this one and for potentially making a point that was already made.

I completely support an alternative mulligan system for Gauntlet. Since it's going to be one game only vs each opponent, I think it's going to potentially be a frustratingly luck-based format (even more so that sealed, obv) and is the perfect place to play with the mulligan system to find a better fit.

Diesbudt
07-03-2015, 05:07 AM
different games have different amounts of variance

a game where the better side has a 80% chance of winning has a 90% chance that a bo3 will correctly pick the better side
a game where the better side has a 60% chance of winning has a 65% chance that a bo3 will correctly pick the better side

to make the second game as "competitive" as the first one, you need to play it in a bo39 even though they're both very far from "entirely skill based"
if correctly picking the better side isn't of interest, then you might as well call it something else instead of "competitive"

i have no idea what the actual numbers are for hex or magic or other card games, but the whole resource mechanic and design on some of the cards (angel of dawn/vampire king/reese) are reasons why it's competitiveness is lower than it could be

just because something is low on competitiveness doesn't make it bad. there are more important things in games than how competitive it is (like fun and excitement and suspense).

Thing is, many MTG and Hex players I watch and know either win a lot of than they lose, or lose s lot more than they win. And they are subject to the same rules as the players they more consistently beat or lose to. And the reason isn't luck, even though luck has a factor. The game is competitive, and rightly so. The thing I think a lot of people not fully in tune with resource based TCGs is that the playing a deck skill is only 30-40% of the games skill. 60% is deck building, side boarding, and intelligent mulligan skills. I have seen a good portion of games where a person loses game 1 (not due to luck) and side board in all 15 cards and win games 2 and 3 because he had the right cards prepared for such an opponent.

I have seen players recognize bad 7 & 6 card hands and drop to 5 and stop their opponent because they knew how to play their deck and mulligan it better than there opponent.

I have also seen, using hex as an example, the robot aggro deck both win and lose to many different decks because of the variation on the build. Small deck differences can make a major difference in its performance in a competitive nature.

So, sure some games can be decided by luck, but that is true in every TCG where you do not pick the card from the deck you want each draw, but there is more skill even in resource TCG that a lot fail to realize because that skill as I said is a bigger portion in the non playing part of the battle, as it is a players goal to build a well fluid deck that mitigates luck, and can counter it's weak points better than other variations of it.

While the mulligan system can be slightly altered, right now all the options expressed hurt the game more than would help it (as hex has tried a lot of different systems and said the current system they found worked best for the game they want) and I believe the game is pretty competitive because there is a good chunk of skill. Plus hearthstone used to be more skill based but now that half its cards have random effects, and huge ones at that (looking at you brawl cards) it is more random yet considered very competitive. So variance is not a reason something isn't competitive.

Thrawn
07-03-2015, 06:54 AM
I think the important piece some people seem to forget is that from what we know, the Hex team does not think this is a problem or something that needs to be tweaked. If they thought the system was broken they would have changed it.

Tinfoil
07-03-2015, 07:29 AM
I am not 100% decided on this, but I will say that the competetive play argument have some merit.

Sure, I you pair an good player vs. an average player the good player will statistically win more. But any serious competition will have good players facing each other and if those games are decided by RNG rather than skill then the competition is an illusion.

I think there is a lot more to this game than competetive play, but it is an argument that cannot be outright dismissed. It is a longer discussion however that is seperate from the mulligan discussion imo.

TOOT
07-03-2015, 08:26 AM
There are too many resource/mulligan threads so I apologize in advance for not reading all of this one and for potentially making a point that was already made.

I completely support an alternative mulligan system for Gauntlet. Since it's going to be one game only vs each opponent, I think it's going to potentially be a frustratingly luck-based format (even more so that sealed, obv) and is the perfect place to play with the mulligan system to find a better fit.

I think it is more of a function of if anything, having a different mulligan system for limited as opposed to constructed.

That would make the most sense to me. I agree that gauntlet could use a boost in trying to eliminate some variance. I think a lot of these mulligan ideas are better for limited in general, where a lot of the complaints and problems of any possible changes that help combos out too much and stuff that is related to constructed, not limited.

