PDA

View Full Version : Mulligans decide too many games (imo) Let's discuss ways to negate the disadvantage.



Pages : [1] 2

havocattack
01-17-2016, 04:10 PM
I personally feel that mulligans have too much of an impact in the game, in a competitive environment a player that mulligans to 5 or lower is very likely to lose most of the time due to the immediate card disadvantage.

I don't like games being decided before the fight even gets going and I believe there is some easy ways to lessen that impact without creating other issues or being too good.


IDEA 1

If a player mulligans to 6, that player gains a charge.

If a player mulligans to 5 or lower, create a Rally Support and put it into play.

Rally Support
Colorless token that reads

At the end of your turn 3, if you have 2 resources or less, void this and gain 1/1 (no thresholds)


IDEA 2

Players are given 7 starting cards, however 3 of them are face down.

Each player has 2 choices to start with... Reveal or Draw 7

If Reveal is chosen, the player is now able to see all 7 cards and then gets the normal mulligan or keep option as we currently have it.

However, if they choose Draw 7, they will get a new 7 card hand with one face down, they then have the normal mulligan or keep option as we currently have it.

EDIT3: Another idea...

Each player is presented with 7 cards as seen in the image below (disregard they are all comet strikes :P)

http://i.imgur.com/ofddKUP.jpg

The player then has 3 options:

Option 1: Take the 4 cards within the red box and draw the next 3 cards to complete their hand.
Option 2: Take the 4 cards within the blue box and draw the next 3 cards to complete their hand.
Option 3: Take all 7

After picking one of these options, the players then get to choose to mulligan or keep as we have it now.

Alternatively, you can change this up several ways which all have different impact... for example you could do 2 at the top and bottom with 3 cards in the middle. This would force the players to take those 3, which changes the overall impact.


Again, these are just ideas... a starting point to expand upon...

YourOpponent
01-17-2016, 04:21 PM
There are aggro decks that could benefit greatly from this and take advantage of those mulligans though with those rules! For example unmerciful tormentor gets +3/+3 when you don't have cards in your hand. Making it so that people have been known to mulligan to 4 just to be swinging with a 5/4 (with Urgnock) turn 2.

havocattack
01-17-2016, 04:23 PM
There are aggro decks that could benefit greatly from this and take advantage of those mulligans though with those rules! For example unmerciful tormentor gets +3/+3 when you don't have cards in your hand. Making it so that people have been known to mulligan to 4 just to be swinging with a 5/4 (with Urgnock) turn 2.

You really wanna mulligan just to do that? >_> c'mon now... plus the effect doesn't happen till several turns later, so basically what you're saying is something people can already do... but no one is that crazy ;)

poizonous
01-17-2016, 04:32 PM
Havoc i expect better from you

havocattack
01-17-2016, 04:34 PM
Havoc i expect better from you

Instead of posting nothing, how about contributing... at least say what you don't like...

poizonous
01-17-2016, 04:52 PM
Well i didn't really want to go into the millions of reasons that the current Mulligan system is superior to any proposed ideas i have heard since alpha and i like you havoc so i really didn't want to argue with you lol so i tried to be silly with a short line

havocattack
01-17-2016, 04:58 PM
Well i didn't really want to go into the millions of reasons that the current Mulligan system is superior to any proposed ideas i have heard since alpha and i like you havoc so i really didn't want to argue with you lol so i tried to be silly with a short line

Something that has room for improvement is not superior to new ideas -_-

Metronomy
01-17-2016, 05:00 PM
this idea has my fullest support...i love the idea and i dont think people would purposefuly mulligan (its just not good enough for that and neither should it)...seems like you guys actually thought about it...i hope HXE picks up on it or at least responds in this thread (and be it only an acknowledgment that they have read it)

pyrovoice
01-17-2016, 05:03 PM
maybe when a player mulligan, he can see the top card of its library and decide to put it randomly in its deck ?

Yoss
01-17-2016, 05:09 PM
maybe when a player mulligan, he can see the top card of its library and decide to put it randomly in its deck ?

Or the reverse: give a free Starsphere effect (just the deck part, not the 1/1).

havocattack
01-17-2016, 05:09 PM
maybe when a player mulligan, he can see the top card of its library and decide to put it randomly in its deck ?

Pretty sure that's what another TCG does now :P Hex has many systems that it can utilize to lessen the impact of mulligans, no need to do anything even remotely similar to others.

Evilgm
01-17-2016, 05:12 PM
I concur with the premise of the OP, the reality is that after 20 years WotC finally acknowledge that it was an issue in Magic as well. I'm not sure the solution needs to be so complicated- Pyrovice's suggestion (presumably intentionally similar to MtG's change) seems like a good way of doing it that fits with Hex's preference for that kind of effect over Scry.

Chocmaw
01-17-2016, 05:18 PM
I agree that it needs to be changed. The problem with the current system is going to really come into focus with the 1st invitational broadcast. Watching one player mulligan to an unwinnable disadvantage, does not a good e-sport spectacle make.

ev1lb0b
01-17-2016, 05:20 PM
Well i didn't really want to go into the millions of reasons that the current Mulligan system is superior to any proposed ideas i have heard since alpha and i like you havoc so i really didn't want to argue with you lol so i tried to be silly with a short line

So you are happy with rng deciding games before they have even begun?

Tazelbain
01-17-2016, 05:21 PM
Starting on turn 4, you draw 2 cards a turn until you have the same number of cards drawn as if had not mulligan.

Mull 6 is two cards on turn 4.
Mull 5 is two card on turn 4 and 5.
Mull 4 is two cards on turn 4, 5 and 6.
etc

ylhos
01-17-2016, 05:23 PM
I agree with your sentiments on mulligan. Perhaps just use the same system as the one in Hearthstone. Pick cards you want to redraw. Only available one time.

Simple, quick and imo effective.

Xavon
01-17-2016, 05:24 PM
There isn't a problem with a mulligan system, there is a problem with resource system that makes the mulligan system and its frequent use necessary. There have been many suggestions about how to fix it, but Hex Ent and the majority (or at least the vocal majority) of players seem happy with how it is.

My suggestion (short of revamping the entire resource system) has always been if you hand has 0, 1, 6, or 7 resources, you can mulligan once without losing a starting card.

zz_tophat
01-17-2016, 05:32 PM
What about champion specific mulligan effects?

Whenever someone suggests a change to the mulligan rules someone else always points out that their mulligan suggestion favors a specific type of deck, this is true...

So why not make champions have mulligan specific rules? Like say Herczeg's second mulligan does not further reduce the number of cards he draws but instead causes him to lose 2 health. When Winter Moon Mulligans, those cards are shuffled in to the deck and gain "When you play this, draw a card" or, "when you mulligan a hand, it is put in to the crypt" (this second on is far more useful than it sounds, because if you managed to draw 7 cards and no resources, putting them in the crypt will greatly increase your chances of drawing resources).

This way decks gain an advantage due to mulligan rules but it's not just limited to one type of deck.

poizonous
01-17-2016, 05:34 PM
Changing the mulligan system potentially unbalances cards which were designed with the current mulligan system in mind. A mulligan is a Strategic choice, sometimes it is necessary yes but there shouldnt be a reward given to people who mulligan . A mulligan should put you at a disadvantage. Giving someone a benefit to doing it actually gives the mulliganning player an advantage if he is going to get something in return for doing so. Combo decks would benefit the most and that is something the meta does not want.

Deathlock
01-17-2016, 05:47 PM
I like "that game" idea with "Scry 1" if you made mulligans. I think HEXent should do something to make terribly bad random stuff happen not so often. Like mulliganing to 3, drawing 8 shards in a row etc.

Just imagine World Championships final:
Player 1: mulligan, mulligan, mulligan, mulligan...gg wp. It's not fun.

Also I would like to see something to minimize disadvantage of playing as a second player. It's made quite well in Spellweaver and Hearthstone(coin).

And I don't agree with a statement "All cards are designed for current mulligan system". Well, of course, features I talk about may change ballance a bit, but would it kill the game? Absolutely not! It would only make it better, a little bit more challenging and a little bit less random.

Just recall recent changes in the game! Champions HP's and number of cards in packs.. did it break the game? No! So why to put ourselves in a frame?

Metronomy
01-17-2016, 05:50 PM
Changing the mulligan system potentially unbalances cards which were designed with the current mulligan system in mind. A mulligan is a Strategic choice, sometimes it is necessary yes but there shouldnt be a reward given to people who mulligan . A mulligan should put you at a disadvantage. Giving someone a benefit to doing it actually gives the mulliganning player an advantage if he is going to get something in return for doing so. Combo decks would benefit the most and that is something the meta does not want.


I dont think people would purposefuly mulligan with the proposed idea. I realy dont. Mulligans are still a disadvantage with the proposed system. To the point that cards are balanced around people having to potentialy mulligan. I dont get that point.

MugenMusou
01-17-2016, 05:50 PM
Nowadays, many games try several different tricks to minimize the effect, but I think where you are essentially leading to is infamous "resource screw" issue. Many will say it won't ever change but we know Magic changed its rule after so many years. HEX still technically in beta, I think it's all possible. So here are some of tricks I've seen.

1. Free resource card/artifact for player going second.

That player get a free resource card or constant like card that he can use once to give him a temporary resource boost.

I think this is easy to implement even now. Obviously, main advantage here is second player won't be so penalized in going second and get behind the resource curve.

2. Specific card effect that helps actually going second.

HEX already has this, but only one card?

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

Basically if you have less troop than opponent etc., which is likely to happen by going second, your troop get some additional advantage.

3. Anytime reshuffle

First I came across this system on Carte CCG, and now Spellweaver but I think both games had the best resource system I've ever seen. This is part of the advantage in their game. Basically, you can sort of reshuffle your card anytime. In Spellweaver, you can return one of your card and look top 3 cards and if it contains resource card, you can take it i.e. you have just exchanged it. The penalty you pay here is if the top 3 does not contain resource, you lose the card reshuffled.

Obviously, these does not sound directly fixing Mulligan issue but these are fixing the reason why one needs to consider Mulligan.

poizonous
01-17-2016, 06:00 PM
I dont think people would purposefuly mulligan with the proposed idea. I realy dont. Mulligans are still a disadvantage with the proposed system. To the point that cards are balanced around people having to potentialy mulligan. I dont get that point.

Mulligan with the chance of getting 2 free chump blockers makes average hands very mulligan friendly. Any change to the mulligan system will just lead to more mulligans due to them being more friendly and less dangerous

Deckofmanythings
01-17-2016, 06:25 PM
Show me 2 seven-card hands. Let me pick between them. No mulligans. Boom. Solved.

TOOT
01-17-2016, 06:35 PM
Show me 2 seven-card hands. Let me pick between them. No mulligans. Boom. Solved.

I really like something with this kind of variant, especially something that takes advantage of the digital space.

Maybe even adding you can mull both hands shown above and get 1 hand of 5 and go from there.

havocattack
01-17-2016, 06:53 PM
People getting fixated on the example I gave, please realise it's just an example, to get ideas going... a starting point... if two 1/1's is too good (very unlikely) it could always be a 2/2 or just one 1/1 and so on... or something else entirely.

magic_gazz
01-17-2016, 07:07 PM
Does anyone know if any research has been done now that mtg has changed to the scry mulligan rule?

Does it make much difference or is it mostly to make people feel they are having some control? If I mull to 5 and then scry and put the card on the bottom (putting it on top gives the same outcome as if you didn't scry) how much more am I winning than before? Obviously its more than 0% of games, but is it actually a worthwhile change?

AswanJaguar
01-17-2016, 07:48 PM
Show me 2 seven-card hands. Let me pick between them. No mulligans. Boom. Solved.

My initial reaction to this was that, as with many mulligan alternatives, it gives aggro and combo decks too much of an advantage. However, upon further examination I think this is my favourite suggestion so far.

Pros:
- Assuming both hands are taken from the top 14 cards of the deck, if your first hand is resource heavy or light, the second hand will be that much more likely to have what you need. There's still a chance that you'll get a clump of resources in one hand and a clump of spells in the second, but if we assume a 70% chance of a playable hand, we now go to a 91% chance with this method.
- No player will start at a card number disadvantage. They may have a card quality or playability disadvantage but assuming they can draw into what they need, they'll be much better off than if they had fewer cards.
- It's a much simpler and faster system. One decision and off you go.
- It doesn't seem to favour one deck type over another. Each player gets to choose the best representation of what their deck can do and more players will be able to an their deck as it was intended to play, which is exactly what we want!

Cons
- It's still possible to have to take a hand that won't allow you to play.
- Still more confusing to new players than just getting a hand and starting the game.

I'd like to try this system to see how it works. I think it has potential.

A similar option also comes to mind:

Look at the top 14 cards of your deck and choose any 7 consecutive cards as your starting hand and put the rest back into your deck. Thus would prevent players from cherry picking the best cards but would (I think) give an even higher playable hand percentage than even the above suggestion. I'm sure someone more math-inclined could run the numbers to see if that hypothesis was valid.

nicosharp
01-17-2016, 08:03 PM
Show me 2 seven-card hands. Let me pick between them. No mulligans. Boom. Solved.

I've never seen an idea I liked about this reoccurring suggestion/topic until now. Nice one.

Malcolm
01-17-2016, 08:04 PM
Both Havoc and Deck, T1 players each, have some good ideas and it is interesting this has come up after the final IQ.

My thoughts: not until AFTER the $100k tourney.

Many people, multiple times, suggested changes to mulligans, resource screw, etc and Every time they were mocked, ridiculed, and shot down.
SO there must not be a problem, and there will therefore be no "unfun" moments when the finales are streamed/viewed.
Losses due to resource issues are part of the intended HEX experience.
To make any changes to it before the finales would invalidate all tournaments and IQs that have gotten us to this point.

Laggi
01-17-2016, 08:33 PM
I suggest we start with 0 cards in hand, and draw 1 each turn. The beginning player gets no draw.


In all seriousness though, the 2 seven-card hands sounded reasonable. But I would like there to be something like, if you're not satisfied with either of those, you could mulligan once into a random 5-card hand that you have to keep, or maybe choose 1 card from each of those 7-card hands, and draw 4 random cards. That way you could almost always ensure you have 2 resources.

Edit: Now that I think of it, my suggestion would probably be far too much. Even the 2x 7-cards sounds a lot. But maybe show one 6-card hand, and one 7-card hand, with the possibility to choose 1 from both to keep and draw 4?

Zubrin
01-17-2016, 08:35 PM
Both .... and Deck, T1 players each...

On a tier 1 team and certainty a tier 1 ghostbuster. Player, however, is an interesting proposition.

plaguedealer
01-17-2016, 08:40 PM
The 2 seven card option sounds good, but it really helps aggro, hand destruction and combo decks. Before there is any suggestion on how to change a fundamental aspect of the game, one should do multiple trial runs to see if it even makes sense or makes a difference.

Part of the game is the mulligan system. This is a game of risk, changing that has consequences.

magic_gazz
01-17-2016, 08:47 PM
Look at the top 14 cards of your deck and choose any 7 consecutive cards as your starting hand and put the rest back into your deck. Thus would prevent players from cherry picking the best cards but would (I think) give an even higher playable hand percentage than even the above suggestion. I'm sure someone more math-inclined could run the numbers to see if that hypothesis was valid.

This sounds good.

Would be interested to see someone play around with this idea and see if its viable.

havocattack
01-17-2016, 08:50 PM
This sounds good.

Would be interested to see someone play around with this idea and see if its viable.

I agree, would be fun to try out something like that ;) PTR kgo? >_>

Zubrin
01-17-2016, 08:51 PM
I normally avoid these threads entirely, but wanted to boost the morale of my comrade by casting dispersion on his skill.

Substantively, I find most proposed suggestions to be ill-informed in regards to the effect institutional changes have on player behavior and any such change needs rigorous testing before making it universal. The initial suggestion here by the OP seems to try to balance between minimizing impact, but also having enough impact to change the course of the game with free troops, something that does not seem likely to hold. Additionally, it favors particular kinds of decks over others (as mentioned here already).

Giving one side material on the board as a result of a hand or resource deficit fundamentally alters the game of hex and I would be extremely cautious of any proposals to do so.

Those that try to affect draw or mitigate draw randomness may be interesting, but I would want careful, large-n testing before wholesale adoption as any change will alter deckbuilding/deckchoice, the degree of how much (and how much we care) can be born out by testing better than theorycrafting as the unintended consequences are often difficult to perceive ex ante.

dandroid
01-17-2016, 08:58 PM
Imo,

The disadvantages lies solely due to less cards-less options, hence to fix the mulligan system I would suggest allowing that players be allowed 2 mulligans each without drawing 1 less each time.

Penalize the 3rd, 4th etc.

No additions to the game or mechanics, just the cards in the deck. The way it was meant to be played.

:blood: :diamond:

havocattack
01-17-2016, 09:08 PM
Made an edit to OP

plaguedealer
01-17-2016, 09:15 PM
What havoc should do is make paper versions of the current meta (around 4 different decks, maybe more). Test these options with someone and come back with the details.

Xenavire
01-17-2016, 09:55 PM
I think the 2 hands idea is moderately decent, but it wouldn't be balanced in limited (got a bomb? Double your chances of starting with it!) so either limited would have to be retuned or exempt from the change, and neither option sounds appealing.

Now, something that has occured to me thanks to this thread, is giving the opponent a perk, rather than losing by default. I am not sure where to draw the lines for power here, but how about you get a set number of 7 card mulligans, but every mulligan gives the opponent something (for example, 2 charges per mulligan, or possibly a card draw.)

I can't give a balanced version of this suggestion with zero testing, but giving the opponent an advantage would certainly be a punishment for mulliganing, without making it an immediate loss situation.

FrostWynn
01-17-2016, 09:58 PM
Constructed involves champion choices, card choices, card quantities, and balancing these ratios. However, sometimes RNG strikes and it can be frustrating for players to have to mulligan, be not able to play their cards, and subsequently lose because of shard or threshold issues. Currently, Urgnock / Benvolio decks run 20 resources, Bryson deck runs 22, Bunoshi / Kranok / Zorzym / Winter Moon / Wyatt / Rutherford decks run the usual 24, while Cressida decks may run up to 25 (Hexmeta, 2016-01-01 - 2016-01-16).

I prefer to use existing cards before creating new cards or mulligan mechanics. The solution must provide a permanent resource (primary), fix threshold (secondary), and be usable by any & every deck. Here are my suggestions;

[1] At the start of the game, if you chose DRAW AGAIN two or more times, create an Immortal Tears and put it into your hand.
Pros: Standard resource tutored will provide both resource and threshold. Artifact is shardless, can be played by any shard.
Cons: Needs (1) to play, and another to activate. Can be targeted by actions and abilities, eg. Construct Foreman, Time Ripple etc. Thins the deck by a shard, creating pseudo-card advantage.

[2] At the start of the game, if you chose DRAW AGAIN two or more times, create a Shards of Fate and put it into your hand.
Pros: Fixes threshold immediately. No casting cost or cost to activate.
Cons: Gain a resource only one turn later. Does not give a charge.

I have tried Spellweaver for a few months and it has a "Divine Offering" mechanic - put a card from your hand to the bottom of your deck, look at the top 4 cards of your deck and put a Shrine (Shard equivalent), if any, into your hand. The other revealed cards are sent to the bottom of your deck too. Though helpful, I wouldn't recommend this for Hex TCG due to difference in game mechanics and sending cards back to specific positions of your deck has a few advantages, in Spellweaver eg. Brothers in Arms.

plaguedealer
01-17-2016, 10:05 PM
Spellweaver has a great mechanic, but like you said it wont work for hex (because of their shrine mechanic compared to shards). Spellweaver, is also pretty much dead unless a miracle happens in the next two months.

One reason spellweaver died was that they kept balancing the cards. The game currently is extremely homogenous which is actually bad for card games. Hence use caution when making major changes.

juzamjedi
01-17-2016, 10:06 PM
The 2 seven card option sounds good, but it really helps aggro, hand destruction and combo decks. Before there is any suggestion on how to change a fundamental aspect of the game, one should do multiple trial runs to see if it even makes sense or makes a difference.

Part of the game is the mulligan system. This is a game of risk, changing that has consequences.

I mostly agree with this sentiment. Imagine the Titania Majesty metagame with 2 opening hands and I get to choose 1 of them. I think Titania becomes even more dominant since it's close to being a 1 card combo deck anyway.

I agree with the OP that multiple mulligans make it hard to play a meaningful game against the opponent. While wins on a mull to 5 are possible many games are decided by 5 cards vs. 7. The benefit we gain should be something less than a full card so mulligans are worse than keeping 7. The OP suggestion is close here although I think the resource boost after missing is enough and we don't need troops as well.

Another alternative suggestion: if you mulligan to 5 or less create a 0/1 resource card in hand with no threshold. Similar to the OP while also having a bit of play with untargeted discard effects like Corpse Fly. It also does not help aggro / combo very much because the resource is slow.

FrostWynn
01-17-2016, 10:08 PM
I did play some trials (drafts) there and enjoy the card crafting, but not being able to keep the cards you selected in trials and the lack of AH / trading feature isn't to my liking. Was playing it during my holidays, now back to school = (

PS: The 2 hand options thing sounds cool.

plaguedealer
01-17-2016, 10:13 PM
I did play some trials (drafts) there and enjoy the card crafting, but not being able to keep the cards you selected in trials and the lack of AH / trading feature isn't to my liking. Was playing it during my holidays, now back to school = (

I backed in the high end so I have a incentive to sing its praises, however like my post above states one problem is the extreme attention to make sure EVERYTHING is balanced. The lack of marketing also hurt the game.

Biz
01-17-2016, 10:19 PM
the main problem is the resources.

mulligan is part of that story, but the "solutions" don't really solve the problem with the game. both not drawing any resources and being stuck at 2 and only drawing resources and having half as many playables as your opponent will still be major parts of the game with any changes to the mulligan system

better deckbuilding can avoid situations where you draw things in the "wrong" order. i can learn to not stack my deck with high cost cards. i can learn the risks of using 4 copies of unique cards. i can run fewer copies of more cards to have less consistency but more diversity. i can stick to single threshold requirements instead of double threshold requirements for more consistency. in short, lots of player agency when it comes to card choice.

but no amount of deckbuilding allows the player to dodge flood/screw. the same deck can draw 12/15 shards and 2/15 shards. you can't do much except use weak cards that don't see much play like wrathwood larch. i don't learn anything about how to improve when i draw too many shards or too few shards or the wrong color shards. it's why arcane focus is good, but at the same time the game is more boring if every deck with blue uses 4x arcane focus

it would be nice to take advantage of being a computer game and just force the shuffler to not generate outliers (so that we don't get 0-shard opening hands in a deck with 40% shards, for example).
there's a reason why every good computer strategy game with variance uses uses controlled procedural generation of resources instead of purely random generation. imo, it's more interesting to learn from the games that take advantages of computers rather than copying the mistakes of games that were restricted by physical limitations

katkillad
01-17-2016, 10:46 PM
it would be nice to take advantage of being a computer game and just force the shuffler to not generate outliers (so that we don't get 0-shard opening hands in a deck with 40% shards, for example).


I like this, no zero shard or all shard starting hands. I'm not sure it solves what Havoc is trying to fix, but it would still be nice. I think a lot of suggestions so far are way to aggressive and would change the game substantially and/or benefit certain types of decks.

Stormlight
01-17-2016, 11:01 PM
One relatively minor change I'd like to see in the mulligan rules would be that if the first player mulligans once, instead of immediately deciding whether to mulligan again, the other player then gets the choice of whether or not to mulligan. If they mulligan as well, instead of them only drawing six cards, they draw seven cards and the first player gets to draw a seventh card as well. Then the process repeats.

Pros: At least one player will always start with seven cards (gives more options to each player while still giving a penalty for mulliganing).

Cons: Harder to explain to new players (more complicated) while only helping in relatively rare situations. Anything else?

TOOT
01-17-2016, 11:09 PM
Hypothetically if the 2 starting hands of 7 cards were shown and you pick one were to be implemented, I strongly prefer it to not be 14 unique cards.

It should be a random 7 shown for each choice where cards can appear in both "pools" for reasons xenavire stated in regards to limited as well as to limit more reach for combo based decks.

knightofeffect
01-18-2016, 12:12 AM
I think the 2 7-card hands idea by deck is interesting. Personally I've been for the slight change of allowing two 6 card mulls. IE the mulls would go 7-6-6-5-4 instead of 7-6-5-4.

What if you merged the two ideas so that you could make a strategic choice to start the game with card disadvantage to see two 6-card hands. IE you start with 7 cards just like currently, but if you mull you get to pick from 2 6-card hands and then two 5-card hands if you mull again and so on.

That would certainly change the play/draw dynamic into a more strategic decision. :)

Would you prefer to go first, or go second in order to leverage the extra draw against the mull possibility?

athlee
01-18-2016, 12:55 AM
I don't see why there is a need to change. Have anyone given thought that the Champions power itself is a way to counter flood/screw? Instead of using just blindly following MtG's calculation for the qty of land in a deck, has anyone taken the Champion's power into consideration?

Add a shard or two to your current screw deck, decreases the likelihood of screw and the flood will be balanced out by the Champion power.

Adding additional draws, choices, cards, effects, etc. will just favour a particular deck. Combo and aggro becomes more consistent and will push out the others.

Flood / screw is as a direct result of the deck building choices. Looking at the deck building first before system changes would be what I suggest.

Winds

wolzarg
01-18-2016, 01:31 AM
None likes to mull to oblivion but fact is that is part of the game. The fact is that the magic change didn't actually do that much it made certain decks that tend to mull a lot more consistent and those are the decks that simply win when when they get what they want. I guess the idea of gaining a charge if you did a mulligan is simple enough to help but not deep enough to incentivize further mulligans so i can get behind that to some extent but i think even that just gives more power to certain decks.

Troop creation of any sort goes out the window for me instantly that just wont fly if someone wants that they are in the wrong game. What might be interesting is cards like jar of memories that helps people out with mulligans if they decide to include them in the deck but just flat bonuses to try and even the score tend to be a horrible idea.

havocattack
01-18-2016, 02:30 AM
I don't see why there is a need to change. Have anyone given thought that the Champions power itself is a way to counter flood/screw? Instead of using just blindly following MtG's calculation for the qty of land in a deck, has anyone taken the Champion's power into consideration?

This is a different issue for the most part, what you're saying is completely obvious and what champions were designed to do... Flood or screw is a different issue and should be looked at separately imo. (I can think of a few ways to alleviate this a bit as well, but that's for another time :P)

This issue we are talking about here is when you have to mulligan, especially to 5 or lower, in most cases you will be at too much of a disadvantage (even worse if on play) to put up much of a fight and it just makes for un-fun experiences.

At the end of the day, we are all players of the game and we enjoy making fun and exciting decks to pit against each other. I would prefer that most of my games were battles that both players feel they got to use their deck and got to play the game. Games that are decided in a few turns just because of the severity of mulligans are no fun for anyone.

Considering the many unique systems and the digital space that hex has available, I don't see why we should be plagued with an archaic issue such as this.

Sethanon
01-18-2016, 02:59 AM
I honestly find gaining one charge first time you mulligan as reasonable upside.

Deathlock
01-18-2016, 03:23 AM
+ 1 charge for playing as a second player, +1 charge for mulliganing at least once. Also, if you aren't playing first, you don't get a charge for mulligans. Sounds good, doesn't it?

Tinfoil
01-18-2016, 04:53 AM
Havoc has a point that mulligans in competetive games is problematic - in casual games less so. However, what there is to do about it is another matter and it is crucial that any attempt doesn't just create a new (and bigger) problem. The suggestions I like so far are:

Look at the top card of you deck and put it on the bottom if you chose if you mulligan.
Gain 1 charge.


But I am not sure if these are the best possible ones or if the impact is large enough to warrant a change.

Xenavire
01-18-2016, 05:19 AM
I slept on it, and I want to refine my suggestion:

Draw 7 cards, the opponent gets 2 charges. Then for every mulligan after that, the opponent gets a prompt asking if they want to draw a card - if they draw a card, you draw 7, if they don't, standard mulligan rules kick in and the opponent is no longer prompted aabout drawing cards.

What this does is gives you one 'free' mulligan of your own choice, but gives the opponent charges (this is the first buffer, giving you a chance to seach for shards etc.) Mulligans after that are in the opponents hands - so they may let you mull and draw 7 multiple times, but they also get cards each time, or they can choose to force you to lose cards (not getting card draw themselves.) The more you try to abuse it, the more consistency your opponent will have, but it still gives you a chance to search for a playable hand.

This also means playing first gives the risk of needing to mull multiple times, only to fix a hand the opponent may have needed to mull.

Sethanon
01-18-2016, 06:14 AM
You don't really want to give anyone free mulligans, the advantage for combo decks and card reliant decks is too big and they will easily hand out 2 charges for that and probably even cards in your favor.

fido_one
01-18-2016, 07:07 AM
CZE has made it really clear on their stance on mulligans and resources and general and I'd be gutted if they didn't stick to the present set-up. We do have champions that we can choose to regain card draw later on (beyond card selection).

To add constructively to the thread, I wonder if some of these ideas could or should be applied to specific areas, like certain dungeons in the campaign.

And/or raids - what do mulligans look like in raids or two-headed giants? Personally, I would assume the same as regular game play (that's what I would prefer), but never having played those formats IRL, maybe there are more fitting systems for those formats?

Evilgm
01-18-2016, 07:15 AM
We do have champions that we can choose to regain card draw later on (beyond card selection).
If you have to keep a 5 card, 2 shard hand then it won't matter what card draw charge power you have, because in general you'll have lost before it ever matters. Charge powers somewhat compensate for resource flood, but they aren't a fix to the mulligan issue that absolutely exists in the game, as it does in Magic. WotC have over two decades of data to analyse, and they decided it was worth shaking up the tournament scene to implement an adjustment to help mulligans be less of a deciding factor in who wins the game.

SnowwyWolf
01-18-2016, 07:19 AM
I would say I am not an experienced enough TCG player to comment on whether or not I feel this needs to be changed nor would I know how to change it in a way that does not upset the balance of the game, what I can do however is say my experiences so far.

In all cards games there are elements of luck but of course the ideal TCG the person who plays the best should be the winner, regardless of the various luck elements involved in the game. I played in a draft tournament a few days ago and made a highly aggressive Ruby Diamond deck, I got recommendations from Fridgid about how many shards I should run based on my decks curve (it was a 40 card deck). Against my first opponent in game 1, my opening hand contained 3 shards, 3 minions and a lunge (something along those lines). Then 7 out of my next 8 draws were ALL shards, so naturally I lost the game purely because of terrible luck, it had nothing to do with my card choices and I was only running 16 shards in a 40 card deck, it made it so the game was not at all fun and I simply felt cheated since it was 100% out of my control, anyone in that situation would just lose. Then in the next game I had the opposite issue, I had to mulligan all the way down to 4 before seeing my first shard and then every single draw after that was just minions I was unable to play due to having a threshold of 2 (I drew in to both of my spirit eagles), again it was entirely out of my control and the whole tournament experience because of this was not fun in the slightest.

Take from that what you will, as I say I am not qualified to say whether or not I feel that the mulligan process could / should be changed nor would I be able to know an effective change to make but I just thought I would share an experience I have had. In my opinion though the best way to evaluate effective changes to any parts of the mechanics would be to give examples, based on various tournament games you think were one sided due to the current mulligan system and how your changes would of altered that game.

bootlace
01-18-2016, 07:47 AM
I've mentioned this idea many times before but since there are new people here, here it is again:

What I'd like to see is champions being socketable with a meta-gem (lore-wise this makes perfect sense, and in terms of the 'customize your own TCG' Hex is already known for with its champion/gem/equipment choices, this is a great fit). What are meta-gems (creative name pending..)? They're things that help with things like mulligans, resource screw etc. The meta-gems are balanced between shards, blocks, and have requirements just like normal gems do so in essence they're just another thing that developers need to design around with every set release. This means it doesn't have the problem of ruining the game or past systems or cards, and they can easily be nerfed in case some prove to be too powerful.

As for ideas of what abilities these meta-gems could have, check out this article (http://www.hexprimal.com/resource-screw-fix/) I wrote ironically almost exactly one year ago. (when I wrote this article I thought the abilities should be in form of champion powers, so instead look at the charge/passive powers and imagine any one of them being a separate gem).

Svenn
01-18-2016, 08:01 AM
I have yet to see a single suggestion here that I would be in favor of. Anything adding cards, charges, etc to one player is just a bad idea. Easily exploitable, changes balance, etc etc.

The Draw two hands of 7 cards and pick one has several problems, but is one of the better ideas posted. First, there is still the possibility of getting screwed on both hands. Then you're stuck and can't do anything, with no option to even attempt a mulligan again. This doesn't really fix the "problem". Second, this seems like it would favor certain deck types (combo decks?).

The only change I've seen that I've ever been in favor of testing is the "Draw 7, shuffle x back into your deck" where x is the number of times you've mulliganed. That one still has problems (some of the same problems as the two hands of 7 cards, like potentially favoring combo decks).

Really though, this "problem" isn't a problem.


So you are happy with rng deciding games before they have even begun?

Yes, I am. It's a necessary evil. Why? Because removing that RNG (which is a fairly small amount of games) would drastically change the game. In order to have the system we have (which I absolutely love) you need that drawback. Anything that just completely negates that RNG is going to significantly change the game, and not for the better. It's an important part of the balance.

Evilgm
01-18-2016, 08:24 AM
this seems like it would favor certain deck types (combo decks?).
Any system favours certain deck types- the current one favours faster decks that can survive on fewer resources.



Yes, I am. It's a necessary evil. Why? Because removing that RNG (which is a fairly small amount of games) would drastically change the game. In order to have the system we have (which I absolutely love) you need that drawback. Anything that just completely negates that RNG is going to significantly change the game, and not for the better. It's an important part of the balance.
There's a significant difference between removing the RNG and reducing its impact. The argument at the moment is that having to mulligan is too much of a deficit, especially if you need to do it twice. Reducing the amount of games won or lost before the first turn is absolutely a positive thing for the game. There are definitely issues if it goes too far in the other direction, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be an effort made to find a suitable middle ground.

After WotC announced the change from Paris to Vancouver Mulligan (which allows a player that took a mulligan to look at the top card of the deck and place it on the bottom of the deck if they wish), various Magic websites did the math on the likely impact. Amongst the results they found was "The number of non-interactive games decreases (http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/magic-math-the-new-mulligan-rule/)". That seems like a laudable goal to me.

plaguedealer
01-18-2016, 08:36 AM
Any system favours certain deck types- the current one favours faster decks that can survive on fewer resources.

That is not necessarily true because if you are only playing a few shards, you have a higher chance of getting resource screwed. A aggro player has a greater advantage if they could make it easier to only have one or two shards in their opening hand. A hand destruction player (I am considering vampires into this) wants certain cards in their opening hand (arachnophobia) and they are at a greater advantage if it makes it easier for them.

Xenavire
01-18-2016, 08:48 AM
You don't really want to give anyone free mulligans, the advantage for combo decks and card reliant decks is too big and they will easily hand out 2 charges for that and probably even cards in your favor.

And you get to do that right back. Not to mention, if there is a combo deck out there doing that in the meta, handing out 2 charges will greatly help certain champs, potentially giving a large advantage to aggro (or possibly control, if we get that sort of champ in the future.) Combo would get a slight boost, with every other deck type also getting a boost, and it would more or less nullify unplayable starts, without greatly changing deck make-ups (aggro might be able to drop a shard or two at best, otherwise no real changes would happen.)

As long as they don't go printing OP cards that equate to a 1 card combo, and keep 2 card combo's in check, it would be a much more skill intensive mulligan system, without needlessly punishing an unplayable string of draws.

Evilgm
01-18-2016, 08:48 AM
I didn't mean playing fewer shards in the deck, but if your Ruby Orc deck is primarily 1 and 2 cost troops, and I'm playing Human Inspire based around 3 cost troops, you're much more able to recover from the need to mulligan than I am. Thus the current system suits faster decks more, and any change to the mulligan will likewise benefit a different deck type more than others (though all deck types would benefit to varying degrees).

Svenn
01-18-2016, 09:08 AM
I didn't mean playing fewer shards in the deck, but if your Ruby Orc deck is primarily 1 and 2 cost troops, and I'm playing Human Inspire based around 3 cost troops, you're much more able to recover from the need to mulligan than I am. Thus the current system suits faster decks more, and any change to the mulligan will likewise benefit a different deck type more than others (though all deck types would benefit to varying degrees).

But the game is balanced around this. All of the costs are carefully balanced around the chances of getting the resources you need. Change those chances and you've changed the balance of every card.

Deckofmanythings
01-18-2016, 09:14 AM
Hypothetically if the 2 starting hands of 7 cards were shown and you pick one were to be implemented, I strongly prefer it to not be 14 unique cards.

It should be a random 7 shown for each choice where cards can appear in both "pools" for reasons xenavire stated in regards to limited as well as to limit more reach for combo based decks.

This was the original intention. The game is digital after all, it's no skin off the game's back to pull 7 different cards from the same pool twice.

Evilgm
01-18-2016, 09:25 AM
But the game is balanced around this. All of the costs are carefully balanced around the chances of getting the resources you need. Change those chances and you've changed the balance of every card.

I'm not sure that's as true as you believe it is. There's only so much cost you can assign to being more resistant to poor opening hands, and there are many examples of 1 and 2 cost cards that are above average for their cost- it's the entire basis for Tusker based decks. The advantage in faster decks is supposed to be in killing your opponent before he sets up, not in killing your opponent because you both get two shards by turn 4 but your deck doesn't care.

Sethanon
01-18-2016, 09:39 AM
This was the original intention. The game is digital after all, it's no skin off the game's back to pull 7 different cards from the same pool twice.

That reduces the rng by quite a bit, I would like a middle ground which could show you the three most common options under current system at once using all the digital powers:
7 cards
6 cards + top card of the deck
5 cards + two top cards of the deck

Often I have regretted my mulligan decision when the two next hands were even worse than the first one ;) Could be probably abused as well when I think about it, but I have already written the post, so be it!

Aradon
01-18-2016, 09:48 AM
Hm, I wouldn't mind the option of seeing your next hand before deciding. Nothing's worse than taking a mulligan and getting an all-land or no-land hand. Potentially very powerful, though. That helps combo out immensely. I don't think you can 'solve' the mulligan problem without helping combo decks, though. Anything that improves your card quality is going to help them out.

On the other hand, combo isn't exactly destroying the format at the moment.

Angmar
01-18-2016, 10:09 AM
On the other hand, combo isn't exactly destroying the format at the moment.

Highlighting by far the most important part of that statement. Banned and restricted lists from other games are largely filled with degenerate combo pieces. Once Hex's card pool gets large enough it will be the same.

Deckofmanythings
01-18-2016, 10:14 AM
A 7 card hand out of 60 cards, has a 39.9% chance of having 1 (or more) of any given "4 of" a card in it, and an 83.5% chance of having 2 or more resources, assuming 23 total resources in the deck.

Now, yes, the double draw option I proposed does favor certain decks, but it does so minimally, and favors MORE type of decks than a mulligan system does.

EVERYONE gets 7 card opening hands. No more having card disadvantage due to bad starting hands.
EVERYONE gets the same 39.9% chance (rolled twice) of getting a key card into their opening hand. Combo deck? Aggro deck? Control deck? All these decks have cards they would love to see in their opening hand.
EVERYONE has a chance of still getting screwed. This is key. Getting screwed sucks, but it's part of the game. Champion powers are meant to off-set Flooding. Multi-shards and Allegiance shards are meant to off-set Shard screw. I would never, ever, back or propose a system that completely eliminated flood/screw. (And if you think I don't get Shard screwed, I have a couple of Shard Cup feature matches I would like to point you to).

There are a lot of situations in the double draw system where EITHER hand is a good starting hand, probably would happen more often than neither hand being good. Now you have to make a choice of which starting hand is going to win you the game, and that's something that tests a skill in playing that really hasn't been tested fully yet.

nicosharp
01-18-2016, 10:17 AM
Highlighting by far the most important part of that statement. Banned and restricted lists from other games are largely filled with degenerate combo pieces. Once Hex's card pool gets large enough it will be the same.

They've done a good job so far of mixing the more degenerate combos into 3 card, 3 threshold of different shard mixes... outside of the 1 card combo that is banned. Also, the cost to combo has remained fairly consistent, with not much craziness before an uninterrupted turn 4 or turn 5. Cressida being the one exception with a perfect curve.

More 2 cost counters will help keep these type of combos in check. The digital space makes this design challenge a little more complex, but also gives more room to test thoroughly without expending too many internal resources.

cavench
01-18-2016, 11:07 AM
"We use something called pseudo-random (as does every other game ever made). We try to get as close to true random as possible..."

Above statement is taken from https://www.hextcg.com/randomization/

This subject is also in my mind lately. I have no doubt that Hex's pseudo-random generator is doing its job, but the result is too many games are impacted too heavily by shard screw/flood. My conclusion is that true randomness is not what players want, despite that it makes sense from designer's perspective. Instead of introducing a new mechanic that reduce the impact by screw/flood, I suggest tweaking the random generator further away from true randomness. There has be a balance somewhere in that designers are comfortable with the proximity to true randomness, while players are satisfied by seeing less shard screws/flood.

tldr; I hate to say this, but players may be happier if the generator somewhat mimics shuffle stacking.

Svenn
01-18-2016, 11:21 AM
"We use something called pseudo-random (as does every other game ever made). We try to get as close to true random as possible..."

Above statement is taken from https://www.hextcg.com/randomization/

This subject is also in my mind lately. I have no doubt that Hex's pseudo-random generator is doing its job, but the result is too many games are impacted too heavily by shard screw/flood. My conclusion is that true randomness is not what players want, despite that it makes sense from designer's perspective. Instead of introducing a new mechanic that reduce the impact by screw/flood, I suggest tweaking the random generator further away from true randomness. There has be a balance somewhere in that designers are comfortable with the proximity to true randomness, while players are satisfied by seeing less shard screws/flood.

tldr; I hate to say this, but players may be happier if the generator somewhat mimics shuffle stacking.

They might be happy at first, until they realized it's no longer the same game and balance is all wrong.

I want true randomness. I want the system exactly as is. I don't see a need for a change at all.


I'm not sure that's as true as you believe it is. There's only so much cost you can assign to being more resistant to poor opening hands, and there are many examples of 1 and 2 cost cards that are above average for their cost- it's the entire basis for Tusker based decks. The advantage in faster decks is supposed to be in killing your opponent before he sets up, not in killing your opponent because you both get two shards by turn 4 but your deck doesn't care.

The cost of things aren't balanced around opening hands, but around the chances of having a certain number of resources after x turns. Opening hands increasing in quality to the point that no one has a crappy opening hand means your chances of having a given number of resources are greatly increased, messing with the balance of all the cards. A 5 cost card costs 5 and not 6, 7, or 8 because you are not guaranteed 5 resources by turn 5. Increase opening hands so you pretty much always have 3+ resources and it's much easier to get that out in any given game.

As far as cards being above average for cost... this is intentional due to other factors (rarity, threshold, etc). There will always be above average/below average cards of any given cost, type, etc.

Angmar
01-18-2016, 11:34 AM
They've done a good job so far of mixing the more degenerate combos into 3 card, 3 threshold of different shard mixes... outside of the 1 card combo that is banned. Also, the cost to combo has remained fairly consistent, with not much craziness before an uninterrupted turn 4 or turn 5. Cressida being the one exception with a perfect curve.

More 2 cost counters will help keep these type of combos in check. The digital space makes this design challenge a little more complex, but also gives more room to test thoroughly without expending too many internal resources.

They are doing a good job, but its completely unavoidable over a long enough period of time.

Everything written about Titania's Majesty's creation echos how the MtG card Skullclamp came into being. There is a laundry list of unplayable, garbage cards that later became disgusting combo pieces - Illusions of Grandeur (combo piece 4 years later), Dark Depths (combo piece 7 years later), etc.


More to the main point; I'm not convinced there is any way to "fix" the mulligan system that isn't going to give combo an advantage.

cavench
01-18-2016, 11:35 AM
They might be happy at first, until they realized it's no longer the same game and balance is all wrong.

I want true randomness. I want the system exactly as is. I don't see a need for a change at all.

That is a scenario that could happen, but just as likely is everyone is happy, realize the game has been improved, and the balance is just right.

Tazelbain
01-18-2016, 11:45 AM
It is worth banning a few problematic combos so we less auto-loss games.

nicosharp
01-18-2016, 11:54 AM
More to the main point; I'm not convinced there is any way to "fix" the mulligan system that isn't going to give combo an advantage.
Not sure we need to be convinced that less variance in the starting hand is better for one deck over another. The benefit transpires on both sides of the table. The meta game shifts depending on the variance shift and the available strategies. Basically what is being argued for, is despite the meta, and what decks may benefit more than others with reduced variance, that reduced variance is needed for all players given their starting hand.

From my experience playing this game, and listening to rants that I've mostly disagreed with, I can say that the variance in starting hands now is a bit more on the undesirable side. The punishment for starting with a hand you actually have a chance with is currently too severe. Games can often come down to whether or not you get to play a card in your first 3-4 turns. That is not fun.

Despite what changes, if any, are made to the mulligan system, the reduction to variance and reduction to punishment for bad variance can only help the game, make it more fun, and promote a happier playerbase. How diverse the meta game is after a change to variance is made is important to track, to see if further tweaks are needed. It would really be nice to see a progressive change made here that differentiates itself from MTG.

I like the top 14 cards idea as well, where you can toggle which of the top 14 in order that you want. IE: take 1-7, or 2-8, or 3-9, or 7-13, or 8-14, etc. but has to be in order, and the rest of the cards are shuffled. I think the top 14 range will almost always guarantee a shard or 2, and still force players to build their decks with decent shard counts to reduce their ability to low-shard combo. The punishment, if there is any choice beyond the initial 14 range, should be quite severe.

Edit: To the above idea - Punishment ideas: If you deny the first 14, deck is shuffled, new 10 cards are revealed and you pick a 6 card range. If you deny, 8 cards are revealed and you pick 5 card range. You can not mulligan below 5 card range pick.

Kaiba_Graysoul
01-18-2016, 12:02 PM
Dont know if this has been suggested but if we had a system where u can turn 1 card u have in ur hand into a resource of that type (the Kracken could be turn into a saphire and so on) in-place of a mulligan u could mitigate starve and flood as there would be less need for resources within the deck

poizonous
01-18-2016, 12:04 PM
Letting a combo deck look at 14 cards and choose which hand he wants lol wow i know combos aren't around right now but when they are people will regret that change if its made. I understand where you guys are coming from, nobody likes mulliganing but giving any benefit to a mulligan un balances the entire game

nicosharp
01-18-2016, 12:06 PM
Letting a combo deck look at 14 cards and choose which hand he wants lol wow i know combos aren't around right now but when they are people will regret that change if its made. I understand where you guys are coming from, nobody likes mulliganing but giving any benefit to a mulligan un balances the entire game

I think you didn't read that clearly enough. They are not choosing any 7 they want from 14 cards. Anyways, lots of ideas, but most the ideas benefit both sides of the table, despite the deck type.

Svenn
01-18-2016, 12:11 PM
Dont know if this has been suggested but if we had a system where u can turn 1 card u have in ur hand into a resource of that type (the Kracken could be turn into a saphire and so on) in-place of a mulligan u could mitigate starve and flood as there would be less need for resources within the deck

And then aggro deck rules all. They don't even need resources at that point (or would need almost none). That would not go well at all.

Evilgm
01-18-2016, 12:13 PM
giving any benefit to a mulligan un balances the entire game
That presupposes that the game is balanced as is. When a player has to mulligan and his opponent doesn't, that dramatically changes the math on who is likely to win. That's not conjecture- the math has been done on this by WotC, and the curve and power level averages of Hex are in-line with those of Magic.

The goal of this discussion is to see if there's a middle ground that decreases the impact of having to mulligan without incentivising it. HexEnt have most likely assessed everything that's being discussed here already, but there's no harm in people throwing out ideas and seeing if anything fits.

Svenn
01-18-2016, 12:17 PM
That presupposes that the game is balanced as is. When a player has to mulligan and his opponent doesn't, that dramatically changes the math on who is likely to win. That's not conjecture- the math has been done on this by WotC, and the curve and power level averages of Hex are in-line with those of Magic.

The goal of this discussion is to see if there's a middle ground that decreases the impact of having to mulligan without incentivising it. HexEnt have most likely assessed everything that's being discussed here already, but there's no harm in people throwing out ideas and seeing if anything fits.

And your assumption is that someone winning because of a mulligan is not intended. It is part of the balance. It goes along with the whole "lesser players have a chance to beat a more experienced player" which is 100% intended.

As has been stated many times, flood/screw (which is really what this thread is about) is a necessary evil. The game is balanced around the current system of resources/mulligans and change those would throw of the balance and make the game worse. It's worth a handful of games being decided by RNG to have the system as is.

I don't believe there is any way to "fix" flood/screw/mulligans that would not break the balance and make the game worse. Not a single suggestion in the last 2 years of these discussions has provided something that can do that.

poizonous
01-18-2016, 12:17 PM
I don't see a middle ground, being able to mulligan and end up with 7 cards gives an incredible incentive.

I'm sorry i disagree with people on this but it is a necessary evil and there is no change possible that wouldn't give it incentive and honestly it shouldn't

The biggest problem i see in this thread is the premise that a mulligan equals a loss which is ridiculous. Yes you are at. 1-2 card disadvantage but that's what happens sometimes to both players it is an even playing field.

plaguedealer
01-18-2016, 12:24 PM
Many of the people arguing for the change are intelligent card players (at least in my mind). I really think changing the mulligan rule is dangerous. The people arguing for it need to test their opinions on paper to see how it shakes out (even then there would need to be more testing).

havocattack
01-18-2016, 12:25 PM
Just doing some more brainstorming and thought up this...

Players are given 7 starting cards, however 3 of them are face down.

Each player has 2 choices to start with... Reveal or Draw 7

If Reveal is chosen, the player is now able to see all 7 cards and then gets the normal mulligan or keep option as we currently have it.

However, if they choose Draw 7, they will get a new 7 card hand with one face down, they then have the normal mulligan or keep option as we currently have it.

Again, just an idea... a starting point to expand upon...

Yoss
01-18-2016, 12:26 PM
...there is no change possible...

A competent designer, engineer, or other creator of complex systems would not say such things. Change is ALWAYS possible, especially in software and game design. In fact, there are countless books out there about how change is mandatory for survival in the marketplace.

That said, I am not saying that the topic of this particular thread needs to bring any particular change or even any change at all. I merely point out that silly "it is not possible" arguments have no useful place in this discussion. Everything is possible; dream bigger and give constructive input. Do not say "this problem cannot be solved" or "this is not a problem" instead say "how might this problem be solved?" or "might there actually be a valid problem here that affects some people?"

havocattack
01-18-2016, 12:26 PM
there is no change possible that wouldn't give it incentive

Just stahp! With thinking like that, problems would never get solved.

Svenn
01-18-2016, 12:29 PM
You are clearly not a designer, engineer, or other creator of complex systems. Change is ALWAYS possible, especially in software and game design. In fact, there are countless books out there about how change is mandatory for survival in the marketplace.

That said, I am not saying that the topic of this particular thread needs to bring any particular change or even any change at all. I merely point out that silly "it is not possible" arguments have no useful place in this discussion. Everything is possible; dream bigger and give constructive input. Do not say "this problem cannot be solved" or "this is not a problem" instead say "how might this problem be solved?" or "might there actually be a valid problem here that affects some people?"

20 years of MTG and 2+ years of these threads on the Hex forums and I have yet to see a "solution" that is actually better than the current system.

The problem here is that some people see this as a problem that needs to be fixed, but others don't see it as a problem at all. It's a matter of perception. The reality is that it's not changing, though.

havocattack
01-18-2016, 12:35 PM
20 years of MTG and 2+ years of these threads on the Hex forums and I have yet to see a "solution" that is actually better than the current system.

The problem here is that some people see this as a problem that needs to be fixed, but others don't see it as a problem at all. It's a matter of perception. The reality is that it's not changing, though.

MTG recently made a change, a small one, but a change nonetheless. Saying that some don't see it as a problem, does not therefore mean it isn't undesirable and cannot be improved.

Svenn
01-18-2016, 12:41 PM
MTG recently made a change, a small one, but a change nonetheless. Saying that some don't see it as a problem, does not therefore mean it isn't undesirable and cannot be improved.

And I don't believe that change actually helped at all. Is it actually an improvement? Is the "problem" fixed? Doubtful.

Again, modifying the resource system (which is what this thread wants, people don't care about anything but resources in hand) modifies the rest of the game significantly. Any change that's small enough to not mess with the balance of the resource system isn't going to fix your problem. Any change that would fix your problem is going to wreak havoc (no pun intended) on the balance and current fun of the game.

So, is there a way to "fix" this problem? Sure. That way is to develop a different resource system that isn't what we have now. That's not going to happen. That's not what a lot of people want.

Yoss
01-18-2016, 12:50 PM
20 years of MTG and 2+ years of these threads on the Hex forums and I have yet to see a "solution" that is actually better than the current system.

The problem here is that some people see this as a problem that needs to be fixed, but others don't see it as a problem at all. It's a matter of perception. The reality is that it's not changing, though.

The more important factor right now (just IMO, obviously) is that HXE has no resources to devote to the R&D necessary to even investigate such an important trade study. The current system, while imperfect, works reasonably well and when the team is so crunched, it is quite reasonable to just say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

However, the free time of forum posters can be spent as pseudo-R&D in the mean time and it hurts nothing. I actually like several of the ideas presented so far and would be interested to see them pursued in a scientific manner at some point.

Xenavire
01-18-2016, 12:50 PM
MTG recently made a change, a small one but a change nonetheless. Saying that some don't see it as a problem, does not therefore mean it is undesirable and cannot be better/improved.

Exactly this. We can survive in the status quo, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss ways to make the game better for all involved.

The hard part is coming up with something that fits 3 criteria:
1) Equal for all deck types
2) Equal for all game modes
3) Easy enough for new players to understand

I am not sure that the 2x 7 card hand method works for 2), and it might not work in practice for 1).

I do think the answer lies in giving the opponent an advantage, rather than giving the mulligan player a disadvantage. Piling on disadvantage to a bad start is not only tipping the balance quickly, it also is a feel-bad experience (as demonstrated by several people in this thread.) Giving the opponent an advantage still puts you at a disadvantage of sorts, but depending on the advantage, is likely a good deal less severe than the current method.

Plus who can say watching their opponent going down to 5 or less at the start is a good experience? I don't enjoy it, and it makes me feel bad when I quickly roll over the majority of those players. Hell, quite often they concede on the spot.

poizonous
01-18-2016, 12:53 PM
Just stahp! With thinking like that, problems would never get solved.

See the difference is i don't see a problem and i mulligan as much as the next person, some people see a loss when they do and theoretically surrender that game but i play through and win

havocattack
01-18-2016, 01:01 PM
See the difference is i don't see a problem and i mulligan as much as the next person, some people see a loss when they do and theoretically surrender that game but i play through and win

Cause everyone concedes when they mulligan too much... no... just stahp -_-

Svenn
01-18-2016, 01:01 PM
Let me try this another way.

What is the problem trying to be solved? The problem people want solved is a lack of consistency in resources, leading to losses.

Seems harmless enough. I mean, who doesn't want more consistent hands? However, consistency is a huge part of the game. One of the major designs is for the player to try and create more consistency with their deck building. The lack of consistency is a major design feature that ties into all of the game, especially balance. Any change to consistency has major effects on the game overall. Even more so if you want the effect to be significant enough that it would satisfy people so they stop complaining about it. A small change wouldn't make people happy (and would still change the rest of the game, so lose-lose), and a large change has huge implications.

So, how do you fix something that is a core part of the game design without affecting the rest of the game? You don't. Any change to consistency is a change to the whole game. There's no "well, we made hands more consistent, but it didn't affect anything else!" One of the major features of gameplay IS consistency (or inconsistency). It IS the gameplay.

The "problem" and the thing you are trying to not affect by it are the same thing. That's why there is no solution.

havocattack
01-18-2016, 01:02 PM
And I don't believe that change actually helped at all. Is it actually an improvement? Is the "problem" fixed? Doubtful.

Again, modifying the resource system (which is what this thread wants, people don't care about anything but resources in hand) modifies the rest of the game significantly. Any change that's small enough to not mess with the balance of the resource system isn't going to fix your problem. Any change that would fix your problem is going to wreak havoc (no pun intended) on the balance and current fun of the game.

So, is there a way to "fix" this problem? Sure. That way is to develop a different resource system that isn't what we have now. That's not going to happen. That's not what a lot of people want.

Someone already posted a link to a study that proved it helped a little... also, just because the solution they came up with has minimal impact, doesn't mean we cannot come up with something better >_<

Svenn
01-18-2016, 01:04 PM
Someone already posted a link to a study that proved it helped a little... also, just because the solution they came up with has minimal impact, doesn't mean we cannot come up with something better >_<

1) Did it stop people complaining about mulligans/lands? Are people satisfied with it? Of course not.

2) See my above post.

havocattack
01-18-2016, 01:06 PM
Saying there is no solution is just flat out wrong.

Svenn
01-18-2016, 01:08 PM
Saying there is no solution is just flat out wrong.

How do you change something without changing that same thing?

Kayas42
01-18-2016, 01:19 PM
How about this:

If you mulligan at least once, you automatically add this power to your champion in addition to it's existing power:

[BASIC][1SHOT](1): Put a random basic shard from your deck into play. This counts towards playing a shard this turn.

No threshold required. Random effect so it fits with the Hex themes. Simple and effective.


Edit: Removed bad idea

bootlace
01-18-2016, 01:21 PM
Let me try this another way.

What is the problem trying to be solved? The problem people want solved is a lack of consistency in resources, leading to losses.

Seems harmless enough. I mean, who doesn't want more consistent hands? However, consistency is a huge part of the game. One of the major designs is for the player to try and create more consistency with their deck building. The lack of consistency is a major design feature that ties into all of the game, especially balance. Any change to consistency has major effects on the game overall. Even more so if you want the effect to be significant enough that it would satisfy people so they stop complaining about it. A small change wouldn't make people happy (and would still change the rest of the game, so lose-lose), and a large change has huge implications.

So, how do you fix something that is a core part of the game design without affecting the rest of the game? You don't. Any change to consistency is a change to the whole game. There's no "well, we made hands more consistent, but it didn't affect anything else!" One of the major features of gameplay IS consistency (or inconsistency). It IS the gameplay.

The "problem" and the thing you are trying to not affect by it are the same thing. That's why there is no solution.

The Problem: Reduce the number of games that are completely decided by opening hand and initial draw RNG. Not perfectly curving out or skipping a shard drop a turn or two is okay and is what adds variance, but mulling to 4 because every hand you drew was either all shards or all cards is stupid. That is not the gameplay, that's just a stupid byproduct of a luck based card game. Luckily there are things you can do in a digital environment to mitigate these fringe 'bad experience' cases if you wanted to. Just like how threshold system helps with color screw and charges help somewhat with flooding, there's SOMETHING that can be added to help with screw and extreme mulliganing. To think nothing could be done, especially in a digital environment, is absurd.

And you keep saying how you can't change a 'core part of the game' but what do you think the life total changes from last month were about? You don't think every thing in the game was designed with 20 starting life total in mind? It was, and things had to change, and yet the game didn't spontaneously combust.

You're stating things with absolutely no backing other than your personal opinion. In fact your lone example supporting your argument: MTG's 20 years actually directly disproves your point since even they as has been pointed out, changed things up..more than once. A lot of people were happy about the fix and the game didn't break = net win.

Agree with Yoss though, no time for R&D to realistically look into this anytime soon. But that doesn't mean people discussing it should be shut down at every corner and the discussion derailed into these close minded 'NO CHANGE IS POSSIBLE!!1' rants.

Svenn
01-18-2016, 01:22 PM
How about this:

If you mulligan at least once, you automatically add this power to your champion in addition to it's existing power:

[BASIC][1SHOT](1): Put a random basic shard from your deck into play. This counts towards playing a shard this turn.

No threshold required. Random effect so it fits with the Hex themes. Simple and effective.

Simple, effective, and super duper exploitable and unbalanced.

havocattack
01-18-2016, 01:24 PM
The Problem: Reduce the number of games that are completely decided by opening hand and initial draw RNG. Not perfectly curving out or skipping a shard drop a turn or two is okay and is what adds variance, but mulling to 4 because every hand you drew was either all shards or all cards is stupid. That is not the gameplay, that's just a stupid byproduct of a luck based card game. Luckily there are things you can do in a digital environment to mitigate these fringe 'bad experience' cases if you wanted to. Just like how threshold system helps with color screw and charges help somewhat with flooding, there's SOMETHING that can be added to help with screw and extreme mulliganing. To think nothing could be done, especially in a digital environment, is absurd.

And you keep saying how you can't change a 'core part of the game' but what do you think the life total changes from last month were about? You don't think every thing in the game was designed with 20 starting life total in mind? It was, and things had to change, and yet the game didn't spontaneously combust.

You're stating things with absolutely no backing other than your personal opinion. In fact your lone example supporting your argument: MTG's 20 years actually directly disproves your point since even they as has been pointed out, changed things up..more than once. A lot of people were happy about the fix and the game didn't break = net win.

Agree with Yoss though, no time for R&D to realistically look into this anytime soon. But that doesn't mean people discussing it should be shut down at every corner and the discussion derailed into these close minded 'NO CHANGE IS POSSIBLE!!1' rants.

^

havocattack
01-18-2016, 01:28 PM
How about this:

If you mulligan at least once, you automatically add this power to your champion in addition to it's existing power:

[BASIC][1SHOT](1): Put a random basic shard from your deck into play. This counts towards playing a shard this turn.

No threshold required. Random effect so it fits with the Hex themes. Simple and effective.

This is too good :P

Kayas42
01-18-2016, 01:28 PM
Simple, effective, and super duper exploitable and unbalanced.

How would it be exploitable?

You mull, you are losing a card. This is replacing it with a shard. It costs you a charge, not a resource, so you're behind on charges.

Not seeing where this could be exploitable. Make it only appear if you mull twice?

Kayas42
01-18-2016, 01:30 PM
This is too good :P

Put into your hand then?

If I wasn't clear (1) is a charge, not resource. Random makes it so you aren't choosing your shard color either. You could still have a handful of one color and get two shards of the wrong color.

Evilgm
01-18-2016, 01:32 PM
How would it be exploitable?

You mull, you are losing a card. This is replacing it with a shard. It costs you a charge, not a resource, so you're behind on charges.

Not seeing where this could be exploitable.
It allows you to reduce the number of shards you play in the deck, which is something a change would have to avoid.

A Ruby Orc deck could build around only needing 2 resources, and only needing 1 in the opening hand, so they could play significantly fewer than the 25~ that are generally played.

Svenn
01-18-2016, 01:33 PM
The Problem: Reduce the number of games that are completely decided by opening hand and initial draw RNG. Not perfectly curving out or skipping a shard drop a turn or two is okay and is what adds variance, but mulling to 4 because every hand you drew was either all shards or all cards is stupid. That is not the gameplay, that's just a stupid byproduct of a luck based card game. Luckily there are things you can do in a digital environment to mitigate these fringe 'bad experience' cases if you wanted to. Just like how threshold system helps with color screw and charges help somewhat with flooding, there's SOMETHING that can be added to help with screw and extreme mulliganing. To think nothing could be done, especially in a digital environment, is absurd.
You just said it. You want to change consistency without changing consistency.


And you keep saying how you can't change a 'core part of the game' but what do you think the life total changes from last month were about? You don't think every thing in the game was designed with 20 starting life total in mind? It was, and things had to change, and yet the game didn't spontaneously combust.
Actually, Champion life totals are NOT a core mechanic, but a balance number. First of all, the Champion charge powers were not all equal, so this could be used to balance that out. However, I'm still not sure whether it helped or hurt.


You're stating things with absolutely no backing other than your personal opinion. In fact your lone example supporting your argument: MTG's 20 years actually directly disproves your point since even they as has been pointed out, changed things up..more than once. A lot of people were happy about the fix and the game didn't break = net win.
They changed it a bunch... and ended up with what we have now. The small tweak they made recently, as I pointed out, didn't solve the "problem" or make everyone happy.

Svenn
01-18-2016, 01:35 PM
How would it be exploitable?

You mull, you are losing a card. This is replacing it with a shard. It costs you a charge, not a resource, so you're behind on charges.

Not seeing where this could be exploitable.

I run a mono deck, then it's awesome and OP. I run an aggro deck, I only need 1-3 shards for my whole deck... run super low resources and always mulligan.

havocattack
01-18-2016, 01:42 PM
Updated OP with new idea, what you guys think of that?

Evilgm
01-18-2016, 01:44 PM
Updated OP with new idea, what you guys think of that?

Once again it's too convoluted. Any solution needs to be something you can explain in a line or two to a new player.

poizonous
01-18-2016, 01:48 PM
The only idea i can get behind is one free mulligan, it is small enough of an advantage that has no effect on the game after the first draw phase

Svenn
01-18-2016, 01:54 PM
Just to toss this out there... I would love to be proven wrong. I would love for someone to come up with some magic solution that somehow removed losses due to mulligans without having a major effect on the game. Brainstorming ideas for that is fine.

My problem with these threads is that what happens is people come up with horribly unbalanced ideas, post them as if they are solid gold, and then complain like "God, I came up with this super awesome solution in 10 seconds and it's perfect, why can't HexEnt come up with a solution? They must suck."

AswanJaguar
01-18-2016, 01:54 PM
I feel like the point of Havoc's post is that as it stands, there is the potential for one player to be put at a significant disadvantage through no fault of their own which leads to unfun situations. This potential can possibly be mitigated by tweaking the initial draw sequence. If there is a method that may exist that reduces the number of unfun situations without fundamentally changing the play of the game, it's worth exploring. It may turn out that given the nature of the resource system, there aren't any good alternatives to the Paris mulligan system. I don't think we can say that without doing some R&D first.

Hex and games of this genre have a lot of parallels with poker. Both games utilize a system of mechanics that combine skill and chance that leads to enough variance that anyone can be a short-term winner but the long-term winners will typically be the best and most disciplined players. Some may point at the resource system as the source of the needed variance. In poker, there is no resource management beyond how many chips you have in play. The source of variance in poker is simply the cards coming off the deck. In Hex, we now combine that card-drawing variance with the resource system. The question we should examine is does the Paris mulligan allow appropriate starting hand selection? I tend to agree with Havoc that it leads to too many unfun situations where a player is not able to play the game as intended.

That said, I'm not sure if the dev team is open to new ideas in this area. It would be worth examining as a community nonetheless.

Kayas42
01-18-2016, 01:57 PM
I run a mono deck, then it's awesome and OP. I run an aggro deck, I only need 1-3 shards for my whole deck... run super low resources and always mulligan.

And what if it was only after a second mulligan?

Now you're playing a card and a charge down.


What about creating a 0/1 colorless shard instead? So now you're a turn behind and if you're playing something like Urgnock, you're a threshold behind also.

Svenn
01-18-2016, 02:00 PM
What if it created a shard of fate and put it into your hand instead?

And what if it was only after a second mulligan?

Anything that guarantees a resource is going to be a huge help to aggro. The easier it is for them to guarantee their needed 1-3 resources, the less resources they need in their deck, and the more powerful the deck becomes.

On top of that, now you're getting into that territory where it's such a minor thing that it's not even really going to solve the initial problem... so you're creating balance issues for a solution that is still going to have people running to the forums complaining.

Vengus
01-18-2016, 02:02 PM
I would simply solve this issue through creating new cards and ways to deal with the downsides of the mulligan system rather than trying a different system.

1: Create a new keyword. Troops with this keyword can also be played as resources. This gives players a bit more flexibility with the way they play their cards and build their decks while also keeping it easy to balance.

2: Create more resources like the allegiance resources in set 3, so resources that alternatively can do something else than provide a resource. A good example is Zin'Xith Silk. You can either gain a color or you can use that card to put spiderling eggs in the opponent's deck instead. So for example we could have a ruby resource that either gives you 1/1 and a ruby thres, or it could be used to deal 1 damage to the target like a Scorch.

Kayas42
01-18-2016, 02:15 PM
Anything that guarantees a resource is going to be a huge help to aggro. The easier it is for them to guarantee their needed 1-3 resources, the less resources they need in their deck, and the more powerful the deck becomes.

On top of that, now you're getting into that territory where it's such a minor thing that it's not even really going to solve the initial problem... so you're creating balance issues for a solution that is still going to have people running to the forums complaining.

I hear ya. A lot of aggro uses dual threshold though. Not getting that second threshold could still be a hindrance.

Most solutions I see in this post are going to benefit aggro/tempo in some way by forcing a mulligan in a non-god hand. My first gut reaction was changing mulligan is bad. I think if anything changes, a 1 charge(maybe 1 mana 1 charge) 1shot ability would be the way to go.

But the problem could just be that anything you do will either be automatic for everyone, or make aggro/tempo too good, or just be not good enough to improve anything.

This is a card game though. Like any card game it will often depend on your draw. Deck design will help with draw. Mucking it up with complicated rules would just create more problems than good at this point.

LNQ
01-18-2016, 02:21 PM
I'm not going to comment on the various ideas. But I do want to comment on this:


How do you change something without changing that same thing?

Your question is set up wrong. What the goal for people proposing changes is to change the opening draw system so that the loss you take from having to mulligan multiple times is diminished, but - and this is very important and omitted in your question - making a mulligan should never have a positive EV with any opening hand except for those that are heavily gimped (significantly below average opening hand quality for the deck).

That means that a starting hand with more cards should in every circumstance be better than a similar starting hand with fewer cards + whatever the balancing factor for having to mulligan more is.

If the above is achievable, it doesn't give room for exploitation, but reduces the amount of times players have a bad experience because of a poor starting hand.

Of course there's nothing that can be done to prevent being shard screwed or flooded for multiple turns after the opening hand, except for the already implemented charge system (which is ingenious) and scrying / shard fixing cards.

LargoLaGrande
01-18-2016, 02:21 PM
I would simply solve this issue through creating new cards and ways to deal with the downsides of the mulligan system rather than trying a different system.

1: Create a new keyword. Troops with this keyword can also be played as resources. This gives players a bit more flexibility with the way they play their cards and build their decks while also keeping it easy to balance.

2: Create more resources like the allegiance resources in set 3, so resources that alternatively can do something else than provide a resource. A good example is Zin'Xith Silk. You can either gain a color or you can use that card to put spiderling eggs in the opponent's deck instead. So for example we could have a ruby resource that either gives you 1/1 and a ruby thres, or it could be used to deal 1 damage to the target like a Scorch.

IMO this is the best way to fix this problem. Hex has always been weird to me because so many of the troops are pushed compared to MTG, but the resources and card selection is weak in comparison. More cards (and stronger) like Wrathwood Larch, ROID, Shardcall, Arcane Focus and the allegiance resources would help reduce mulligans by giving people the ability to play through questionable 7 card hands.

edit: Also, scaling charge powers would be interesting. Charge powers that are strong for their (low) cost, but the cost increases every time you use it.

Svenn
01-18-2016, 02:23 PM
IMO this is the best way to fix this problem. Hex has always been weird to me because so many of the troops are pushed compared to MTG, but the resources and card selection is weak in comparison. More cards (and stronger) like Wrathwood Larch, ROID, Shardcall, Arcane Focus and the allegiance resources would help reduce mulligans by giving people the ability to play through questionable 7 card hands.

100% agree with this. I'd be in favor of testing more champion abilities related to this too, but look at Cressida...

Xenavire
01-18-2016, 02:29 PM
Well, my thoughts are more or less covered (in that I would rather not sacrifice cards in hand, but rather give the opponent an advantage.)

However, if we were forced to lose cards, I think the Gwaerigan was the best solution I have seen.

sukebe
01-18-2016, 02:33 PM
I would simply solve this issue through creating new cards and ways to deal with the downsides of the mulligan system rather than trying a different system.

1: Create a new keyword. Troops with this keyword can also be played as resources. This gives players a bit more flexibility with the way they play their cards and build their decks while also keeping it easy to balance.

2: Create more resources like the allegiance resources in set 3, so resources that alternatively can do something else than provide a resource. A good example is Zin'Xith Silk. You can either gain a color or you can use that card to put spiderling eggs in the opponent's deck instead. So for example we could have a ruby resource that either gives you 1/1 and a ruby thres, or it could be used to deal 1 damage to the target like a Scorch.

Of all the ideas shown here these are the only ones I like because they do not try to change the system that the designers purposefully chose (as that is what we have now, they chose to have the possibility of flood/screw).

While I especially love option 2 I could also get behind option 1 as long as the troop/resource only provided 0/1 resources + the troops threshold (or 1 of the thresholds if they have multiple types).

Most of the other options listed here (possibly all but I have not been reading them all as they are fairly similar to the 100+ other threads made on this topic) are trying to change the system and that just seems unnecessary to me. The best way to go about it is to work with the system to ease the problems people are having.

There should always be a chance for things to go terribly wrong. HexEnt has said for a while now they chose this resource method specifically because flood/screw gives the newer player the chance to beat veteran players and adds variance to games between similarly skilled players.

Xenavire
01-18-2016, 02:38 PM
There should always be a chance for things to go terribly wrong. HexEnt has said for a while now they chose this resource method specifically because flood/screw gives the newer player the chance to beat veteran players and adds variance to games between similarly skilled players.

There is a difference between screw/flood and being unable to play at all. Not to mention a good mulligan system helps new players more than the average skilled player (since they would have a higher number of bad hands to try and fix.)

I don't mind losing to RNG - I do mind when I cannot play anything because I had to mull to 4 neever seeing a shard.

AswanJaguar
01-18-2016, 02:58 PM
I don't mind losing to RNG - I do mind when I cannot play anything because I had to mull to 4 neever seeing a shard.

This is my view as well. I feel that there's enough chance in the game that we don't need an additional layer of it in our starting hands. I find it hard to believe there isn't a better way to ensure that players get to play the deck they built.

I'm not suggesting players choose their starting 7. I'd like a system where players get a workable starting 7. Let the players at least start the game on a relatively equal footing.

Svenn
01-18-2016, 02:59 PM
I don't mind losing to RNG - I do mind when I cannot play anything because I had to mull to 4 neever seeing a shard.

Luckily this is rare, and when it happens the game is over quick typically. ;)

Thoom
01-18-2016, 03:02 PM
There is a difference between screw/flood and being unable to play at all. Not to mention a good mulligan system helps new players more than the average skilled player (since they would have a higher number of bad hands to try and fix.)

Pretty sure mulligans help skilled players more than new ones. Knowing when to mulligan and when to keep is an additional extremely impactful decision to make, and more decisions tend to help more skilled players.

A new player whose deck is bad because they constructed it poorly isn't really helped much by mulligans, because if you mulligan a 7 card hand from a bad deck, the 6 card hand you get back is likely to be bad, too, and so on.

Svenn
01-18-2016, 03:03 PM
This is my view as well. I feel that there's enough chance in the game that we don't need an additional layer of it in our starting hands. I find it hard to believe there isn't a better way to ensure that players get to play the deck they built.

I'm not suggesting players choose their starting 7. I'd like a system where players get a workable starting 7. Let the players at least start the game on a relatively equal footing.

So, my question is still the same... how do you reconcile this consistency with the fact that the game is built specifically around inconsistency without breaking the game?

Biz
01-18-2016, 03:21 PM
using computers, it is possible to change probabilities without changing all the possibilities.

example opening hands (40% shards deck):

purely random:
0 resources: 2%
1 resources: 12%
2 resources: 27%
3 resources: 31%
4 resources: 20%
5 resources: 7%
6 resources: 1%
7 resources: <1%

reducing chances of the 10% outliers (top & bottom):
0 resources: <1%
1 resources: 5%
2 resources: 32%
3 resources: 37%
4 resources: 25%
5 resources: 1%
6 resources: <1%
7 resources: <1%

if this kind of change actually results in worse games, then it means the original system resulted in bad games most of the time (which means you probably have more important things to fix than contemplate these types of changes).

poizonous
01-18-2016, 03:25 PM
A new player has a 10% chance at best of winning if he played an experienced player if they started on equal footing

Svenn
01-18-2016, 03:25 PM
using computers, it is possible to change probabilities without changing all the possibilities.

example opening hands (40% shards deck):

purely random:
0 resources: 2%
1 resources: 12%
2 resources: 27%
3 resources: 31%
4 resources: 20%
5 resources: 7%
6 resources: 1%
7 resources: <1%

reducing chances of the 10% outliers (top & bottom):
0 resources: <1%
1 resources: 5%
2 resources: 32%
3 resources: 37%
4 resources: 25%
5 resources: 1%
6 resources: <1%
7 resources: <1%

if this kind of change actually results in worse games, then it means the original system resulted in bad games most of the time (which means you probably have more important things to fix than contemplate these types of changes).

