PDA

View Full Version : Consider bringing PvE Mulligan System into PvP?



MugenMusou
02-03-2016, 09:40 AM
Unlike many others here, I'm still only at level 4 (Elf Mage) and certainly my deck doesn't have high resource curve, but so far I have not really had any resource screw. With number of games I have played, I feel in PvP, I'd have at least one or two by now. Obviously, it's random chance and playing against other player always poses more challenge than AI but I think we cannot ignore the effect of free first mulligan on PvE. I wonder if HEX can make it simply default for entire game including PvP.

What do you all think?

noragar
02-03-2016, 09:47 AM
No.

Incindium
02-03-2016, 10:21 AM
I think I'd be in favor of that actually. It really does seem to fix the screw problem in PVE a considerable amount.

Another thing that might work for PVP would being able to change your decision to play first if you do have to mull down. Thats always bugged me when you have to mull once or twice and are playing first you really end up with a card disadvantage cause you don't draw when you play first.

wolzarg
02-03-2016, 10:28 AM
no.

Tazelbain
02-03-2016, 10:31 AM
For the player on the draw, yes.

Vorpal
02-03-2016, 10:41 AM
Seems fine to me.

Although some people are going to tell you that while it's perfectly fine to build your deck around the *current* mulligan rules, building your deck around a *different* set of mulligan rules would be awful and totally break the game.

Draconis
02-03-2016, 11:17 AM
This is unfortunately a case of 'be careful what you wish for'. All decks would objectively benefit from this, yes, but the decks that would benefit the most from friendlier mulligan rules tend to be combo or pseudo-combo decks, then control decks (that don't necessarily need specific cards to function, but are looking for a somewhat set mix of cards), then aggro decks last (as these decks have the most built-in redundancy already, they benefit the least from additional options with mulligans). The decks that would benefit the most are likely to be decks like Cressida and Azurecannon, which are not always the most popular decks to play against. In contrast, decks like ruby aggro would be hugely disadvantaged, relatively speaking, as they don't gain as much from the extra mulligan and lose a huge amount to the extra consistency of the slower decks, and those decks' ability to find cards like Heat Wave or Carnasaurus early post-reserves.

wolzarg
02-03-2016, 11:20 AM
Seems fine to me.

Although some people are going to tell you that while it's perfectly fine to build your deck around the *current* mulligan rules, building your deck around a *different* set of mulligan rules would be awful and totally break the game.

That's not actually what people are saying people are saying this is hex. If you want another game there are plenty they do it differently and many try to have weird mulligan rules or resource weaving. Just because you dislike it shouldn't give you the right to ruin it for everyone else and so far it doesn't.

Tazelbain
02-03-2016, 11:24 AM
That's not actually what people are saying people are saying this is hex. If you want another game there are plenty they do it differently and many try to have weird mulligan rules or resource weaving. Just because you dislike it shouldn't give you the right to ruin it for everyone else and so far it doesn't.So what you saying is that the people playing Magic aren't playing Magic any more because the Mulligan rules have changed of the years?

Draconis
02-03-2016, 11:33 AM
While Magic's mulligan rules have been tweaked (once significantly with the Paris mulligan, and a fairly minor addition recently of adding 'scry 1' to any mulligan below 7), a free mulligan to 7 is a drastic change. Older formats in particular would be almost unrecognisable with a free mulligan to 7, and there would be a real danger of Legacy and Modern devolving into nothing but combo and anti-combo aggro control.

Tazelbain
02-03-2016, 11:38 AM
Nope all change is bad. Burn the heretics.

Vorpal
02-03-2016, 11:54 AM
This is unfortunately a case of 'be careful what you wish for'. All decks would objectively benefit from this, yes, but the decks that would benefit the most from friendlier mulligan rules tend to be combo or pseudo-combo decks, then control decks (that don't necessarily need specific cards to function, but are looking for a somewhat set mix of cards), then aggro decks last (as these decks have the most built-in redundancy already, they benefit the least from additional options with mulligans). The decks that would benefit the most are likely to be decks like Cressida and Azurecannon, which are not always the most popular decks to play against. In contrast, decks like ruby aggro would be hugely disadvantaged, relatively speaking, as they don't gain as much from the extra mulligan and lose a huge amount to the extra consistency of the slower decks, and those decks' ability to find cards like Heat Wave or Carnasaurus early post-reserves.

It's interesting, because before people have said free mulligan rules favor the aggro decks, who can now put in many fewer resources.

Draconis
02-03-2016, 12:08 PM
It's interesting, because before people have said free mulligan rules favor the aggro decks, who can now put in many fewer resources.

The problem with that is that the best draw of a combo/combo-style deck (ramp often acts like a combo deck) will usually beat the best draw of an aggro deck, particularly post-reserves. Mono-ruby getting a good draw consistently is kind of trumped by Cressida almost always having the turn 3 Crocosaur, for example. And post-reserves things get really really miserable for aggro, as the anti-aggro reserve cards tend to be more individually high-impact than the kinds of cards that get brought in by aggro decks against combo/control.

wolzarg
02-03-2016, 01:09 PM
It's interesting, because before people have said free mulligan rules favor the aggro decks, who can now put in many fewer resources.
Either you are misinformed or they are what i have seen people claim favor aggro is any form of guaranteed resource draw or shardweaving.

Biz
02-03-2016, 01:34 PM
it would be better to just rig the shuffler to not screw players over to begin with instead of adding random rules that still might result in non-games or let players dig for overpowered cards that the devs didn't print enough answers for in limited formats

Seluhir
02-03-2016, 01:41 PM
Either you are misinformed or they are what i have seen people claim favor aggro is any form of guaranteed resource draw or shardweaving.

This makes a lot of sense, if you think about it logically.

That being said, I would be intrigued to see them try something like this. Maybe hold a week-long event where this is implemented, and see how it goes.

One of the beauties of the digital format is that they can play around with their rules fairly easily and as long as their messaging is clear, people can have fun with it and see what changes overall.


(btw... for your signature, negative numbers times 2 or 10 just become more negative)

Svenn
02-03-2016, 01:42 PM
it would be better to just rig the shuffler to not screw players over to begin with instead of adding random rules that still might result in non-games or let players dig for overpowered cards that the devs didn't print enough answers for in limited formats

Rigging the shuffler IS adding random rules that players can exploit. ;)

Kayas42
02-03-2016, 03:17 PM
The free mulligan was allowed in PVE because it would save time for those who would just quit and re-try to get a better draw. It's more of a time saver than a balancing implementation.

Implementing such a system in PVP would be folly.

You might say that if both players have that chance to get better hands, it would cancel itself out. The problem is now it amplifies the coin flip advantage. If both players have a better hand on average, going first becomes infinitely more important. So the coin flip, which already has been proven to provide advantage, now provides an even bigger advantage.

Saeijou
02-03-2016, 03:31 PM
no

Deathlock
02-03-2016, 04:49 PM
Something should be done definitely to make a player on draw or a player who mulligans not to suffer SO much.
Every new CCG on the market (espessially digital CCG) tries to avoid these problems. Even Magic, which can't change core rules because of its age now provides the "scry 1 after a mulligan" rule.
So, it's absolutely obvious, this is a really-really-really weak part of HEX now, that should be changed to make the game the most progressive one in the World by all means. I see why people say nothing should be changed, but there are more elegant decisions, than a free mulligan, devs and the comunity should consider finding it out.

zadies
02-03-2016, 07:12 PM
They could just implement the first muligan free to the person on the draw. This providing an actual choice to the coin flip.

Deathlock
02-03-2016, 08:02 PM
They could just implement the first muligan free to the person on the draw. This providing an actual choice to the coin flip.

Yes, I like this idea a lot. It may benefit combo-decks a little, so we may include one more thing: "If the player on the draw decides to mulligan at least once, his opponent gains 1 charge" just to make everyone happy. :)

darkwonders
02-04-2016, 07:42 AM
The free mulligan was allowed in PVE because it would save time for those who would just quit and re-try to get a better draw. It's more of a time saver than a balancing implementation.