Sparrow
07-03-2015, 08:59 AM
Yeah, I was wondering if whether a mulligan change would be too much for constructed gauntlet. With only 1 game and how unbeatable a control deck can be that's drawing what it needs to, it could really swing things too far for those types of decks. Sealed gauntlet, though, seems perfect for it.

Vorpal
07-03-2015, 10:49 AM
And here is where I realize you do not fully understand what you are talking about. I have played hearthstone. And I have seen many times both in person and streams people mulliganning into worse hands. Since it is just redrawing cards, it could give you much worse cards.

Sorry, that should have been 'equal or better' hands.

Functionally, there's no difference between having a crap hand and mulliganing into an even crappier hand. You were going to lose anyway.

But you aren't going to mulligan from an 'ok' or 'average' hand into a completely terrible hand, because you will keep the good cards you need.

Currently you can definitely mulligan from a 'slightly below average' hand in hex into an even worse hand in hex.


It is also their mulligan method that is causing a major issue with the game leaving 2-3 decks relevant only, at least when I played

Some of the most competitive and devastating decks don't mulligan at all, because they are just aggro decks and every card is a good card.

The mulligan lets control/mid range decks search through their decks to try to find the 'answers' to the aggro decks. The mulligan system keeps linear fast paced aggro decks in check (which are a big problem in hearthstone, because unlike hex or mtg, there is NO blocking)

Combo decks don't mulligan for their combo pieces, they mulligan for stuff to stay alive until they draw their combo. This might be different with a hand size that was twice as large, however.



And asking players to mulligan more aggressively, I understand what you mean, but you worded that poorly. I have seen games in all TCGs where players kept risky hands and got beat because they wanted that uber 4-5 turn I can destroy you, risking the flood/screw. I have also seen players get rid of average starting hands (aggresive) looking for a better hand hoping for their ultra combo and then end up complaining when they do not get the cards they want. So saying you want to see them more aggressive could easily backfire as they are not giving up average hands and ending up with worse ones.

Yeah...maybe not 'aggressively' but to help them see it as a tool in their toolbox that they need to use, instead of a punishment they should at all costs avoid losing.

I think a new player who starts off mulliganing too much is more likely to correct his play than one who starts off never mulliganing.

Malakili
07-03-2015, 05:51 PM
I am not 100% decided on this, but I will say that the competetive play argument have some merit.

Sure, I you pair an good player vs. an average player the good player will statistically win more. But any serious competition will have good players facing each other and if those games are decided by RNG rather than skill then the competition is an illusion.

I think there is a lot more to this game than competetive play, but it is an argument that cannot be outright dismissed. It is a longer discussion however that is seperate from the mulligan discussion imo.

The thing is that we have a great example of a similar game that has a highly competitive scene with people with long term success. I think you underestimate just how much play there is even with the RNG elements.

Tinfoil
07-03-2015, 08:18 PM
The thing is that we have a great example of a similar game that has a highly competitive scene with people with long term success. I think you underestimate just how much play there is even with the RNG elements.

What do you mean by highly competetive scene? That it is popular? Well, so is Blackjack and slotmachines and I don't know any Poker tournaments with a best-of-three format...and from my understanding, the RNG in that other game is also diminished quite a bit due to the human factor (intended or not) - but I don't know enough to into a detailed discussion about this.

There are several aspects to this, first of all the question "why do we want a competetive scene?" Is the competition with prizes a lure to make play a fun game? Is it a test of skill? Should it be a good spectator sport? Is the competetive scene something that should be developed by players or HexEnt?

I don't think being critical is a bad thing.

Malakili
07-03-2015, 09:09 PM
What do you mean by highly competetive scene?

I mean that it has rankings, it has regular tournaments with thousands of players where we often see the same names in the top 8. You have an established set of players that are regarded as very good, and even such things as specialists in particular formats. It is a game that has a very high skill ceiling.