You just reduced variance and inconsistency in opening hand resources. Now it's easier to get resources. Cards are balanced around the chances to get resources. Now all the cards are unbalanced.

The issue isn't reducing variance and inconsistency, that's easy... the issue is that you can't reduce variance and inconsistency without affecting the rest of the game.

Aradon
01-18-2016, 03:52 PM
You just reduced variance and inconsistency in opening hand resources. Now it's easier to get resources. Cards are balanced around the chances to get resources. Now all the cards are unbalanced.

The issue isn't reducing variance and inconsistency, that's easy... the issue is that you can't reduce variance and inconsistency without affecting the rest of the game.

I think they would contend that while balance may be shifted, it wouldn't be on a scale that the game can't handle. As pointed out earlier, when they changed life totals, balance was shifted, and we haven't seen the death of the game yet.

Evilgm
01-18-2016, 04:01 PM
You just reduced variance and inconsistency in opening hand resources. Now it's easier to get resources. Cards are balanced around the chances to get resources. Now all the cards are unbalanced.
What are you basing this statement on? Cards that cost 3 resource are balanced around the fact that you can't bring them out before turn 3- they aren't balanced around the fact that in a certain percentage of games you may not hit that third resource. There simply aren't enough design knobs to manipulate to make it a viable factor in design on such a small cost range. It may be a factor in 5 cost cards, and certainly is in 8 cost cards, but even then very few cards in that cost range see play, so obviously it's not a significant enough factor to result in the cards being competitive.


The issue isn't reducing variance and inconsistency, that's easy... the issue is that you can't reduce variance and inconsistency without affecting the rest of the game.
Of course you can affect the rest of the game. You just have to make sure that the impact from mulliganing doesn't benefit a player more than not mulliganing. Considering how much of a drawback mulliganing is (standard assumption in Magic was a 40% decrease in likelihood to win vs a full hand) there's definitely some room to maneuver between where we are now and approaching the 0 of not having to mulligan.

The entire point of the mulligan was to make sure that the game that's happening isn't just a waste of time because of a bad opening hand- a problem it often doesn't solve. You've quite obviously decided that there isn't a problem, when over two decades of results in Magic have shown that there is. If at some point you'd like to provide a helpful suggestion in this thread about trying to solve a known issue, that'd be great, but constant posting to prove how awesome you are that you don't need this issue fixed is of little value to anyone.

wolzarg
01-18-2016, 04:11 PM
(standard assumption in Magic was a 40% decrease in likelihood to win vs a full hand) there's definitely some room to maneuver
Present your numbers or I'm calling bull because you are saying that a single mulligan would cut your win rate in 5 assuming a 50/50 starting chance which is just not even remotely true.

Silvanos
01-18-2016, 04:33 PM
I am in favor of most of these suggestions, including just eliminating 0 or 7 shard hands from the possible draws. I do find it hilarious in a sad way that this topic is almost always immediately shut down and ridiculed when the OP is not a known constructed player, but I'll take what I can get in terms of having a real discussion.
No change here is going to make this game deterministic, there will be plenty of RNG to go around, and hopefully there will be fewer non-interactive games as well.

Anecdotally, I have pitched this game to many, many people who would be casual players. The #1 question I get asked is "does it have the same resource system as MTG?" I explain the threshold differences, but they are not substantial enough to change the inherent flood/screw problem. The non-interactive games that occur are a huge turn-off for new and inexperienced players. We can all debate the minutia of what deck types benefit the most from each mulligan or resource change, but we have to recognize that this doesn't matter if we can't get people to play the game. If Hex can't draw in a lot of players, its not going to stay in business, and none of us are going to get to play the game we love and the whole thing is a non-issue. Obviously, there is a balance here. They don't benefit from making another Hearthstone, but this game can't survive on just the high-end constructed players alone.

I had a game recently where I drew 13 resources out of 20 cards, in a deck containing a 17/40 split. This wouldn't be fixed by any mulligan rule, but it was still frustrating and ridiculous. Sometimes you don't want to be the 0.48%.

Zophie
01-18-2016, 04:44 PM
I had a game recently where I drew 13 resources out of 20 cards, in a deck containing a 17/40 split.

Just clarifying, 17/40 split? So, 57 card deck? Was this a limited format deck or?

edit: nm I see now, you meant 17 of the 40 cards were resources, carry on!

BKCshah
01-18-2016, 04:49 PM
He's saying that in a limited game, he drew 20 cards total (20 remaining in deck of the original 40), and 13 were shards. 'Average' would be 8.5, but he managed to hit 13.

AswanJaguar
01-18-2016, 05:21 PM
So, my question is still the same... how do you reconcile this consistency with the fact that the game is built specifically around inconsistency without breaking the game?

To answer that, I'd have to ask the designers whether the cards are designed to be played in a system where we will start with 6 or less cards 20% of the time or if they are designed assuming we're starting with 7 and 2+ resources. Whichever is the case, any potential improvement would have to take their design choices into account. I tend to assume it's the latter with some design space being reserved for the former (Immortal Tears, Wrathwood Larch, etc).

Using Deck's or my suggestion to smooth out initial draws will mean more games will get played as the decks are designed. Does that give an inherent advantage to aggro or combo decks? I propose that the current system is more aggro-friendly. Aggro decks require fewer resources to run properly and benefit proportionally more when control or combo decks have to go to 6 or fewer cards than when the opposite case happens. If we give all decks a fair chance to put a reasonable representation of their power on the board, we end up with more meaningful games and happier players. Nothing is more frustrating than theorycrafting a deck, putting it together and then having it crap out right off the draw. Let the players play.

I really need to run a simulation to test these ideas.

poizonous
01-18-2016, 07:00 PM
So is anyone open to the idea of one free mulligan? It gives a little bit more security to the mulligan player without affecting the game in any way.

BKCshah
01-18-2016, 07:17 PM
it might not impact the game, but it has a huge impact on deckbuilding and sideboard games.

Perceus
01-18-2016, 07:26 PM
while i have no gamebreaking changes to the system i do agree to doing something either to the resource system or mulligan to stop losing games before even played. the amount of times i have mulligan 2-3 times and still not see a shard is pretty bad. a few things mentioned here are not in anyway bad either. prolly not high on their list of things to look at but i do agree it deserves a good solid look.

poizonous
01-18-2016, 07:28 PM
it might not impact the game, but it has a huge impact on deckbuilding and sideboard games.

Fully agreed but the other options I've heard affect deckbuilding and games themselves

Chadatog
01-18-2016, 07:46 PM
I would simply solve this issue through creating new cards and ways to deal with the downsides of the mulligan system rather than trying a different system.

1: Create a new keyword. Troops with this keyword can also be played as resources. This gives players a bit more flexibility with the way they play their cards and build their decks while also keeping it easy to balance.

2: Create more resources like the allegiance resources in set 3, so resources that alternatively can do something else than provide a resource. A good example is Zin'Xith Silk. You can either gain a color or you can use that card to put spiderling eggs in the opponent's deck instead. So for example we could have a ruby resource that either gives you 1/1 and a ruby thres, or it could be used to deal 1 damage to the target like a Scorch.

This type of solution is the only one that makes sense.

havocattack
01-18-2016, 08:40 PM
After talking with people, I think the easiest and fairest solution would be something like this:

If a player mulligans to 5 or lower, create and put into play Mortal Tears
(same as Immortal Tears but with some added text and art of a human crying >_>)

the added text being something like this: Usable only on your turn 3 or later

Also it would need to not be an artifact or constant etc... so it doesn't have any possible way to combo with stuff now or in future.

EDIT: Or could be implemented as a ONE-SHOT charge power

Basically the idea is a turn 3+ fixer if you mull to 5 or lower, how it is implemented, well the possibilities on that front are basically endless.

Xenavire
01-18-2016, 08:43 PM
I have given it more thought, and I think possibly some combination of things might work - so lets get our 7 card hand. It is barely passable, so we choose to mulligan - this shows us another 7 card hand, and we pick between the two. We all know this is strong, so the opponent gets 2 charges, and also gets the starsphere effect once the game starts. This goes both ways, so you could potentially have both players start with 2 charges and a free starsphere effect.

The downside is that it is slightly convoluted, and still helps combo more than other decks, and it still doesn't mesh well with limited. But I would find that acceptable in place of a free mulligan or the current system, thats for sure.

sukebe
01-18-2016, 09:30 PM
There is a difference between screw/flood and being unable to play at all. Not to mention a good mulligan system helps new players more than the average skilled player (since they would have a higher number of bad hands to try and fix.)

I don't mind losing to RNG - I do mind when I cannot play anything because I had to mull to 4 neever seeing a shard.

I am just quoting the designers in the post you linked. these were not their exact words on the article discussing the resource system but they have the same meaning.


Pretty sure mulligans help skilled players more than new ones. Knowing when to mulligan and when to keep is an additional extremely impactful decision to make, and more decisions tend to help more skilled players.

A new player whose deck is bad because they constructed it poorly isn't really helped much by mulligans, because if you mulligan a 7 card hand from a bad deck, the 6 card hand you get back is likely to be bad, too, and so on.

+1 to this. knowing when to mulligan is a fairly advanced skill, especially when it changes with each different deck you play. My dwarf deck can easily keep hands with a single shard but that would be almost suicide with almost any other deck I have.


I think they would contend that while balance may be shifted, it wouldn't be on a scale that the game can't handle. As pointed out earlier, when they changed life totals, balance was shifted, and we haven't seen the death of the game yet.

Life totals are completely different to resource acquisition when it comes to balancing the rest of the game though. the entire game is based on the inconsistency of getting resources while nothing in the game specifically cares about having exactly 20 life.


I still think the solutions vengus gave are the best of the bunch but I am not convinced anything even needs to be done. I have my streaks of terrible luck but given enough games things always end up balancing out.

LNQ
01-18-2016, 09:30 PM
Present your numbers or I'm calling bull because you are saying that a single mulligan would cut your win rate in 5 assuming a 50/50 starting chance which is just not even remotely true.

Thats not how you calculate it, its 40%, not 40 percentage points. Your chances of winning then would be 0.5*(1-0.4) = 0.5*0.6 = 0.3 = 30%

wolzarg
01-19-2016, 04:11 AM
Thats not how you calculate it, its 40%, not 40 percentage points. Your chances of winning then would be 0.5*(1-0.4) = 0.5*0.6 = 0.3 = 30%
I still don't agree that you would lose a minimum of 20% chance to win from a single card difference.

Evilgm
01-19-2016, 04:22 AM
I still don't agree that you would lose a minimum of 20% chance to win from a single card difference.

Here's MGTO analysis from 56000 games (http://www.mtggoldfish.com/metagame/breakdown/standard) that shows that an On the Play win percentage goes from almost 55% to just under 40%. It also shows that 6 card mulligans happen in 30% of games, but that is a figure that could vary greatly depending on the environment.

Gregangel
01-19-2016, 04:26 AM
Idea : and why not add a simple rule in the shuffling engine that say : "no more than 3 shards in a row in the deck" instead of looking for wild solutions ?

RCDv57
01-19-2016, 05:18 AM
The way I see it mulligans are a subtle way to punish players for poor deck-building.
There is always bad luck, but in general the worse the deck the more often it will need to mulligan.

It is a good thing to slap the player around a bit for things like that. The hope is that players will strive to improve themselves in order to avoid future punishments. When we look at the issue in this light creative alternatives may be found.

The balance of this punishment is very important.
Too harsh, and new players will just stop playing.
Too light, then expert players may be able to exploit the system.

The current system works rather well, and is very simple to understand.
However it is incredibly unforgiving after multiple mulligans, a result of a bad deck or rather bad luck.
With that in mind I would like to propose the following:

Initial Draw: Draw up to your hand limit. (7 cards)
Muligan 1: Draw up to your hand limit -1. (6 cards, 6-0)
Muligan 2: Draw up to your hand limit -1. One card is Hidden (6 cards, 5-1)
Muligan 3: Draw up to your hand limit -2. (5 cards, 5-0)
Muligan 4: Draw up to your hand limit -2. One card is Hidden (5 cards, 4-1)
Muligan 5: Draw up to your hand limit -2. Two cards are Hidden (5 cards, 3-2)
Muligan 6: Draw up to your hand limit -3. One card is Hidden (4 cards, 3-1)
Muligan 7: Draw up to your hand limit -3. Two cards are Hidden (4 cards, 2-2)
Muligan 8&9: Repeat mulligan 7
Muligan 10: Draw one card. Player must keep this hand.

Hidden Cards: A random card from the hand is marked with a giant "?" It is revealed when the Hand is accepted.

The Major changes in this system are on mulligans 2 and 3. Minor change on mulligan 5.
Mulligan 1: It is important to preserve both the card loss and information loss here. This initial punishment has to be big enough for player to not want to try to abuse the system.
Between mulligans 1&2: The player loses only card information. This is the most punishing step of the current system, and is not enjoyable. The changes made here should help evenly distribute the pains of mulligans.
Between mulligans 2&3: The player only loses card advantage.
Between mulligans 4&5: The player loses information over advantage again. Dropping below a 5 card hand is very disheartening for new players. Expert players that reach this stage are likely trying to exploit the system with by starting a strong combo. I believe that the limitation of information is significant enough to counter those strategies, but it will need testing.
Mulligan 7-9: Starting with a 3 card hand is painful. Knowing less than 2 of your starting cards is also painful. This does however open up some very limited strategies for experts to exploit.
Mulligan 10: Player is an expert trying to abuse Demented Demolisher. Punish with extreme prejudice.


I've been up for 40 hours straight, not sure if my logic is still good. With some tweaks from a real designer, I think this could work. It also wouldn't stir up too much trouble if implemented. Probably.

Gregangel
01-19-2016, 06:39 AM
Anecdotally, I have pitched this game to many, many people who would be casual players. The #1 question I get asked is "does it have the same resource system as MTG?" I explain the threshold differ

I had a game recently where I drew 13 resources out of 20 cards, in a deck containing a 17/40 split. This wouldn't be fixed by any mulligan rule, but it was still frustrating and ridiculous. Sometimes you don't want to be the 0.48%.

That s why, i think is not the mulligan rules which need to be fixed.
The game need to break the RNG shuffling engine a bit instead by introducting a very simple rules : no more than 3 shards in a row in any given deck if possible.
With this rule : better shard distribution in your deck so less shard screwed or flood, with the certainty to hit a non shard after 3 shard draws

Hex is arguing to be not bound to paper tcg, this would be a another exemple if that. Shuffling assisted by computer

Pixel
01-19-2016, 07:15 AM
Some of these mulligan alternatives are hurting my brain :) Just too complicated i'm afraid.
If it is changed, i believe it needs to be simple and succint. No solution is going to fix all the shard and screw games players have to endure sometimes, but even a simple change that reduces these games has to be considered does'nt it?
In the end, HEX is a game and games are supposed to be fun. Screw and flood are not fun for anyone and any slight change to the system that reduces these odds a little must be a good thing.
I do not believe HEX are going to change the mulligan system - they will just add more cards that can reduce your odds of shard screw. We have a few already. These cards will not help flood though, but most people seem to be more concerned with shard screw, which is generally the killer, not flood.

Personally, i think starting the game with two hands and picking one is quite interesting. Players say this will help combo decks too much but your opponent also has more options to reply to your combo deck so perhaps this makes it fairly even?

Perhaps HEX will create a new troop archetype that can be played as a troop or a shard!

Svenn
01-19-2016, 07:21 AM
Idea : and why not add a simple rule in the shuffling engine that say : "no more than 3 shards in a row in the deck" instead of looking for wild solutions ?

These type of solutions have been suggested over and over. The problem is that you are essentially stacking the deck and completely screwing balance (essentially guaranteeing a good spread of resources, which is NOT supposed to happen). This happens in MTG, it's called Mana Weaving... and it's cheating. On top of that, you can exploit any rules like that through deck building to take advantage of it.

Also, what happens if I make a Tetzot deck with 56 shards and 4 charge bots or something? How would that work?

wolzarg
01-19-2016, 07:22 AM
Personally, i think starting the game with two hands and picking one is quite interesting. Players say this will help combo decks too much but your opponent also has more options to reply to your combo deck so perhaps this makes it fairly even?
As far as combo goes right now sure but it limits the design space considerably going forward real combo decks are usually not only fast but also non interactive so most of the time they will go off before you can even stop them if both hands are decent. Other times they will have the protection to stop your interaction and since they only have to focus on this one thing in their entire deck its easier for them to putt in protection than for you to putt in interaction.

Pixel
01-19-2016, 07:29 AM
Not sure there are too many combo decks that are that good. TM was obviously a problem and it was banned. What combo decks are there at the moment that your opponents cannot answer with the right cards? (especially after sideboarding after game 1).

malloc31
01-19-2016, 07:30 AM
Just allow the shuffler to shard weave, with a computer if could be done in a random completely unpredictable way.

It would have minor effects on the meta but so will any kind of change ever.

This would remove many of the most unenjoyable moments from the game and make it more fun.

Svenn
01-19-2016, 07:33 AM
Not sure there are too many combo decks that are that good. TM was obviously a problem and it was banned. What combo decks are there at the moment that your opponents cannot answer with the right cards? (especially after sideboarding after game 1).

Doesn't matter what there is now... changing the rules to something that heavily favors combo means that a) if we do get good combo decks in the future they will dominate/be banned and b) it will limit design space as the devs will try to avoid creating the previous situation.

Svenn
01-19-2016, 07:35 AM
Just allow the shuffler to shard weave, with a computer if could be done in a random completely unpredictable way.

It would have minor effects on the meta but so will any kind of change ever.

This would remove many of the most unenjoyable moments from the game and make it more fun.

No. Just no. First of all, I would love to see your algorithm for "random completely unpredictable" shard weaving. Second, guaranteeing resources would totally ruin the game. Imagine if you were all but guaranteed to be able to drop your 5, 6, or 7 drops damn near turns 5, 6, or 7? That would NOT be a good thing.

Gregangel
01-19-2016, 07:35 AM
Also, what happens if I make a Tetzot deck with 56 shards and 4 charge bots or something? How would that work?


The rule would only apply if the deck allows it and would be checked at every moment of the game when shuffling is initiate

Pixel
01-19-2016, 07:41 AM
Does it favour combo decks? Perhaps choosing from 2 starting hands favours aggro or control as well. Still depends what you were dealt. I may have been dealt all the cards i need to counter your combo deck or have all the cards to stomp you quickly with my aggro deck? Just favouring combo decks seems incorrect to me. It probably does help certain deck types but just combo?

Anyway, thought it was an interesting idea. Do not believe for a second they are going to implement it :)

Jormungandr
01-19-2016, 07:56 AM
I don't mind losing to RNG - I do mind when I cannot play anything because I had to mull to 4 neever seeing a shard.

I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I don't understand what you mean by this. Losing because you mulliganed to 4 and never saw a shard is probably the purest form of losing to RNG you can come up with. What do you mean by losing to RNG if not that?

Pixel
01-19-2016, 08:03 AM
I think RNG is generally considered to be when you opponent top decks what he needs to swing or win the game. Or Spider RNG! Drawing that one card he needs is pure RNG. Shard screw is kind of RNG but not quite the same.

LargoLaGrande
01-19-2016, 08:07 AM
Does it favour combo decks? Perhaps choosing from 2 starting hands favours aggro or control as well. Still depends what you were dealt. I may have been dealt all the cards i need to counter your combo deck or have all the cards to stomp you quickly with my aggro deck? Just favouring combo decks seems incorrect to me. It probably does help certain deck types but just combo?

Anyway, thought it was an interesting idea. Do not believe for a second they are going to implement it :)

In a vacuum it helps aggro and combo more since those decks want to win off the top 1/6th of their deck. Ensuring that the first 7 is a good mix of shards and business helps a lot (or that the first 7 includes the key combo piece). Two random starting hands raises the chance of seeing a 4-of in your starting hand from ~39% to ~63% so if all you need to do to win is cast Titania's Majesty then this change would help a lot.

On the other hand, Hex isn't played in a vacuum so who benefits from a more relaxed mulligan is matchup dependent. How hard of a time does the aggro/combo deck have dealing with sideboard card X? Because now your opponent has even odds of seeing a specific one in the opener. If you can't fight through multiple answers then even ensuring you hit the perfect mix of shards/non-shards won't help when your opponent can all but guarantee they start the game with multiple answers into some kind of stabilizer.

Jormungandr
01-19-2016, 08:15 AM
I think RNG is generally considered to be when you opponent top decks what he needs to swing or win the game. Or Spider RNG! Drawing that one card he needs is pure RNG. Shard screw is kind of RNG but not quite the same.

I guess I've generally just heard that referred to as top decking. (Well, and as #@%&! spiders. :) ) But that answers my question at least. Thanks!

bootlace
01-19-2016, 08:17 AM
You just said it. You want to change consistency without changing consistency.

I didn't say anything of that sort. I said I would like to change the 'consistency' (if you want me to use your words) of only the totally game deciding screw before the game has even properly started. This doesn't have to be related at all to the 'consistency' within the mid to late game - which many would agree is good for the game since it makes every game different. Point being: you can directly target the starting unluckiness without affecting the mid to late game randomness. Meaning: take out the bad luck and keep the 'good' luck in there. So while missing your third shard for 5 turns or mulliganing to 4 because of unbelievably bad draws is no fun, missing your 8th shard for that Mass Polymorph Dingler is perfectly fine or even your 5th shard/3rd Wild for that game saving Crocosaur.


Actually, Champion life totals are NOT a core mechanic, but a balance number. First of all, the Champion charge powers were not all equal, so this could be used to balance that out. However, I'm still not sure whether it helped or hurt.

I didn't say they were a core 'mechanic' but they are most certainly a core part of the game. And probably even more influential of a single area than even the resource system. You're telling me whether we had 10 or 30 life starting total the game and cards within it wouldn't take a whole new meaning? Think about a 'Red Deck Wins' type of burn deck - don't you think the starting life total has a TREMENDOUS significance. With 10 health it becomes the number 1 broken deck in the meta, at 30 health its complete garbage. Every single number you see in the game, from the damage number on a spell to the attack number of troops was designed around a 20 life starting total. If we had a 200 health starting total you know what would happen if they wanted to games to last a similar amount of time (which is a very important metric to control)? They would multiply all the troop attack/defense and spell numbers by 10. If starting life was 40, you would double everything - so the cards and their abilities are directly correlated with health totals, don't tell me it doesn't have a big impact.

We just saw someone win an IQ with a totally new champion - having 25% more life than before (and seeing Ruby decks health total reduced even lower) probably had something to do with that - which is a direct evidence of life totals affecting the meta. Meanwhile I have yet to see any substance from your theorycrafting that some mulligan system would break the game/meta, it's all your personal opinion (oh, that would help aggro decks too much, definitely!!), without any proof, math, nothing. I'm not saying you should go out and do those things because they take actual time and research/testing, but how you can speak so surely without having done any of the research is beyond me.

And the funny part is even if you end up being right and aggro decks all of a sudden become a bit better- so what? The meta is constantly changing and it's actually a good thing to have different archetypes leading the meta at different points. It would be hella boring to always see aggro or combo or control decks on top. Even if the current batch of aggro cards were way too strong and it would lead to an unhealthy meta (severely doubt that), they could always balance new cards around this concept or even use other dials in their design space (such as champion healths) to balance around the new mulligan rules or whatever idea comes out of this. They could even design the new mulligan rules by preventing aggro decks from using it somehow (for example if it every different mulligan rule was a gem you could put in your champion, you could make the ones that Ruby decks would exploit not available to them through threshold or other requirements). Your stance that the game would break with any possible change and hence we can't even entertain ANY possible ideas is incredibly close minded.



They changed it a bunch... and ended up with what we have now. The small tweak they made recently, as I pointed out, didn't solve the "problem" or make everyone happy.

You don't need to make everyone happy. They could give away free money and not everyone would be happy, that's not the point. You're trying to improve the game, which means things like making it 1) more accessible/welcoming to people 2) reduce the negative play experiences 3) make it a better spectator eSport 4) not let dumb luck which players have no control over decide outcomes etc..

Pixel
01-19-2016, 08:33 AM
I think HEX just needs a tweak or so to the mulligan system to make the game better and more people will be happier.

I would be interested in a poll asking players if they think the mulligan system should be changed. What do you think would be the percentage of people who would like it completely unchanged?

There is no perfect solution - it does not exist. But getting a larger percentage of people happier with the mulligan system should be the goal for HEX. There must be a slight problem with it due to the large amount of discussion it has always generated!

I don't believe changing the mulligan system would be so controversial now - after the recent major changes to the game. (17 card drafts & hero life totals)

The game is a different game to the one it was based upon now ;)

Tinfoil
01-19-2016, 08:51 AM
Another idea (sorry, I havn't read the whole thread):

Make more reliably fixers. For example (not necessarily balanced):

Magnifying Lens
uncommon resource
Gain 1/1 resources

Effect: If you have three or more Magnifying Lens in your deck at the beginning of your turn you may put a random one on top of your deck.

This should be a pretty effective fixer to hit your curve, but the cost is a missing charge and threshold. Currently, Arcane Focus is imo the best "fixer" or "deck stabiliser" in the game and I think it serves as inspiration to change this problem with cards rather than rules. With a solution like the above you gain increased stability at the cost of a bit of power.

I might have missed some obvious flaw, but solving this with cards is more in the spirit of Hex than changing the rules.

Svenn
01-19-2016, 09:59 AM
I didn't say anything of that sort. I said I would like to change the 'consistency' (if you want me to use your words) of only the totally game deciding screw before the game has even properly started. This doesn't have to be related at all to the 'consistency' within the mid to late game - which many would agree is good for the game since it makes every game different. Point being: you can directly target the starting unluckiness without affecting the mid to late game randomness. Meaning: take out the bad luck and keep the 'good' luck in there. So while missing your third shard for 5 turns or mulliganing to 4 because of unbelievably bad draws is no fun, missing your 8th shard for that Mass Polymorph Dingler is perfectly fine or even your 5th shard/3rd Wild for that game saving Crocosaur.

I found the breakdown in communication. Changing this consistency is affecting the consistency of the whole game... if it's easier to get your initial resources then you can more consistently get higher resources.

Zophie
01-19-2016, 10:34 AM
The current system works rather well, and is very simple to understand.
However it is incredibly unforgiving after multiple mulligans, a result of a bad deck or rather bad luck.
With that in mind I would like to propose the following:

Initial Draw: Draw up to your hand limit. (7 cards)
Muligan 1: Draw up to your hand limit -1. (6 cards, 6-0)
Muligan 2: Draw up to your hand limit -1. One card is Hidden (6 cards, 5-1)
Muligan 3: Draw up to your hand limit -2. (5 cards, 5-0)
Muligan 4: Draw up to your hand limit -2. One card is Hidden (5 cards, 4-1)
Muligan 5: Draw up to your hand limit -2. Two cards are Hidden (5 cards, 3-2)
Muligan 6: Draw up to your hand limit -3. One card is Hidden (4 cards, 3-1)
Muligan 7: Draw up to your hand limit -3. Two cards are Hidden (4 cards, 2-2)
Muligan 8&9: Repeat mulligan 7
Muligan 10: Draw one card. Player must keep this hand.

Hidden Cards: A random card from the hand is marked with a giant "?" It is revealed when the Hand is accepted.

The Major changes in this system are on mulligans 2 and 3. Minor change on mulligan 5.
Mulligan 1: It is important to preserve both the card loss and information loss here. This initial punishment has to be big enough for player to not want to try to abuse the system.
Between mulligans 1&2: The player loses only card information. This is the most punishing step of the current system, and is not enjoyable. The changes made here should help evenly distribute the pains of mulligans.
Between mulligans 2&3: The player only loses card advantage.
Between mulligans 4&5: The player loses information over advantage again. Dropping below a 5 card hand is very disheartening for new players. Expert players that reach this stage are likely trying to exploit the system with by starting a strong combo. I believe that the limitation of information is significant enough to counter those strategies, but it will need testing.
Mulligan 7-9: Starting with a 3 card hand is painful. Knowing less than 2 of your starting cards is also painful. This does however open up some very limited strategies for experts to exploit.
Mulligan 10: Player is an expert trying to abuse Demented Demolisher. Punish with extreme prejudice.


I've been up for 40 hours straight, not sure if my logic is still good. With some tweaks from a real designer, I think this could work. It also wouldn't stir up too much trouble if implemented. Probably.

Interesting idea, might need an pictogram or something to explain to some people, but it makes sense to me and I see what you're trying to accomplish there.

Also get some sleep!

Tazelbain
01-19-2016, 10:54 AM
Initial Draw: Draw up to your hand limit. (7 cards)
Muligan 1: Draw up to your hand limit -1. (6 cards, 6-0)
Muligan 2: Draw up to your hand limit -1. One card is Hidden (6 cards, 5-1)
Muligan 3: Draw up to your hand limit -2. (5 cards, 5-0)
Muligan 4: Draw up to your hand limit -2. One card is Hidden (5 cards, 4-1)
Muligan 5: Draw up to your hand limit -2. Two cards are Hidden (5 cards, 3-2)
Muligan 6: Draw up to your hand limit -3. One card is Hidden (4 cards, 3-1)
Muligan 7: Draw up to your hand limit -3. Two cards are Hidden (4 cards, 2-2)
Muligan 8&9: Repeat mulligan 7
Muligan 10: Draw one card. Player must keep this hand.
Intesting stuff.

I'd go with
0: 7show
1: 6show 1hid
2: 5show 2hid
3: 4show 2hid
4: 3show 2hid
etc.

So the combo players have exactly same info as they have now, but you don't start losing CA until your 3rd mull.

malloc31
01-19-2016, 12:08 PM
No. Just no. First of all, I would love to see your algorithm for "random completely unpredictable" shard weaving. Second, guaranteeing resources would totally ruin the game. Imagine if you were all but guaranteed to be able to drop your 5, 6, or 7 drops damn near turns 5, 6, or 7? That would NOT be a good thing.

First of as one possible algorrithm (right off the top of my head and in no way an optimized one) would be calculate the portion of the deck that is shards, for this example let's say 24 shards in 60 cards, so 4 of every 10 cards are shards. divide shards and non-shards into 2 decks, shuffle both decks. divide each deck into groups (in this case each shard group will be a group of 4 and each non-shard group will be a group of 6). Pair off the groups and shuffle them together, and then finally stack the groups. This would yeild 4 shards in every 1/6 of the deck but in your first 14 cards you could have anywhere from 4 to 8 shards. And I said there would probably be more optimal methods, it could all be tried out.

So no in no way would it "all but guaranteed to be able to drop your 5, 6, or 7 drops damn near turns 5, 6, or 7"

People think that the only way to have a non-100% random deck is to have a 100% non-random deck, there are tons of ways in between the 2 extremes, many that you would never even notice if the developers didn't tell you they had done it.

Jensling
01-19-2016, 12:09 PM
Anything that lets you mulligan (even more so multiple times) without losing cards favors combo-decks though...

Jormungandr
01-19-2016, 12:23 PM
First of as one possible algorrithm (right off the top of my head and in no way an optimized one) would be calculate the portion of the deck that is shards, for this example let's say 24 shards in 60 cards, so 4 of every 10 cards are shards. divide shards and non-shards into 2 decks, shuffle both decks. divide each deck into groups (in this case each shard group will be a group of 4 and each non-shard group will be a group of 6). Pair off the groups and shuffle them together, and then finally stack the groups. This would yeild 4 shards in every 1/6 of the deck but in your first 14 cards you could have anywhere from 4 to 8 shards. And I said there would probably be more optimal methods, it could all be tried out.

So no in no way would it "all but guaranteed to be able to drop your 5, 6, or 7 drops damn near turns 5, 6, or 7"

People think that the only way to have a non-100% random deck is to have a 100% non-random deck, there are tons of ways in between the 2 extremes, many that you would never even notice if the developers didn't tell you they had done it.

With the example & method you outlined you would be 100% to hit your shards on the first 4 turns. Since there are 4 shards in the top 10 cards of your deck, guaranteed, you'd draw 7 (and have at least 1 shard in that draw) and then draw at least 3 more cards during the first 4 turns of the game, getting you to at least 10 cards drawn, and thus 4 shards drawn in those 10.

This is not the end of the world, necessarily, but that would affect deck building a bit.

I know you said your system wasn't optimized, so I don't want to spend too much time with specific problems inherent to the system, but another example is if you have 12 shards in your deck. Those would be split into 2 per 10 cards, similar to the example you outlined with 24. You would still have a high chance to have at least one shard in your initial draw (around 93%) and you would know that you'd have exactly 2 shards in your first 10 cards. This would be quite good for aggro decks, as you'd have 8 creatures/spells & 2 lands in your first 10 cards, and 16 & 4 in your first 20.

That would have a reasonably significant effect on deckbuilding. And, again, I know it's just an example off the top of your head. I just wanted to give a quick rundown on what that simple example would change, and how that would affect deckbuilding.

Tazelbain
01-19-2016, 12:32 PM
Anything that lets you mulligan (even more so multiple times) without losing cards favors combo-decks though...But combos aren't a problem right now and the one time it was was because Hex printed a one card combo. Hex can improve the mullgan system *and* not print silly combos. Mulligans deciding games is a common occurrence today, combos are not.

If can someone name a combo on the verge wrecking meta if mulligans weren't so oppressive, please name it. Otherwise it just a bogeyman man used to spread FUD.

malloc31
01-19-2016, 12:32 PM
With the example & method you outlined you would be 100% to hit your shards on the first 4 turns. Since there are 4 shards in the top 10 cards of your deck, guaranteed, you'd draw 7 (and have at least 1 shard in that draw) and then draw at least 3 more cards during the first 4 turns of the game, getting you to at least 10 cards drawn, and thus 4 shards drawn in those 10.

This is not the end of the world, necessarily, but that would affect deck building a bit.

I know you said your system wasn't optimized, so I don't want to spend too much time with specific problems inherent to the system, but another example is if you have 12 shards in your deck. Those would be split into 2 per 10 cards, similar to the example you outlined with 24. You would still have a high chance to have at least one shard in your initial draw (around 93%) and you would know that you'd have exactly 2 shards in your first 10 cards. This would be quite good for aggro decks, as you'd have 8 creatures/spells & 2 lands in your first 10 cards, and 16 & 4 in your first 20.

That would have a reasonably significant effect on deckbuilding. And, again, I know it's just an example off the top of your head. I just wanted to give a quick rundown on what that simple example would change, and how that would affect deckbuilding.

As I said and you acknowledged, this is just something I came up with in 2 minutes, not some optimal method, it could be adjusted, group sizes could be increased or decreased, or other methods could be used, I am just showing there are ways to do it.

You are right that it will have at least a small effect on the meta, but I believe anything done at all will have at least a small effect on the meta. (though as you showed it would be helpful to both agro and slower decks in different ways, and that agro deck would still be risking those 2 shards being the last 2 of the ten and not playing anything for a bit or mulliganing)

I do think overall it would add to the fun of the game by taking away a lot of the "pulling my hair out, I am so pissed at getting 10 shards in a row" moments.

Svenn
01-19-2016, 12:34 PM
But combos aren't a problem right now and the one time it was was because Hex printed a one card combo. Hex can improve the mullgan system *and* not print silly combos. Mulligans deciding games is a common occurrence today, combos are not.

If can someone name a combo on the verge wrecking meta if mulligans weren't so oppressive, please name it. Otherwise it just a bogeyman man used to spread FUD.

This is very short sighted thinking.

Combo might not be the top tier right now, but I don't want to implement changes that would force them to avoid printing any combo stuff. Not to mention that it's likely combos will emerge even without them trying as new sets are added... and I'd rather not have that wreck anything when it does happen.

Tazelbain
01-19-2016, 12:37 PM
If one fears change one can always come up hypothetical scenarios to justify avoiding change.

Svenn
01-19-2016, 12:39 PM
As I said and you acknowledged, this is just something I came up with in 2 minutes, not some optimal method, it could be adjusted, group sizes could be increased or decreased, or other methods could be used, I am just showing there are ways to do it.

I feel like we're just going round in circles at this point. All kinds of methods of stacking the deck (which is what this is) have been discussed to death in the past. There still hasn't been a suggestion that would fix the problem without being exploitable or wrecking the balance.

Saying "Well, here's one suggestion that wouldn't work, just to show that there is one that works" is flawed logic.

malloc31
01-19-2016, 12:44 PM
Just to add, and make it a little easier to see how it would be optimized.

In my first example I made the decks into groups of 10 cards, with normalized amounts of shards and non-shards, this was done by dividing the deck by 6, you may think this was too non-random, other options exist by dividing by numbers other then 6.

For example dividing by 2 will give 2 30 card groups (in the case of a 24/60 deck each group would be 12/30 (shard/total). This would give almost no difference from how it is now.

now imagine trying all these different ones many times and finding a number between 2 and 6 that made this feel random but with less screw then we have now.

malloc31
01-19-2016, 12:47 PM
I feel like we're just going round in circles at this point. All kinds of methods of stacking the deck (which is what this is) have been discussed to death in the past. There still hasn't been a suggestion that would fix the problem without being exploitable or wrecking the balance.

Saying "Well, here's one suggestion that wouldn't work, just to show that there is one that works" is flawed logic.

No, that is just not true, every time any method has been suggested people like you just say NO!, we can't have this it would be different, so it must be terrible" how can a method like I am proposing be exploitable? (lets say with dividing by 4.5 (with rounding and one group smaller), how can you say with out testing it?

poizonous
01-19-2016, 12:49 PM
You can not fix shard screw or flood without specifically stacking cards in a deck. No suggestion will ever make sense in that area

malloc31
01-19-2016, 12:57 PM
You can not fix shard screw or flood without specifically stacking cards in a deck. No suggestion will ever make sense in that area

you can decrease the probability of it.

there is a sliding scale with complete randomness and highest probability of shard screw on one end and on the other end no randomness and no screw. But do not have to choose one end or the other you can take a middle ground as I have outlined above.