Implementing such a system in PVP would be folly.

You might say that if both players have that chance to get better hands, it would cancel itself out. The problem is now it amplifies the coin flip advantage. If both players have a better hand on average, going first becomes infinitely more important. So the coin flip, which already has been proven to provide advantage, now provides an even bigger advantage.

So it's OK to waste people's money because of bad draws but not time?

Kayas42
02-04-2016, 11:22 AM
So it's OK to waste people's money because of bad draws but not time?

When I go play poker, if I draw rags, I don't get a mulligan. Should I complain to the dealer the next time I get 2 10 off suit and ask for a free redraw because this hand was unplayable?

Card games inherently INCLUDE bad draws. It's part of the game. It always will be. Sometimes you get the nuts, sometimes get get rags.

Good deck construction will always beat out bad luck on average. Giving multiple penalty free chances at a better draw allows you to take bigger risks on deck construction in terms of resource allotment allowing potentially dangerous decks to become too consistent where in the current mulligan system you have to gamble that you'll beat the odds of getting a bad draw.

darkwonders
02-04-2016, 12:07 PM
When I go play poker, if I draw rags, I don't get a mulligan. Should I complain to the dealer the next time I get 2 10 off suit and ask for a free redraw because this hand was unplayable?

Card games inherently INCLUDE bad draws. It's part of the game. It always will be. Sometimes you get the nuts, sometimes get get rags.

Good deck construction will always beat out bad luck on average. Giving multiple penalty free chances at a better draw allows you to take bigger risks on deck construction in terms of resource allotment allowing potentially dangerous decks to become too consistent where in the current mulligan system you have to gamble that you'll beat the odds of getting a bad draw.

Still doesn't answer my question.

Thand
02-04-2016, 12:15 PM
So it's OK to waste people's money because of bad draws but not time?
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: PvP is a zero sum game. Only the loser has "wasted" their money. Someone who has spent money is going to lose it no matter what mulligan rule you use. Obviously this is not the case with time spent on PvE.

Turtlewing
02-04-2016, 12:53 PM
So it's OK to waste people's money because of bad draws but not time?

No, the issue is that as there are no consequences to conceding in many PvE encounters. It's a wast of time to make people choose between an option and another choice that is strictly inferior to it.

In tournaments there are consequences to conceding a game, so the choice to mulligan or concede is not a waste of time, but part of the strategy of playing in a tournament.

the_artic_one
02-04-2016, 01:28 PM
They could just implement the first muligan free to the person on the draw. This providing an actual choice to the coin flip.

This is one of the first proposed solutions I've liked.

Yoss
02-04-2016, 03:00 PM
I like the thought of an additional small edge to the player on the draw. Nearly anything that makes a better balance between going first and not is good in my book.

Xenavire
02-04-2016, 03:04 PM
I like the thought of an additional small edge to the player on the draw. Nearly anything that makes a better balance between going first and not is good in my book.

I have to agree on this, but I am not convinced this idea is the right fit.

However I would be more than open to seeing it in testing. Give it a queue of it's own for a while for testing purposes and see how things shake out (when adding queues for this sort of thing is an option.)

Scorpio989
02-04-2016, 05:46 PM
The whole idea of resources in the main deck is a horrible mechanic in my opinion. HEX is the only TCG that I can bare playing that still uses this system.

They could try out the FoW mulligan but I'm sure that it would cause balance issues.

poizonous
02-04-2016, 06:07 PM
This debate is honestly not worth having anymore for one main reason. There is no middle ground in understanding between Casual, newer TCG players and the veteran TCG players .

Casual players keep arguing that what the veteran players are saying is false but in reality everything mentioned by the veteran players is true. Any change to a mulligan system inflicts balance issues. One free Mulligan is a huge change in balance (note that this being said, I am a veteran player who would be okay with this implementation BUT i am very aware of the significance in balance changes it would cause)

Deathlock
02-04-2016, 06:52 PM
This debate is honestly not worth having anymore for one main reason. There is no middle ground in understanding between Casual, newer TCG players and the veteran TCG player....

