|
Post by thedude808 on Mar 28, 2012 8:09:21 GMT -5
I kind of prefer how it is right now. Much deeper strategy can evolve. I would say I agree with you I'm not sure it has such a big impact, but at least if you are unlucky with the first draw, you really have a strategic advantage by redrawing, and less chance to have a bad hand. People could also redraw automatically just for the strategic advantage (and build deck that take advantage of it). I think that last statement is what the design team is a bit worried about as it could unbalance the game. Yeah this makes sense. Game design can be tricky especially as one set is released upon another. An individual card design might seem balanced, but when it is combined with cards from a previous set or an exploitable game design mechanic (like we've been discussing in this thread), that same "balanced" card could end up overpowered. I wouldn't want the design team to have to disregard a potential good new card design because it might be OP when combined with the current mulligan rule.
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Mar 28, 2012 8:24:27 GMT -5
Unless there is a card that says something like "draw a card from the bottom of the deck", I don't really see how it would unbalance the game. And I don't really see e point of a card like that. Alternatively we can have the best of both worlds if you set aside the first six cards, draw, and then shuffle/randomize all the rest of the deck/sequence. I think it's fair to not include the first 6 cards in a mulligan situation. Potentially you could draw the same exact hand hahaha
|
|
|
Post by thedude808 on Mar 28, 2012 9:07:53 GMT -5
There are different ways to design cards to work well with the current mulligan rule. You could put your entire hand on the bottom of your deck and draw x cards. The more important thing is that you could have multiple different cards that put cards to the bottom of your deck. In theory, you could completely work through your deck thus knowing (after writing them down) the order of your deck. You could then manipulate the deck to get cards you want.
Is this complex? Yes. Does it require a lot of cards to pull off? Who knows? I played the VS TCG, and a deck like this was possible built mostly around one card that helped enable this. The two games are different, though. My point isn't that this exact same scenario could happen. My point is that I don't want card design creativity to be stifled because of a game mechanic that really isn't that important either way.
Creative card design helps a game stay fresh and gives fuel to creative players to use cards in unexpected ways.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Mar 28, 2012 9:28:21 GMT -5
I kind of prefer how it is right now. Much deeper strategy can evolve. I would say I agree with you I'm not sure it has such a big impact, but at least if you are unlucky with the first draw, you really have a strategic advantage by redrawing, and less chance to have a bad hand. People could also redraw automatically just for the strategic advantage (and build deck that take advantage of it). I think that last statement is what the design team is a bit worried about as it could unbalance the game. Right now nothing is unbalanced, would it not be pertinent to at least wait and tread cautiously before changing this "feature"? Seems like such a waste, when there are cards that are underused that can leverage this unintentional benefit.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Mar 28, 2012 9:34:45 GMT -5
And you can tell the devs, if it's changed, a small piece of me will die that day.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Mar 28, 2012 9:37:07 GMT -5
This other game I play, Shadow Era, I am watching slowly die as advanced strategy os removed. The players even want to have shadow priests and human wulverns. It's pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by Ringel on Mar 28, 2012 10:59:32 GMT -5
I agree with others-- being able to redraw for strategic advantage sounds like a good thing, not a bad thing. It pushes the bounds of player skill.
|
|
mana
Full Member
Posts: 367
|
Post by mana on Mar 28, 2012 11:47:17 GMT -5
i too like the way it is now. i cant see any disadvantages in not changing this. IF there ever will be a card which makes it exploitable ( cant think of any ) i might agree with changing it.
|
|
eev
New Member
Posts: 42
|
Post by eev on Mar 28, 2012 12:55:19 GMT -5
in case if the game is too long you get an advantage if you took mulligan. also if you know the deck vs you are playing you can mulligan useless cards. so mulligan supposed to help people if the hand is quite bad and not giving some advantage by knowing the position of some cards in the deck or spells which can use it. it's good if developers want to fix it.
|
|
|
Post by gamemaestro on Mar 28, 2012 19:47:42 GMT -5
I vote to keep it as well, now that we know about it. I'm not planning on building a deck that takes advantage of it as that's a tricky combo for limited benefit, but I think it doesn't hurt.
Thedude/Ringel, thanks for figuring this out. I play a deck with only 3 of a key card and although my starting hand was bad it had two of them so I didn't mulligan. A week ago I'd have had key cards stuck at the bottom of my deck. Knowing is half the battle! (if that doesn't date me, saying that most of my MTG cards were beta probably would).
|
|
|
Post by madstryfe on Mar 28, 2012 23:51:32 GMT -5
I vote to keep the current mulligan system also. Seeing as how there only 3 cards that really make use of the bottom deck, it gives the game a lilttle bit more character for deck building, so why not keep it in? It's more challenging to remember what's at the bottom anyway during a real time battle.
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Mar 29, 2012 0:40:32 GMT -5
I vote to keep the current mulligan system also. Seeing as how there only 3 cards that really make use of the bottom deck, it gives the game a lilttle bit more character for deck building, so why not keep it in? It's more challenging to remember what's at the bottom anyway during a real time battle. Which are these 3 cards? As far as I know there aren't any cards that interact with "the bottom of the deck"...
|
|
|
Post by madstryfe on Mar 29, 2012 1:20:11 GMT -5
this information just wins post of the month. Advanced tactics 101, now make a deck that takes advantage of that and tour opponent won't even understand why he lost. I wanted to add in Scientific Method as well for bottom of sequence browsing so officially if what we're learning about mulligans is true then you have 3 cards that can help you draw from the bottom: Benevolent Midwife (Faith) -Look at last 3, Put 2 on top in any order, last one to archive. Sacred Vision (Faith) - Look at last 5, put 4 on top in any order, last one to archive. Scientific Method (Scholar) - Look at last 4, Pick 1, Randomize Are there any others we've missed? /facepalm I thought we covered this lol
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Mar 29, 2012 2:01:11 GMT -5
Those cards deal with the cards on top of the deck - not the bottom of the deck. The only time they're gonna affect the bottom of the deck is when you have like 6 cards in the deck.
If you're talking about the randomize effect giving you the option to randomize the cards to the bottom of the deck to somewhere higher in the deck randomly, er, to me, is irrelevant.
Unless I have it totally wrong and after you mulligan and play one of those cards you actually go directly to the mulliganed cards. Which I highly doubt, has someone tested?
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Mar 29, 2012 2:07:03 GMT -5
Those cards deal with the cards on top of the deck - not the bottom of the deck. The only time they're gonna affect the bottom of the deck is when you have like 6 cards in the deck. If you're talking about the randomize effect giving you the option to randomize the cards to the bottom of the deck to somewhere higher in the deck randomly, er, to me, is irrelevant. Unless I have it totally wrong and after you mulligan and play one of those cards you actually go directly to the mulliganed cards. Which I highly doubt, has someone tested? you are confused.
|
|