First Draw, making or breaking your game

Hello everyone :)

Am I the only one experiencing that even though I min-max all that I can with my deck, that I sometimes only draw abilities and spells in the first few rounds. I do realize that its random, and it would be in a physical deck aswell. But I played a game where I got ALL my spells and abilities in the first 3 draws, no units at all, I lost that match big time. Because if I wanted to progress my Champions, I would have to wait for them to round the right corner, before using the ability / spell. As I dont take too many of them in a deck. (I think :P) that said, I have revised my deck alot since.

TLDR: Do you experience that the first draw or two, makes or breaks your game? (Luck ofc is a part of the game :))
«1

Comments

  • SirPentSirPent Posts: 27
    Yeah, a mulligan would be nice here, but is this off the table? I dont the status here
  • I'm sorry a "mulligan" what is that? :P (Not native English speaker)
  • SirPentSirPent Posts: 27
    edited August 2018

    There a different ways for that, one example:
    A player may declare a mulligan after drawing his or her initial hand at the beginning of each game. If such a declaration is made, the player puts his or her cards back into his or her deck, shuffles, and draws a new hand with one fewer cards (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulligan_(games) )

  • ChampionChampion Posts: 415 ✭✭✭
    edited August 2018

    But surely you design your deck to work in all circumstances?
    If your deck only works when you draw a certain opening hand you are taking a risk.

    A mulligan is the opportunity to discard cards from your opening hand and draw new ones if you don’t like them. It is used in some other card games.

  • HapyooHapyoo Posts: 20
    i think going second is better
  • SirPentSirPent Posts: 27

    Just pass the first round and you are "second" with 6 vs 5 cards instead of 4 vs 5 ;)

    @Champion , sure it is designed that way, but if you draw 5 units (or spells/abilities) out of a deck (10-10-10), you are maybe in trouble. Any in many very popular card games (over many years) you have this option to reduce a bad luck draw right at the start.

  • XDarkAngelXXDarkAngelX Posts: 126
    edited August 2018

    Maybe 10-10-10 is just a bad ratio for your deck? I've tried 15-15 in my Warriors-only deck and I draw too many abilities, which makes sense because even if all my guys are Unit-Ability-Ability-Unit (so equal requirements), I should be slightly above on the unit numbers to ensure I get them on my first few turns.

    I find that drawing 2 for one or two turns at the beginning is almost always right, if only because you will be able to better maximize your plays if you know more of your cards ahead of time.

  • @XDarkAngelX Perhaps you're right, which is why I shuffled it to something like 17 units, 5 spells / wizard abilities, and 8 abilities. Seems to work alright for now :)

  • @SirPent Yeah, I have begun to find that very useful! :)

  • @Champion Surely I TRY to make it useful in every situation, but it's a back-n-forth trial and error kinda thing I think :)

  • Psypher1000Psypher1000 Posts: 32

    @Buchwald91 - I think luck of the draw will tend to influence games more than we're comfortable with or used to with any new game that has a limited card base and a player base fresh to the game. We're going to need some time to collectively play tens of thousands of games to see what deckbuilding patterns and play decisions yield the best results (any other words, we're going to need some time to "git gud"). So does it play an increased role right now? Probably a little, but no more than I think is expected for any new game. It sounds like you've already adjusted your deck and are seeing improved results. Hopefully we're all doing the same.

  • @Psypher1000 For sure mate. I'm sure it will normalize over time :)

  • warpigdavewarpigdave Posts: 11

    I played this game a lot. And the first draw has always been a huge factor for me doing well or not. I’ve drawn starting hands with no units and it hurts a lot for my decks. Oftentimes I have to skip my first turn to draw 2 cards. Usually that’s ok because then I have a handful of cards but it also might put me a step behind my opponent. I really, really wish there was a mulligan rule.

