Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 131

Thread: MTG updates Mulligan rule to reduce randomness ruining games, how about Hex doing it?

  1. #1

    MTG updates Mulligan rule to reduce randomness ruining games, how about Hex doing it?

    After like 20 years there has just occurred an unprecedented update in MTG's rules which is aiming to reduce the number of games where one player is unable to play.

    The new rule addition basically says:

    • Any player who has mulliganned at least once may look at the top card of his/her deck, then put it on the top or on the bottom of his/her deck.

    (simplified and hexified wording)

    Source: http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles...ses-2015-08-20

    We know how extremely similar are the MTG's and HEX rules and that both games have exactly the same problems - having a large % of games be practically non-games where one player doesn't get to play (almost) at all. It was a difficult task and the change isn't massive but it will cut the number of ruined games by a decent amount.

    I think this is a great change for MTG and I'd absolutely love something like this done in HEX.

    Let's discuss the possibilities here because it's a very important issue. It's enough to see the infinitely repeated threads of frustrated players who lose games without being able to play them at all. But the rule likely can't be made identical in Hex - the concept of shuffling or putting a card on the bottom of deck doesn't exist in Hex, card order is maintained over game. I first thought a free Starsphere (Look at a random card in your deck. Put up to one of those cards on top of your deck.) effect would be good in Hex for players who mulliganed, but quickly realized that turn zero manipulation of the top card of the deck is too much of a help for a certain stupid Angel which shouldn't exist (or should require ) in the first place...
    IGN: aVen | IGN2: Trade

  2. #2
    Gigantisaur
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Athens Georgia
    Posts
    1,238
    I like the idea but it will not happen as there are too many who love the current system
    The art work for opening the chest is very nice.

  3. #3
    So, you want the company that's being sued by WOTC for being too similar to MTG to copy something else that WOTC/MTG is doing?

    Clearly that's just not going to happen. I will, however, point out again that anything that reduces variance favors players with more skill. So, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. I know everyone likes to think they're at the top of the player skill scale, but everyone can't be.

    People need to believe they can win. When you reduce variance, you marginalize certain populations of the player base, and make it increasingly difficult to attract and maintain new players. The closer you get to it all being skill, the smaller your potential community becomes.
    Last edited by hex_colin; 08-23-2015 at 12:31 PM.
    Hex: Shards of Fate KS || Producer

    "The Magi of the Carloth highlands are renowned for their enthusiasm and generosity."
    "Speed is far more important than size when determining the power of a strike."
    "One needs no armor if both your mind and your fist are faster than your enemy's."

  4. #4
    I don't really wanna get involved in the debate but I just want to point out that the concept of putting a card on the bottom of your deck does exist in Hex. Dreamsmoke Mystic allows you to see the top card of your deck and let you choose whether or not you want to put it on the bottom of your deck.

  5. #5
    Was discussed: http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=44106


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

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

    I think there was definitely room to improve the system MtG had in place, but the game has to be balanced around it as well, and there are already 5 or 6, or maybe more sets for Hex that are well through the design process I'm sure. Knowing when to mulligan is a skill and variance is part of what makes card games fun, so a change is not necessarily needed when resources in Hex already give charges to impact late game. Also of note is that MtG didn't have a mulligan system to start with, and didn't have the Hex style system for some time - http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/mag...m/daily/mr112b
    Last edited by PureVapes; 08-23-2015 at 12:38 PM.

  6. #6
    Hex could do something like... after your first mulligan you can put 1 card from hand back into deck or grave for a different random card.

  7. #7
    A couple of points in response:
    1) Mostly, I just love that this dismisses all the complaints that it's too late to change the mulligan system due to balance issues. Obviously, the system can endure some tampering.
    2) Shuffle does exist on some cards in Hex. While many instances saw players 'putting' cards into decks, shuffling persists in some cases.
    3) Free starsphere doesn't impact Angel of Dawn much, because it requires a single threshold. Getting it on top means you'll draw it before you can play it for free. So, it actually is worse in decks that run Angel of Dawn, because there's a card in your deck that you'll always leave in your deck, negating the beneficial option.
    In-game: Obsidian || Collector backer || Starting a guild for Newbies -- "The Cerulea Acadamy"
    Quote Originally Posted by Aradon View Post
    Cory is a man of unrelenting promises and optimism!

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by hex_colin View Post
    Clearly that's just not going to happen. I will, however, point out again that anything that reduces variance favors players with more skill. So, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. I know everyone likes to think they're at the top of the player skill scale, but everyone can't be.

    People need to believe they can win. When you reduce variance, you marginalize certain populations of the player base, and make it increasingly difficult to attract and maintain new players. The closer you get to it all being skill, the smaller your potential community becomes.
    Agree! Even extreme losers have to taste victory from time to time to keep them from going sour

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Aradon View Post
    A couple of points in response:
    1) Mostly, I just love that this dismisses all the complaints that it's too late to change the mulligan system due to balance issues. Obviously, the system can endure some tampering.
    2) Shuffle does exist on some cards in Hex. While many instances saw players 'putting' cards into decks, shuffling persists in some cases.
    3) Free starsphere doesn't impact Angel of Dawn much, because it requires a single threshold. Getting it on top means you'll draw it before you can play it for free. So, it actually is worse in decks that run Angel of Dawn, because there's a card in your deck that you'll always leave in your deck, negating the beneficial option.
    1 - The change in MtG is really minimal in effect, but it makes people feel better for sure. A truly, highly effective change would have a larger impact on balance and at some point it will be 'too late'. Although, making people feel better about their control over variance without a huge impact was a smart way to go now that I consider it.

    3 - If you're going first, you can play a diamond shard, then draw AoD on turn 2, right?
    Last edited by PureVapes; 08-23-2015 at 12:46 PM.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Aradon View Post
    1) Mostly, I just love that this dismisses all the complaints that it's too late to change the mulligan system due to balance issues. Obviously, the system can endure some tampering.
    I'm challenging the premise that reducing variance is a good thing (which is what an "improvement" to mulligans would be seeking to accomplish). More skilled players winning more often = less incentive for less skilled players to try = lower game population = harder and harder for skilled players to make it worth their while = less incentive for lower tier of highly skilled players to play, etc. = game death spiral.

    Why does that matter, the broad appeal is PVE anyway? Fair point. But, PVP pays for PVE. So, bottom line, the variance has to be very tightly controlled to ensure a good mixture of skilled and less skilled players willing to participate in PVP.
    Hex: Shards of Fate KS || Producer

    "The Magi of the Carloth highlands are renowned for their enthusiasm and generosity."
    "Speed is far more important than size when determining the power of a strike."
    "One needs no armor if both your mind and your fist are faster than your enemy's."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •