General Fixing Mulligans, Improving Games

[CML]

There's no way to fix mulls in Constructed without enabling degen combo decks, but the 6 scry 1 -> 6 system is one thing I think I got right. I cannot imagine a Cube where it is worse than regular mulls.

The free mulligan in addition to that might be a little much but is worth trying, as well as the free mulligan by itself. I like the free mull once per round because it creates decision points where there might not normally be any, i.e. there are 7's you'd never pitch for a 6 but might pitch for a 7, and these new hands might result in fewer non-games.

The point is it's a lot easier to fix that than the die roll

 

[Dom Harvey]

Somebody suggested that the player on the draw gets to look at the top card before making their mulligan decision. It gives you extra information without actually altering the normal start-of-game process.

 

[Eric Chan]

Yeah, that was actually the first of two things that Hearthstone does for the player on the draw. Maybe I got too caught up in the Lotus Petal bit, whereas this avenue might be worth exploring.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Actually, there's no such thing as "on the draw" in Hearthstone. Both players draw a card on their first turn. The player going second however, starts with a hand of four (plus the coin) instead of three.

 

[Eric Chan]

NEW MULLIGAN RULE!

103.4. Each player draws a number of cards equal to his or her starting hand size, which is normally seven. (Some effects can modify a player’s starting hand size.) A player who is dissatisfied with his or her initial hand may take a mulligan. First, the starting player declares whether or not he or she will take a mulligan. Then each other player in turn order does the same. Once each player has made a declaration, all players who decided to take mulligans do so at the same time. To take a mulligan, a player shuffles his or her hand back into his or her library, then draws a new hand of one fewer cards than he or she had before. If a player kept his or her hand of cards, those cards become the player’s opening hand, and that player may not take any further mulligans. This process is then repeated until no player takes a mulligan. (Note that if a player’s hand size reaches zero cards, that player must keep that hand.) Then, beginning with the starting player and proceeding in turn order, any player whose opening hand has fewer cards than his or her starting hand size may scry 1.​

http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/changes-starting-pro-tour-magic-origins-2015-06-29

Holy crap, I can't tell you how excited I am for this. Taking mulligans always sucked, even if you knew it was the 'right' thing to do; putting yourself down cards on purpose is never a good feeling. This new change mitigates that pain a bit, and hopefully will make games in which players mulligan more competitive.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Haha, double post

 

[ahadabans]

Oh wow! That's awesome.

 

[Dom Harvey]

Love it! I never thought they would actually change it.

 

[Eric Chan]

Agreed - I love that Wizards is more active and forward-thinking about gameplay and variance issues like this than most of us would give them credit for.

 

[GenericZero]

I'm now convinced that someone at Wizards is regularly lurking on these forums and taking our ideas.

Either that, or our combined efforts as cube designers is on par or even better than WotC's current Des/Dev team for MtG.

 

[Aoret]

I was kinda thinking the same thing re: us having a wotc lurker. If so, hell, let 'em lurk. This is super good for the game

 

[Eric Chan]

I'm not so sure I'd start patting ourselves on the back quite yet:

Aaron Forsythe‏@mtgaaron​

Kudos to @thepchapin for being the first to suggest the mulligan change we're testing at #PTOrigins.

https://twitter.com/mtgaaron/status/615543743781842944

In any case, I'm thrilled that Wizards agrees there's currently too much variance right now in opening hands, and is actively looking at addressing the issue. That this news is being met with universal praise seems to say that everyone, from casual players to competitive ones to game designers, wants a little less luck in their Magic, and has me optimistic that they might try additional, subtle tweaks to reduce variance in the unfun areas of the game.

 

[GenericZero]

Maybe pchapin has been lurking, then. But then again, he's a smart cookie all on his own. What with being an ex-crime lord and all. I love that guy.

 

[Dom Harvey]

I've seen people suggest it long before Chapin, but it makes sense that they would credit him.

Some other local Cubers do 7-6-6-6-2 for mulligans, which worked decently well. This is a much better system though.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

That this news is being met with universal praise

You haven't read mtgsalvation have you?

 

[ahadabans]

I also hope Wizard's continues to look for ways to reduce the luck of the draw factor in this game. I'm probably one of the loudest critics of that particular aspect of Magic. IMO, it's simply too high.

I watched a best of 5 championship match recently on youtube (maybe someone here posted it), and while it went the distance at least 2 of the 5 games were over as soon as each player drew their initial hands. You didn't even need to see it play out. Neither player knew it at the time (well, maybe they suspected I don't know), and so maybe this isn't an issue. But I just know from testing decks that I can often tell which of my decks is going to win a game simply by looking at how good the starting hands are against what they are playing. This is information that is unavailable to two different players most of the time, but it bothers me that many Magic games are actually just masked solitaire exercises. People just don't realize it most of the time.

I proposed an idea awhile back that is probably much too drastic (exile/draw), but taking the scry mechanic farther... What if once per turn before your draw step you could exile a card from your hand to scry 1? You wouldn't want to do that excessively since it's card disadvantage. But when you can't draw a land to save your life or you just need to draw an answer card at all costs before you are dead, this feels like a nice mechanic that would introduce a lot of valuable decision points without turning the game upside down or eliminating some element of luck (which I agree is valuable to the game).

Thoughts?

 

[Diakonov]

Some other local Cubers do 7-6-6-6-2 for mulligans, which worked decently well. This is a much better system though.

lol can you imagine looking at those 6 and being like, "eh let's see what mulling to 2 has to offer"

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

You haven't read mtgsalvation have you?

mmmm let me guess, magic is being "dumbed down" again? "Real magic players" mull to 5 and will their way to a 90% win rate?

But seriously, isn't this an awesome buff to non-blue strategies? As in I don't need cantrips just to have a higher rate of keepable hands?

 

[silasw]

I proposed an idea awhile back that is probably much too drastic (exile/draw), but taking the scry mechanic farther... What if once per turn before your draw step you could exile a card from your hand to scry 1? You wouldn't want to do that excessively since it's card disadvantage. But when you can't draw a land to save your life or you just need to draw an answer card at all costs before you are dead, this feels like a nice mechanic that would introduce a lot of valuable decision points without turning the game upside down or eliminating some element of luck (which I agree is valuable to the game).

Thoughts?

The reason that won't happen is in this article: http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr253

Mistake #1 – Making The Audience Do Something They Don’t Want To Do

It just feels bad to throw away cards in your hand, even though it can technically be the right play. Especially if it turns out the top card is what you needed anyway. It's just going to make people mad.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

mmmm let me guess, magic is being "dumbed down" again? "Real magic players" mull to 5 and will their way to a 90% win rate?

But seriously, isn't this an awesome buff to non-blue strategies? As in I don't need cantrips just to have a higher rate of keepable hands?

Oh, that's just one of the reasons! This also unfairly helps combo decks, makes sure Delver of Secrets flips every game, and it's making the mulligan rule complicated (what?). Oh, and it makes cheating easier!

 

[ahadabans]

I'm surprised there's backlash to the mulligan rule change. The mulligan rules were bad (and still aren't amazing). There's a reason so many people have house rules for mulligans.

 

[ahadabans]

The reason that won't happen is in this article: http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr253

Mistake #1 – Making The Audience Do Something They Don’t Want To Do

It just feels bad to throw away cards in your hand, even though it can technically be the right play. Especially if it turns out the top card is what you needed anyway. It's just going to make people mad.

That's all well and good. All I know is that when I've missed a land drop, on my next turn I'm willing to do pretty much anything not to miss a second one. Because I know the game is likely over if I do. There is no solution to that in this game and there should be. It's a design flaw and the game would be better if it were solved (either by Wizard's or the community).

 

[James Stevenson]

Hmm hadn't thought about the interaction with delver... that IS really good! And the rule is another clunky line of rules added to an already complicated game. But it'll probably be good for cubing.

 

[Dom Harvey]

that's some nice anti-Jason tech

 

[Jason Waddell]

that's some nice anti-Jason tech

?