  • DonPioDonPio Posts: 14
    I'm ok with no mulligan rule. It makes setting up time much faster. People may take a while analyzing their hands and deciding whether mulligan or not. In this game you can draw two cards your first few turns and still win.
  • MIKETHEGUYMIKETHEGUY Posts: 12
    @warpigdave

    I do the same everytime. Sometimes I even skip my first 2 turns for draws depending on my initial draw.
  • warpigdavewarpigdave Posts: 11

    Yeah I can see the mulligan rule stalling gameplay.

  • SarovanSarovan Posts: 29
    Interesting
  • SyckxSyckx Posts: 12
    With such a small deck size, I feel like this will be less of an issue as the decks become tighter. With cards like Opportunity Strike, it's tough to add a mulligan rule that wouldn't result in some cards being exploited.
  • @Syckx It's hard to exploit any card though, with the "you can't play the same card twice in a round" so you can't spam Opportunity Strike or similar abilities, that plus you're limited to 3 per deck. So I don't really see an issue there. But as @DonPio so truly stated. It might take unneccesarily long for people to decide wether or not to do/make/get? a Mulligan. And while I personally find it interesting, I would not like it implemented I think :)

  • BochesaBochesa Posts: 15
    I’m missing a muligan rule
  • A Mulligan rule is needed for this game and any competitive card game that wants to be competitive in the market.

    When the #1 played card game, the elephant in the room, has a sequence of mulligans (at the cost of 1 card less per cycle) and also a scry effect to minimize the luck of the draw, why this game wouldn't need that?!

    The changes made in Magic the Gathering were all welcomed by the player pool and the pro scene.
    Magic started with one mulligan of draw-7.

    Then WOTC changed the mulligan rules to avoid the luck of the draw from draw-7 to draw-X where X is 7 minus the number of times a player made a mulligan. In this case a player mulligans the first time for 6 cards, if the player does not think their hand is good they can mulligan again for 5 cards, and so on.

    Then WOTC changed again the mulligan rules by allowing a Scry at the end of the mulligan when the player decides to keep their hand.
    A Scry is looking at the top card of the deck and deciding if the card remains at the top or bottom of the deck.

    These changes impact a game that has a resource mechanic like Magic has.

    But then you look at Hearthstone. HS has the privilege to not only allow a mulligan but also by keeping some cards in hand. And HS also has 30 cards deck and no resource mechanic like M:TG.

    So yes, a mulligan rule is needed to provide balance in a game and avoid luck of the draw being an issue.
    If this game wants to make an entrance in the competitive scene it must allow a mulligan rule to be a credible game within the competitive scene. Because WOTC has making efforts and changing their game to provide a more skill-based game rather than a luck-based game, and choosing the starting hand or just discarding a hand for a new one (that may even be worse than the first) is a decision for the player and their skill.

    And don't bring the time constrain issue in a game that plays a round in 15/20 minutes. It's not a constrain at all!
    And if this game allows a sideboard (as per Pitched Battle rules) it should also allow a mulligan.

    Not considering this and not allowing a mulligan for the sake of "being different" is just dumb. So please PlayFusion, don't be dumb. This game is good but is not still within the giants of card games. And to be there you need to improve your competitive basis. And mulligan rules is just the start.
  • @xDIABOx Very informative post, I found it very insightful! I learned some things, and you sort of changed my standpoint to being Pro-mulligan - But I don't see a need for namecalling in the last paragraf, which kind of undermines your otherwise well-written point.

  • @Buchwald91 It may seem a bit aggressive but it's not the intention, quite the opposite.

    I see gaming companies making decisions for their games for the sake of being different because they don't want their games to fall into the stereotypes of the "scene" their games are in. But fact is, some key aspects in gaming "scenes" are there for a reason. Mulligan, for example, it's not a "visual" aspect some may discard in a game... it's a really huge mechanism that separates casual from competitive games. And since this game has a Ranked mode (in app) and PF are working in an OP scene as well, it's really important to address how crucial the availability of Mulligan rules is for a game to thrive in the competitive scene and not disregard Mulligan rules as if it's some visual element in a game design, because it's quite the opposite.