Svenn
01-19-2016, 01:00 PM
No, that is just not true, every time any method has been suggested people like you just say NO!, we can't have this it would be different, so it must be terrible" how can a method like I am proposing be exploitable? (lets say with dividing by 4.5 (with rounding and one group smaller), how can you say with out testing it?

4.5... so stacks of 13 and one 8? I make an aggro deck with 8-10 shards. Almost guaranteed one shard in opening hand with my second shard coming quickly (if not in the opening hand) followed by threat after threat. Exploited.

More like people like me point out flaws and people like you shout "stop! this totally works and you're wrong because of unknown reasons!"

Kayas42
01-19-2016, 01:07 PM
Mana flood/screw isn't the issue here.

My personal thought is that Hex a card game which inherently includes probability. Things like "deck stacking" are ridiculous notions which go completely against the concept of a probability driven game. Probability is going to win sometimes and that's fact. However, deck construction can mitigate your chances of drawing badly some of the time which is why cards like threshold fixers, shard search cards and filters like Arcane Focus or Peek exist.

Deck thinning also allows you to increase the probability of drawing a better card by thinning out things like Shards from your deck. Thus far there have been few deck thinning tools such as Chlorophylia. But they are strong and should be looked for in the future.

malloc31
01-19-2016, 01:10 PM
4.5... so stacks of 13 and one 8? I make an aggro deck with 8-10 shards. Almost guaranteed one shard in opening hand with my second shard coming quickly (if not in the opening hand) followed by threat after threat. Exploited.

More like people like me point out flaws and people like you shout "stop! this totally works and you're wrong because of unknown reasons!"

if you are willing to risk either having to mulligan often, or possibly waiting 12 turns before you draw even one shard, sure you can make that deck, but in no way will that deck be favored. You are making no sense.

Svenn
01-19-2016, 01:12 PM
if you are willing to risk either having to mulligan often, or possibly waiting 12 turns before you draw even one shard, sure you can make that deck, but in no way will that deck be favored. You are making no sense.

Opening hand is 7 cards. There are 2 shards in the first 13. I'd say my chances of getting at least one of those is pretty damned good, with the second coming not long after.

EDIT: 80% chance of 1 or more resources in opening hand. 27% of both. Mulligan and it's still a 73% chance. Chances of getting the 2 resources you need early on are extraordinarily high. Oh, and then I'm guaranteed not get more than 2 resources every 13 cards, so I can keep pumping out threats.

malloc31
01-19-2016, 01:31 PM
Opening hand is 7 cards. There are 2 shards in the first 13. I'd say my chances of getting at least one of those is pretty damned good, with the second coming not long after.

EDIT: 80% chance of 1 or more resources in opening hand. 27% of both. Mulligan and it's still a 73% chance. Chances of getting the 2 resources you need early on are extraordinarily high. Oh, and then I'm guaranteed not get more than 2 resources every 13 cards, so I can keep pumping out threats.

it is almost the exact same chance as now, 2/13 = 0.1538, or 10/60 =.1666, you just do not think about trying it now.

Thoom
01-19-2016, 01:33 PM
I feel like we're just going round in circles at this point. All kinds of methods of stacking the deck (which is what this is) have been discussed to death in the past. There still hasn't been a suggestion that would fix the problem without being exploitable or wrecking the balance.

Just to be clear, do you believe it's possible for a change to slightly modify the balance without "wrecking" it? Or is any shift in balance inherently unacceptable to you?

Svenn
01-19-2016, 01:35 PM
Just to be clear, do you believe it's possible for a change to slightly modify the balance without "wrecking" it? Or is any shift in balance inherently unacceptable to you?
I believe there are changes possible that won't wreck the balance completely, but that those changes are not significant enough to warrant implementing because they shift balance without really "fixing" the "problem".

Svenn
01-19-2016, 01:36 PM
it is almost the exact same chance as now, 2/13 = 0.1538, or 10/60 =.1666, you just do not think about trying it now.

Sorry, that's not how that works. Your math is wrong. You need to use this:
http://www.stattrek.com/online-calculator/hypergeometric.aspx

Chance to get 1 or more resources (which could include 3-7, so including flooding, and could include the other 9 being on the bottom of the deck) is only 74% and chance to get exactly 2 is 24%. 2 or more is 32%.

RDarkfire
01-19-2016, 01:40 PM
Adding new cards to deal with the issue is the way to go. Stuff like this :


Another idea (sorry, I havn't read the whole thread):

Make more reliably fixers. For example (not necessarily balanced):

Magnifying Lens
uncommon resource
Gain 1/1 resources

Effect: If you have three or more Magnifying Lens in your deck at the beginning of your turn you may put a random one on top of your deck.

This should be a pretty effective fixer to hit your curve, but the cost is a missing charge and threshold. Currently, Arcane Focus is imo the best "fixer" or "deck stabiliser" in the game and I think it serves as inspiration to change this problem with cards rather than rules. With a solution like the above you gain increased stability at the cost of a bit of power.

I might have missed some obvious flaw, but solving this with cards is more in the spirit of Hex than changing the rules.

as well as the other post about having a keyword to allow a card be played as a resource is very much in line with what HEX is trying to do at its core. It just needs to be a single keyword as well, with colons :

Bounty : { X } { shard type }, where both { X } and { shard type } are optional

Bounty means -- You may play this card as a resource card which reads "[0 / { X, or 1 if X is not defined }], RESOURCE, Gain { shard type }"

Common implementations would be "Bounty : S", or just "Bounty" or "Bounty : 1" to grant [0/1] for example.


Example cards (clearly imbalanced because I'm not a top-50 constructed player and therefore know nothing) --

1
R
Ruby Initiate
Troop - HUMAN CLERIC
Common
Bounty : R
1 / 1

2
{ no threshold }
Resource Scavenging Device
ARTIFACT
Uncommon
Bounty : 1
If you played this as an artifact, gain [0/2].

Don't see any downsides to this idea.

malloc31
01-19-2016, 01:41 PM
Sorry, that's not how that works. Your math is wrong. You need to use this:
http://www.stattrek.com/online-calculator/hypergeometric.aspx

Chance to get 1 or more resources (which could include 3-7, so including flooding) is only 74% and chance to get exactly 2 is 24%. 2 or more is 32%.

using the full math the rate as you said would be ~80%, but with a 60 card/ 10 shard deck with normal shuffling the rate is ~74% that is not a very large difference. If it is too risky now it would still be too risky. it is not taking it from say 20% to 80%, you are overstating it by a ton.

malloc31
01-19-2016, 01:43 PM
I know the straight chances of getting one card is not the full math; the reason I posted the probability of getting the one card was to show this will keep numbers some what proportional to old numbers, so you can see what I was getting at simply.

Svenn
01-19-2016, 01:45 PM
using the full math the rate as you said would be ~80%, but with a 60 card/ 10 shard deck with normal shuffling the rate is ~74% that is not a very large difference. If it is too risky now it would still be too risky. it is not taking it from say 20% to 80%, you are overstating it by a ton.

That 74% chance includes flooding and also potentially includes the possibility of not getting another resource the rest of the game. On the other hand, your suggestion means that deck can get exactly what it needs 80% of the time and then not worry about ever getting flooded and almost never getting screwed. That's a huge power increase.

malloc31
01-19-2016, 01:56 PM
with only 10 shards in your deck the chance of flooding is very very small (the chance of getting 5+ shards out of your first 10 cards in a 60 card deck is only 0.775% [ie less then 1%])

In my methods the chance of getting 2 or more shards in your first 10 cards is 57.7%.

In the old 60 card method the chance is 53.1%

it is not very different.

And as I said I just picked the number 4.5 quickly with no testing. a number could be determined that would work, if people would give it a shot.

Malcolm
01-19-2016, 01:59 PM
This has started to derail in the same Exact manner as all the other threads. " The definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results."
Since I dealt with country affecting stats in the military and have a brother who creates Chaos models for medical systems I've come up with...

1.) Svenn your challenge: YOU create a model that works with insufficient bias (.001 outliers I think would be reasonable) and will keep the wheels on how the rest of the game works.
Great scientists and mathematicians do this all the time to be able to defend attacks on their hypoths

2.) The rest of you: figure out why we cant just use MTgs change and not have the devs spend time recreating the wheel. I believe Sethanon came up with something close that looked good.
Create a new thread, possibly on Reddit where it can be controlled, crosslink from here, for Ideas and Tweaks.

If there is any doubt if its a problem then ask around, our game, other games, etc. When I want data to support Any work I do the first thing I have to do is ask: do at least 2/3 of those affected see a problem with status quo.

Zophie
01-19-2016, 02:07 PM
Mana flood/screw isn't the issue here.

My personal thought is that Hex a card game which inherently includes probability. Things like "deck stacking" are ridiculous notions which go completely against the concept of a probability driven game. Probability is going to win sometimes and that's fact. However, deck construction can mitigate your chances of drawing badly some of the time which is why cards like threshold fixers, shard search cards and filters like Arcane Focus or Peek exist.

Deck thinning also allows you to increase the probability of drawing a better card by thinning out things like Shards from your deck. Thus far there have been few deck thinning tools such as Chlorophylia. But they are strong and should be looked for in the future.

This got buried quickly, but just wanted to say well said to this. From what we've seen this is how the devs see RNG's part in Hex, and they have embraced it. It's extremely unlikely we will ever see changes to mulligans or other base mechanics, but we will see more tools in the form of cards to help with mitigation, fixing, thinning, etc.

Silvanos
01-19-2016, 02:14 PM
I don't understand the argument that any change to mulligans will break the future game due to combo/aggro becoming unbalanced. People have argued that the game is delicately balanced around the current mulligan system, yet somehow the designers would be wholly incapable of balancing future combo decks around a different mulligan system? To me, saying that a change will benefit X deck type (and therefore is invalid) is kinda odd. The changes to champion HP had pretty large effects on the viability of aggro decks, but the game still works. There is still a meta. Better mulligans for the aggro player means better mulligans for the opponent. I now have a slightly better chance of getting the Heat Wave I'm looking for, or hitting 4 shards for my Extinction.

The other straw-man here is the idea that an idea isn't worth discussing unless it "fixes" the problem. Very few people are arguing for never seeing flood/screw. Something that reduces its occurrence without majorly impacting the gameplay seems like a noble goal.

I'll live either way. I've made my peace with how Hex does things, but my major concern is losing players who hit a few "unplayable" hands in their early games and never get over. Based on a well-tuned deck, this shouldn't happen very often, but new players are unlikely to have a well-tuned deck, so its going to happen to them more than average.

The RNG of the current system gives a new player a chance against a veteran, but almost no one remembers the game when their opponent got flooded or screwed. The current system makes you remember the bad times, and not notice the good times. That doesn't seem like an ideal situation to me.

Svenn
01-19-2016, 02:30 PM
I don't understand the argument that any change to mulligans will break the future game due to combo/aggro becoming unbalanced. People have argued that the game is delicately balanced around the current mulligan system, yet somehow the designers would be wholly incapable of balancing future combo decks around a different mulligan system? To me, saying that a change will benefit X deck type (and therefore is invalid) is kinda odd. The changes to champion HP had pretty large effects on the viability of aggro decks, but the game still works. There is still a meta. Better mulligans for the aggro player means better mulligans for the opponent. I now have a slightly better chance of getting the Heat Wave I'm looking for, or hitting 4 shards for my Extinction.

The other straw-man here is the idea that an idea isn't worth discussing unless it "fixes" the problem. Very few people are arguing for never seeing flood/screw. Something that reduces its occurrence without majorly impacting the gameplay seems like a noble goal.

Reducing the occurrence of flood/screw increases the consistency of resources (this applies to the fake shard weaving stuff posted and to mulligans to increase opening hand viability). Since the game is balanced with respect to the inconsistency of resources that messes with the balance of pretty much every card that already exists.

Different people seem to disagree with this for different reasons... some don't believe the game is balanced this way (not sure how you can believe that), some seem to think there's a way to decrease inconsistency without increasing consistency (that logic doesn't work).

Champion HP change definitely changed the game, but that was a forced change, not a dev decision. Do you think it improved the game?

Vengus
01-19-2016, 03:20 PM
This has started to derail in the same Exact manner as all the other threads. " The definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results."
Since I dealt with country affecting stats in the military and have a brother who creates Chaos models for medical systems I've come up with...

1.) Svenn your challenge: YOU create a model that works with insufficient bias (.001 outliers I think would be reasonable) and will keep the wheels on how the rest of the game works.
Great scientists and mathematicians do this all the time to be able to defend attacks on their hypoths

2.) The rest of you: figure out why we cant just use MTgs change and not have the devs spend time recreating the wheel. I believe Sethanon came up with something close that looked good.
Create a new thread, possibly on Reddit where it can be controlled, crosslink from here, for Ideas and Tweaks.

If there is any doubt if its a problem then ask around, our game, other games, etc. When I want data to support Any work I do the first thing I have to do is ask: do at least 2/3 of those affected see a problem with status quo.
Considering the previous lawsuit the last thing I would do is copy a rule change from MTG.

RCDv57
01-19-2016, 04:03 PM
Makes me kinda sad that this kinda devolved into a Mana screw/flood thread. Oh well.

Intesting stuff.

I'd go with
0: 7show
1: 6show 1hid
2: 5show 2hid
3: 4show 2hid
4: 3show 2hid
etc.

So the combo players have exactly same info as they have now, but you don't start losing CA until your 3rd mull.

That runs the risk of not being a strong enough penalty. Especially without the big initial punishment.
The flow is also a little weird because it slows down then escalates back up to normal on Mulligan 3 and up.

As mentioned the system I proposed does favor Combo decks.
I understand the concern, but in competitive play it might not be a significant issue.
It would need extensive testing.

Svenn
01-19-2016, 04:06 PM
Makes me kinda sad that this kinda devolved into a Mana screw/flood thread. Oh well.

What do you mean devolved into? That's what this thread was from the start. Finding a mulligan that would prevent total flood/screw.

Svenn
01-19-2016, 04:52 PM
Let me step back a bit. I've been too harsh. I would like to help out. The first step to solving this problem is coming up with a set of clearly defined parameters for what the problem is.

How many resources in opening hand is too many? Too few? What percent of the time is it okay to be outside of those parameters? What's the threshold for X turns without being able to play a Y drop? How much of a power shift in terms of different costs is acceptable (I'll leave it up to you to define this however you want)?

These are just a few possible parameters to get you started. One of the problems with these resource threads is people are all trying to solve different problems with different ideas of what is considered acceptable. If we can get an idea of what needs to happen and what is acceptable in terms of changes then that will help determine whether possible solutions work or not.

RCDv57
01-19-2016, 04:53 PM
What do you mean devolved into? That's what this thread was from the start. Finding a mulligan that would prevent total flood/screw.

oh. right.
I guess I was reading into the actual title more than the actual OP than.
My bad.

Miwa
01-19-2016, 05:13 PM
Sounds like many people want enough resource fixing so that they can get curve screwed (and not realize it) instead.

Randomly losing games here and there from bad opening draws is a feature, not a bug. Variance is unlikely to get designed out of the start.

sukebe
01-19-2016, 06:35 PM
Reducing the occurrence of flood/screw increases the consistency of resources (this applies to the fake shard weaving stuff posted and to mulligans to increase opening hand viability). Since the game is balanced with respect to the inconsistency of resources that messes with the balance of pretty much every card that already exists.

Different people seem to disagree with this for different reasons... some don't believe the game is balanced this way (not sure how you can believe that), some seem to think there's a way to decrease inconsistency without increasing consistency (that logic doesn't work).

Champion HP change definitely changed the game, but that was a forced change, not a dev decision. Do you think it improved the game?

this is kind of off topic but I think the different health totals improved the game. it makes balancing champion powers considerably easier without limiting the their scope or range of power.

I do agree with the rest of your post as well. I still say the best way to "fix" resources are by working within the system by making more shard fixing cards and even deck thinning cards as mentioned above.

ev1lb0b
01-19-2016, 09:14 PM
Sounds like many people want enough resource fixing so that they can get curve screwed (and not realize it) instead.

Randomly losing games here and there from bad opening draws is a feature, not a bug. Variance is unlikely to get designed out of the start.

lol @ feature....i am sure this frustrating 'feature' will bring the $$ poring in...

wolzarg
01-19-2016, 09:30 PM
lol @ feature....i am sure this frustrating 'feature' will bring the $$ poring in...
It absolutely will when people realize it makes this not a pile of dung like certain other games where you get a resource every turn and the rng screw is just as bad based on curve instead.

Sithos
01-19-2016, 10:59 PM
I've constantly asked why 1 free mulligan per best of 3 match up would be a terrible thing.

I have yet to have a single person explain to me why 1 free mulligan per best of 3 match up would be a broken thing.

havocattack
01-20-2016, 12:03 AM
I've constantly asked why 1 free mulligan per best of 3 match up would be a terrible thing.

I have yet to have a single person explain to me why 1 free mulligan per best of 3 match up would be a broken thing.

Sounds like it COULD be ok, would require testing...

As I've said before, its an archaic issue that shouldn't be in a game which has plenty of design space to improve on it. I just hope that HXE are open to the idea of tweaking the mulligan system, even if far in the future.

publicuser
01-20-2016, 12:07 AM
Show me 2 seven-card hands. Let me pick between them. No mulligans. Boom. Solved.

Seems like a good idea. If implemented, it will at least lessen the mulligan discussion. :D

Pixel
01-20-2016, 02:22 AM
Any kind of deck stacking or shuffling algorithm is never going to be implemented. Not sure why we are still discussing it.
Go's against the essence of a card game, which is the complete randomness of the cards.

Screw and flood should still be possible due to the nature of a card game - just reduce it slightly so the vast population that play the game are slightly happier. Thats the best you can hope for i'm afraid.

Personally, the 2 best options i have seen are:
1 free mulligan per 3 game match.
2 hands to choose from and you get to pick one.

You stil may get screwed or flooded as the cards are still completely random - just slightly less chance.

Advantageous to combo decks? Well thats another discussion and I still do not believe it is conclussive.

havocattack
01-20-2016, 03:42 AM
Ok, so how about this...

Each player is presented with 7 cards as seen in the image below (disregard that they are all comet strikes :P)

http://i.imgur.com/ofddKUP.jpg

The player then has 3 options:

Option 1: Take the 4 cards within the red box and draw the next 3 cards to complete their hand.
Option 2: Take the 4 cards within the blue box and draw the next 3 cards to complete their hand.
Option 3: Take all 7

After picking one of these options, the players then get to choose to mulligan or keep as we have it now.

Upsides:
- Slightly increases chance of getting playable hands
- Still able to mulligan with penalties.

Downsides:
- ?
- Let me know ;)

Alternatively, it could be 2 cards at the top and bottom, with 3 in the middle (which would force the player to take those 3). Many possible options...