Oh, cmon, really? Don't you remember the changes to champions HP's and to number of cards in packs? Prior to that everybody said that champions are so well balanced, that any change to them would destroy the game. So, did anything of that destroy the game? NO.

Same will be true if for example one free mulligan on draw is implemented. It will only make the game progressive and not THAT luck-depended. Now we prey for a good coin flip, because if we win it, we have very high chances of winning the game (against an equal power deck), otherwise we suffer a lot. I repeat, almost every modern TCG tries to avoid these kinda problems, and HEX, unfortunately sticks to the very old idea.

Sorry, my English is terrible %) But I hope everything is understandable.
PS: Playing TCGs\CCGs\LCGs for 10 years. (Magic, WoW, Berserk, Solforge, Spellweaver, Hearthstone, MMDOC, Infinity Wars, Coraabia, Android: Netrunner etc etc)

poizonous
02-04-2016, 08:45 PM
@Deathlock, the # of cards in a pack have 0 impact on balance. The Champions HP might shift the Meta but once again has little impact on balance since Champions health can continuously be changed to fit the Meta. a Free Mulligan HUGELY shifts the balance AND the meta. They are completely different subjects

zadies
02-05-2016, 03:52 AM
Also neither of those things had anything to do with customer complaints... now unless you know a way to cause a multimillion dollar lawsuit to force HexEnt to make changes they don't want to....

LargoLaGrande
02-05-2016, 08:18 AM
@Deathlock, the # of cards in a pack have 0 impact on balance. The Champions HP might shift the Meta but once again has little impact on balance since Champions health can continuously be changed to fit the Meta. a Free Mulligan HUGELY shifts the balance AND the meta. They are completely different subjects

Only if you're talking about constructed. The change to 17 card packs had a large impact on limited.

Xenavire
02-05-2016, 08:21 AM
Only if you're talking about constructed. The change to 17 card packs had a large impact on limited.

It was a very positive change for sealed, and I hear mixed reactions for draft (I personally love everything about the bonus cards in draft, barring the extra time in the draft phase.)

Badmoonz
02-05-2016, 08:46 AM
I am a fan of the PVE mulligan system. I think Hex is in a good state that PVP would benefit from this change. I don't think the extra mulligan will significantly change the way decks are created or played. Honestly I suspect the main reason paper games do not do this is to reduce the amount of shuffling time in matches. Something Hex does not have to worry about.

Will it increase the number of mulligans? -Yes
Will it increase the length of a match? -No
Will it solve the flood/screw complaints? -No
Will it increase the number of competitive games? -Yes
Will it ruin the dynamics of the game? -No

It seem the point of contention/opinion is the dynamics of the game. I think it will insignificantly change the game, but I think it would be well worth an experiment of trying out the PVE mulligan system in PVP. If the world does catch on fire, just change it back.

Vorpal
02-05-2016, 12:23 PM
Only if you're talking about constructed. The change to 17 card packs had a large impact on limited.

I was really surprised when I came back to Hex after a break for Bloodborne and Fallout and discovered the new pack size.

I really like it, particularly in sealed, but didn't remember hearing anything about it. What was the reasoning behind the change?

darkwonders
02-05-2016, 12:32 PM
I was really surprised when I came back to Hex after a break for Bloodborne and Fallout and discovered the new pack size.

I really like it, particularly in sealed, but didn't remember hearing anything about it. What was the reasoning behind the change?

The lawsuit settlement with WotC. No specifics were released on what happened, but both the card pack and the Champions' health had to change.

Turtlewing
02-05-2016, 02:51 PM
Oh, cmon, really? Don't you remember the changes to champions HP's and to number of cards in packs? Prior to that everybody said that champions are so well balanced, that any change to them would destroy the game. So, did anything of that destroy the game? NO.


I'm pretty sure that's false. I remember conversations about how poorly balanced the champs were and there only being a couple of them that see competitive play.

Selanius
02-05-2016, 03:10 PM
I also think adding cards to packs made draft and sealed worse.