    What I try to say is "be alert and don't make mistakes". The market is established and quite saturated right now (3 new card games were presented in GenCon'18) so don't try to be "cute" and cut some elements that are stereotypical in card games because some elements, in particular this one, are there for a reason.
  • @xDIABOx Makes sense, I get where you're coming from, and I do agree that it's bad if the Mulligan was excluded to "seperate" AOS:C from the rest. And I am convinced that at least in Ranked mode digitally, and in Tournament play. It needs to be an option. It could be argued that it should stay out of casual play. But I don't personally want that. I think that it would only improve the game. So yeah, I'm with you on that one.

  • I don't agree we need a mulligan because decks are 30 cards only, you get to draw as an action, and there is no resource management as in MTG (mana ****/flood). I'm concerned that mulliganing would make it too easy or frequent to get your best opening hand.

    I believe the 2 out of 3 tournament format will be sufficient to smooth out bad beats, due specifically to the fact that decks are small and you get to see around 1/7th to 1/6 of your deck on opening (and 1/5 to 1/4 if you count an opening Draw 2 turn). In a way, the ability to draw on your turn is a bit of a "mulligan" in itself (where you trade a turn in exchange for seeing 2 more cards).

    If we do see a mulligan rule I believe it should be extremely punishing, like "throw away your hand in the discard and redraw" which would at least make mulliganing an interesting decision ("I do have the one copy of my key card in this hand, do I really hate the remaining 3 that much?")

    1. As I said in my first reply, it's not a matter of card quantity. Hearthstone also has 30 cards decks and still has a mulligan mechanic. When min/maxed there will be games where a player is **** due to an initial bad draw. And that takes to point 2.

    2. Drawing cards as an action does not compensate an initial bad draw. Android: Netrunner and Classic Netrunner also have card draw as action and both versions had a mulligan rule. Vampire:TES which replaces a card played for a new one has a mulligan rule. Any new game that comes to the market that wants to make its way into the already established market, has a mulligan rule. Sure, there are a few exceptions... but what is the visibility of those exceptions and how deep and competitive is those exceptional games?

    3. A card game result should relish on a percentage of player skill > luck of the draw. The fact that I can draw cards as actions don't improve my skill as a player due to an initial bad draw.

    The draw as an action that is also seen in Netrunner is time consuming. I may be drawing cards but I'm not improving the board.

    Now, the question to ask is: I spend time drawing cards and not improving the board because I want to
    or I spend time drawing cards and not improving the board because the initial draw didn't allowed me to?

    I'd rather have a choice even if it's a bad choice. A game should always be about players decisions and not the opposite.

  • InceptionInception Posts: 13
    With 3x copies of cards, it feels like a mulligan would make your deck way too consistent. Enjoying some of the randomness of the draw so far, but also not playing at the top competitive levels.
  • This is a tough topic, because I can see both sides of whether a mulligan is ok or not.

    For whatever reason, I find myself more on the side of no, only because this game is based off of the miniatures game, where like bad draws, bad dice rolling can cause a great list to tank a game. It's just a part of random probability. I mean even if you draw a great hand, if your next 10 cards are nothing but spells and abilities, and you need units, it is what it is.

    I know that opinion may not be popular, but having said that, if a mulligan was introduced, I wouldn't complain either.
  • XDarkAngelXXDarkAngelX Posts: 126
    edited September 2018

    When min/maxed there will be games where a player is **** due to an initial bad draw.

    That's a feature, not a bug.

    The occasional bad beat story is the cost of keeping the game accessible. I've played games like Dreamblade where the superior player wins > 95% of the time. Enjoy your community when only top 10 percentile players bother playing the game more than 3 months.

    If I want that sort of community, there's always chess.

  • For some reason on the digital game I can draw perfectly fine and still win however in real life my hands tend to break constantly and it really irritates me because it causes me to loose quite often it so frustrating when I can't draw the card I need to game combo off.

    I wouldn't say the game needs a Mulligan though and would rather have a champion with a heroic act allows you to do that a bit like Lord aquailtor that allows you to swap your opponents champions entrance which helps you start again but doesn't help you later on

Sign In or Register to comment.