*updated OP with this idea also

wolzarg
01-20-2016, 03:53 AM
I agree with havoc we should give everyone 7 comet strikes as a starting hand so people stop getting stuck.

havocattack
01-20-2016, 03:54 AM
XD

Fateanomaly
01-20-2016, 04:01 AM
Perhaps they can have a dungeon where they can test different mulligan ideas.

havocattack
01-20-2016, 04:01 AM
They could potentially implement some ideas they like, let players select which system they want to use in proving ground games and we test for them while they collect data and feedback ^_^

So basically, you could challenge a friend or whatever and have an option for STANDARD, Idea1, Idea2... would be a good way to test over a long period of time (imo) and doesn't get in the way of anything :)

Pixel
01-20-2016, 05:17 AM
I have looked at every single alternative people have come up with.
Still yet to see a simpler and sensible alternatiave to: 1 free mulligan per 3 game match.
Has strategic value as well. You have a slightly below average but playable hand - do you use your free mulligan?
Seems sensible and I believe will make the game even more interesting with this simple change.

Showsni
01-20-2016, 05:18 AM
If you want to play a game where you can guarantee drawing whatever you want, play Pokémon.

Jensling
01-20-2016, 06:23 AM
At any time that players get to choose which cards they get in hand for free, combo decks will be favored, at any time players can get resources for free, aggro decks will be favored.

Yes it is annoying when you get those rare games in which you are completely screwed from the start, but it's a system that is balanced, and it's a system that the game have been built around in terms of balancing as well as how the resource/treshold/charge mechanics work.

Pixel
01-20-2016, 06:38 AM
I thought all the cards were balanced around 20 life totals?
They changed that and said the game was still balanced. I found that a bit strange.
Just saying that you can tweak the mulligan system and still keep a balanced game.

malloc31
01-20-2016, 06:45 AM
Many people keep saying we have to either have complete randomness or a totally determined deck, or that it must be to be a true card game.

The only reason all TCGs had random shuffling is because it is the only physical way to shuffle other then putting them into a predetermined order. With the shuffling being done by a computer there are an infinite ways we can achieve some combination of randomness, while still having some amount of weighted chances of different outcomes.

If you want to say you don't want any change to the shuffler do to personal preference, fine we all have our likes and dislikes, but stop saying it is impossible to change it and still have a random game, because that is not true at all.

wolzarg
01-20-2016, 07:11 AM
Many people keep saying we have to either have complete randomness or a totally determined deck, or that it must be to be a true card game.

The only reason all TCGs had random shuffling is because it is the only physical way to shuffle other then putting them into a predetermined order. With the shuffling being done by a computer there are an infinite ways we can achieve some combination of randomness, while still having some amount of weighted chances of different outcomes.

If you want to say you don't want any change to the shuffler do to personal preference, fine we all have our likes and dislikes, but stop saying it is impossible to change it and still have a random game, because that is not true at all.
Actually for some suggestions it is if i am guaranteed 3 resources by turn 4 the randomness is now so severely decreased it can't be called random any more,any kind of specific weaving will have a effect similar to this.

Svenn
01-20-2016, 07:57 AM
Many people keep saying we have to either have complete randomness or a totally determined deck, or that it must be to be a true card game.

The only reason all TCGs had random shuffling is because it is the only physical way to shuffle other then putting them into a predetermined order. With the shuffling being done by a computer there are an infinite ways we can achieve some combination of randomness, while still having some amount of weighted chances of different outcomes.

If you want to say you don't want any change to the shuffler do to personal preference, fine we all have our likes and dislikes, but stop saying it is impossible to change it and still have a random game, because that is not true at all.

I'm going to use your previous suggestion as an example to point out why this isn't really the case.

Using your previous method with 4.5 (4 piles of 13 and a pile of 8 in a 60 card deck)... A normal 25 shard deck is guaranteed 5 resources by turn 6 with a very high chance of getting all 5 by turn 5. Every single game. I hope I don't need to explain why guaranteeing people to be able to hit drops up to 5 cost is a bad thing.

So, tweak the numbers... the more numbers of piles you go the more predictable your draws become and the easier it gets to exploit (even at 4.5 it's too predictable, and more piles means more predictability). The less piles you use the more you get back towards random which doesn't solve anything (Drop just a little bit to 3, for example, and your chances of flood/screw are nearly the same as not using that shuffling method at all, chances of 3 shards in a 24-26 card deck change by maybe a couple percent at best).

No matter what size you use there will be times where you can predict with 100% certainty whether the top card of your deck is a resource or not (and even in cases where you aren't 100% you have a much higher than normal chance to guess at it)... which is actually a pretty big deal (mainly for anything that would interact with the top card of your deck, giving you more information than you should have, but just in general that changes many decisions).

Basically, either you are weaving the deck to the point where it becomes too predictable which leads to easy exploiting or it's sufficiently random to the point where you can't even really tell the difference between that and a pure random shuffler. If there is a solution, shard weaving is not it.

And this all leads back to my earlier post. People are in here trying to discuss solutions, but everyone is not on the same page. It's pretty hard to work together on solving a problem when you can't even agree on what the problem is.

loopholist3
01-20-2016, 01:06 PM
Basically, either you are weaving the deck to the point where it becomes too predictable which leads to easy exploiting or it's sufficiently random to the point where you can't even really tell the difference between that and a pure random shuffler. If there is a solution, shard weaving is not it.

I am not defending malloc's exact method. But, you could weave it so that it is predictable rare enough that building a deck to exploit the predictability is unfeasible.

Svenn
01-20-2016, 01:20 PM
I am not defending malloc's exact method. But, you could weave it so that it is predictable rare enough that building a deck to exploit the predictability is unfeasible.

How exactly? Please explain. I covered in my post all cases related to that idea.

loopholist3
01-20-2016, 01:51 PM
This solution has flaws, but it makes a good example for rare predictability.

Your deck only weaves the top 12, but only if it detects less than 3 shards in those top 12 cards, and at least 1/3 of your deck is shards. This should make it so you are guaranteed a 3rd shard by turn 5 on the draw, and normal random after that. This should also make it so that if you build your deck around getting a perfectly predicted shard, you would get it in 1 in 7-ish games. If you are playing a normal deck (one that mulligans if you have less than 2 shards in your starting hand), you will have a perfectly predicted shard in 1 in 17-ish games.

To exploit this, you would need a 2 cost card that gets some sort of large benefit if your next card is a shard, and then play it on turn 5 after only drawing 2 shards up until that point. And that assumes that you started with the 2 cost card in your hand as well.

Biz
01-20-2016, 01:59 PM
drawing what you would already draw in 80-90% of cases is not an exploit.

if that's going to ruin balance, then the game is already unbalanced 80-90% of the time with the current system.

people already build their decks based on what is likely, not what is unlikely. look at the 2-color tournament decks and count how many people use shards of fate to reduce variance (almost nobody).
either everyone is stupid, or people realize that the game is about the expected draws instead of the outliers.

it is true that some solutions are exploitable. like keeping subsets of hands (comet strike pic) allows people to get a higher ratio of resources than what the deck actually has by simply picking the clump with more resources in it.
but reducing variance by itself does not enable people to do anything that they can't already do most of the time.

sukebe
01-20-2016, 02:38 PM
I thought all the cards were balanced around 20 life totals?
They changed that and said the game was still balanced. I found that a bit strange.
Just saying that you can tweak the mulligan system and still keep a balanced game.

cards were not balanced around life totals. they interacted with life totals. big difference. The higher cost cards are as strong as they are because you are not guaranteed to see 8, 7, 6, or even 5 shards during the game. If you make it easier/more consistent to get to these totals then these cards would have to be toned down in power.

TL: DR -Life totals are not even close to as vital to the game as resources and mulligans.


Many people keep saying we have to either have complete randomness or a totally determined deck, or that it must be to be a true card game.

The only reason all TCGs had random shuffling is because it is the only physical way to shuffle other then putting them into a predetermined order. With the shuffling being done by a computer there are an infinite ways we can achieve some combination of randomness, while still having some amount of weighted chances of different outcomes.

If you want to say you don't want any change to the shuffler do to personal preference, fine we all have our likes and dislikes, but stop saying it is impossible to change it and still have a random game, because that is not true at all.

I don't think anyone is saying this. So far, no one has had an idea that did not favor one deck type over another. This is innately unbalanced and is not a good way to design or run a game.

Svenn
01-20-2016, 02:48 PM
This solution has flaws, but it makes a good example for rare predictability.

Your deck only weaves the top 12, but only if it detects less than 3 shards in those top 12 cards, and at least 1/3 of your deck is shards. This should make it so you are guaranteed a 3rd shard by turn 5 on the draw, and normal random after that. This should also make it so that if you build your deck around getting a perfectly predicted shard, you would get it in 1 in 7-ish games. If you are playing a normal deck (one that mulligans if you have less than 2 shards in your starting hand), you will have a perfectly predicted shard in 1 in 17-ish games.

To exploit this, you would need a 2 cost card that gets some sort of large benefit if your next card is a shard, and then play it on turn 5 after only drawing 2 shards up until that point. And that assumes that you started with the 2 cost card in your hand as well.

So, this would negate the need for a mulligan almost every time? No matter what is in my opening hand, I know I can keep it and still have 3 resources by turn 5. If my opening hand is shardless, I know that 3 of the next 5 cards I draw will be resources. That's pretty predictable. That doesn't seem to make a good example of a solution that isn't predictable.


drawing what you would already draw in 80-90% of cases is not an exploit.

if that's going to ruin balance, then the game is already unbalanced 80-90% of the time with the current system.

people already build their decks based on what is likely, not what is unlikely. look at the 2-color tournament decks and count how many people use shards of fate to reduce variance (almost nobody).
either everyone is stupid, or people realize that the game is about the expected draws instead of the outliers.

it is true that some solutions are exploitable. like keeping subsets of hands (comet strike pic) allows people to get a higher ratio of resources than what the deck actually has by simply picking the clump with more resources in it.
but reducing variance by itself does not enable people to do anything that they can't already do most of the time.

I didn't say that reducing variance enabled people to do things they couldn't do. I did say that reducing variance affected balance. A lot of the solutions that people post do, however, enable people to do things like predict draws or sculpt a deck with way less resources.

People build their decks to increase consistency, that's actually an important part of deck building. It's part of why things like Arcane Focus are popular, because you can increase the consistency with which you get the cards you want. Look at those decks again... note how many ARE using dual color shards. People don't use Shards of Fate as much because the drawbacks are too high, and they can use the dual color shards instead.

So why is too much consistency built into the core game bad? Well, for one thing it means consistently playing higher cost cards. It would have a significant effect on deck curves. If I can practically guarantee a certain number of shards early on then I'm going to shift my deck towards high cost cards. Their power curve is higher.

Why is their power curve higher, though? Because the core mechanics prevent you from consistently playing them. The higher you get, the less consistently you can play it and thus the more power that can be assigned to it. Compare a 1 drop to a 5 drop to an 8 drop. The amount of power per resource point cost goes way up (yes, there are some powerful 1 drops and some crappy 8 drops... I'm talking about on average, and taking into account things like rarity levels). Not only is that built into the cards... but this also goes along with card advantage. Would you rather play five 1 drops or one 5 drop? Not only is the 5 drop likely just more powerful, but it's 1 card draw versus 5 card draws to play that.

As far as the whole drawing what you would draw in 80-90% of cases... upping that number (especially if you're trying to make it 100%) absolutely affects balance and changes the game. It reduces the need for fixing and it allows for more predictability. That 10-20% of the time is an important part of calculations. It's not some accident, it's how the system is designed.

The whole point of the resource system is that it IS unpredictable. If they wanted it to be predictable they would have went with something like Hearthstone.

Evilgm
01-20-2016, 02:50 PM
cards were not balanced around life totals. they interacted with life totals.
Of course they were. Cards were designed around players having 20 life, but some players can start the game ±25% of that. If you think that doesn't impact the costing of cards you are very wrong.


I don't think anyone is saying this. So far, no one has had an idea that did not favor one deck type over another. This is innately unbalanced and is not a good way to design or run a game.
Are you including the baseline form of mulligan in this, because it currently favours some deck types over others? Why is it okay that this is innately unbalanced?

sukebe
01-20-2016, 03:46 PM
Of course they were. Cards were designed around players having 20 life, but some players can start the game ±25% of that. If you think that doesn't impact the costing of cards you are very wrong.


Are you including the baseline form of mulligan in this, because it currently favours some deck types over others? Why is it okay that this is innately unbalanced?

1: show me some cards that are not considerably stronger and should be reworked due to these changes in health. To my knowledge, nothing has been broken by these changes because health is only ever important when it is your last one.

2: explain to me which deck is benefiting the most from the current mulligan rule. please be clear on this and be as in depth as you can as I do not see a deck that benefits more than others with the current mulligan rules.

Miwa
01-20-2016, 03:47 PM
Of course they were. Cards were designed around players having 20 life, but some players can start the game ±25% of that. If you think that doesn't impact the costing of cards you are very wrong.
I would think it only would affect numbers, like attack, defense, dmg, healing. You could give every champ 40 health, and double the attack, defense and and other numbers on cards, and it'd not change balance at all.

Resources affect the 'when', not as much the 'what'.

Biz
01-20-2016, 04:30 PM
I did say that reducing variance affected balance
...
absolutely affects balance and changes the game


that's kind of the point of the thread

"game is unbalanced. how to change the game to improve the balance"

i only see 2 options: either counteract the disadvantage with some sort of advantage or reduce the frequency of imbalance
if you're against both, you might be in the wrong thread

Evilgm
01-20-2016, 04:55 PM
1: show me some cards that are not considerably stronger and should be reworked due to these changes in health. To my knowledge, nothing has been broken by these changes because health is only ever important when it is your last one.

Any direct damage spell or the attack value on any creature that connects with your opponent is proportionally more or less powerful depending on whether they started below or above 20. Burn on on Zared is 12.5% of his health, on
Daughter of the Stars it's just under 8%- it was designed to be 10% on each Champion. Now it's more effective for it's cost against some, and less against others. Thus its cost is off from what it was designed as. Q.E.D.


2: explain to me which deck is benefiting the most from the current mulligan rule. please be clear on this and be as in depth as you can as I do not see a deck that benefits more than others with the current mulligan rules.
Any deck that requires fewer cards, most generally shards. Thus fast rush decks that only require one or two shards, such as Tusker decks.

A change to life totals changes the rate at which certain Champions lose the game, that obviously has impact on cards that were designed to function at the previous baseline. Likewise if any change results in a powering up of a specific type of deck (a charge generally levelled at combo deck) then the current system has to favour something already. Neither of these two points are particularly difficult concepts to grasp, and I don't believe you were unaware of them.

The current system is not fine. The study has been done, as demonstrated by WotC making a change after studying twenty years of data, and that's not something they're going to do lightly. The current mulligan has been shown to reduce the average win rate by a mathematically significant figure- from ~55% going first to ~40%. That's not fine. That's losing 2-3 games in a 7 round tournament because the system is flawed. That's the difference between making the cut and not.

People are using this thread to discuss possible solutions. That others don't want a solution is no reason to be negative towards those that are discussing it. You are no more going to be convinced there's an issue than those who are discussing it will be convinced there isn't, so I don't understand why you're even bothering to read this thread.

I've discussed the change to Magic with players from around the world, and the consensus I've gotten is "Fewer games are lost before turn 1, and we play more proper games". That seems like exactly what Havoc was looking for in his OP.

Miwa
01-20-2016, 05:13 PM
Any direct damage spell or the attack value on any creature that connects with your opponent is proportionally more or less powerful depending on whether they started below or above 20. Burn on on Zared is 12.5% of his health, on
Daughter of the Stars it's just under 8%- it was designed to be 10% on each Champion. Now it's more effective for it's cost against some, and less against others. Thus its cost is off from what it was designed as. Q.E.D.
Champion health wasn't changed because they were trying to fix balance issues. They settled a lawsuit.

Xenavire
01-20-2016, 05:35 PM
Champion health wasn't changed because they were trying to fix balance issues. They settled a lawsuit.

It was still changed, and it still changed the balance. The reason is largely irrelevant.

I don't think wanting slightly (very slightly) less variance in opening hands is too much to ask, and most of us that want the change are well aware of the balance implications.

havocattack
01-20-2016, 05:44 PM
It was still changed, and it still changed the balance. The reason is largely irrelevant.

I don't think wanting slightly (very slightly) less variance in opening hands is too much to ask, and most of us that want the change are well aware of the balance implications.

This.

poizonous
01-20-2016, 06:06 PM
My issue is none of the suggestions slightly shift variance. Most of them are too heavily shifting it

sukebe
01-20-2016, 06:14 PM
I would think it only would affect numbers, like attack, defense, dmg, healing. You could give every champ 40 health, and double the attack, defense and and other numbers on cards, and it'd not change balance at all.

Resources affect the 'when', not as much the 'what'.

well said, this is the point I was trying to get across :-)


My issue is none of the suggestions slightly shift variance. Most of them are too heavily shifting it

This is my issue as well. So far no one has come up with an idea that fixes the issues it is supposed to fix without also causes considerably more issues with balance.


Any direct damage spell or the attack value on any creature that connects with your opponent is proportionally more or less powerful depending on whether they started below or above 20. Burn on on Zared is 12.5% of his health, on
Daughter of the Stars it's just under 8%- it was designed to be 10% on each Champion. Now it's more effective for it's cost against some, and less against others. Thus its cost is off from what it was designed as. Q.E.D.


Any deck that requires fewer cards, most generally shards. Thus fast rush decks that only require one or two shards, such as Tusker decks.

This is part of the design of those fast decks and has little if anything to do with the mulligan rule or the shuffler. The mulligan rule currently in effect is no better for these decks than it is for control, the aggro decks are simply built to require less shards to function. A well built control, mid range or combo deck will take this into account and include more resource cards or other methods of making up for this difference.

Svenn
01-20-2016, 07:11 PM
that's kind of the point of the thread

"game is unbalanced. how to change the game to improve the balance"

i only see 2 options: either counteract the disadvantage with some sort of advantage or reduce the frequency of imbalance
if you're against both, you might be in the wrong thread

The game is NOT unbalanced currently. Everyone has the exact same chances of getting resource screwed/flooded. The balance is just fine. The point of this thread isn't to fix balance, but to change consistency because some people can't deal with the chance of losing due to screw/flood. In fact, the game is balanced specifically BECAUSE of the current consistency.

poizonous
01-20-2016, 07:14 PM
Svenn man we might as well give up, our logic isn't getting through to some people

Svenn
01-20-2016, 07:15 PM
People are using this thread to discuss possible solutions. That others don't want a solution is no reason to be negative towards those that are discussing it. You are no more going to be convinced there's an issue than those who are discussing it will be convinced there isn't, so I don't understand why you're even bothering to read this thread.

If we don't read and respond to these threads then our silence could be taken as agreement or not caring when in fact we are vehemently opposed to a change. There is nothing wrong with voicing our opinions on the official forum in a thread specifically designed to discuss this.

Xenavire
01-20-2016, 08:58 PM
In fact, the game is balanced specifically BECAUSE of the current consistency.

I'm sorry, but you actually believe that the games mulligan system has been designed perfectly, and that outlier hands where you simply get no shards until you are at 4 or less cards are acceptable?

Let's say for a minute that the IQ happens, gets down to the final game or the final round, and one of the players, through no fault of their own, sees no shards until they get to 3 cards - do you think anyone in their right mind wants to see that happen? I mean, seeing screw happen, thats part of Hex, we accept that. But it would be horrible to have our E-sports scene effectively crippled because no-one wants to tune into one-sided games.

A fighting chance is all anyone wants going into a game, how it unfolds from there is up to luck and skill.