Reinventing the Mulligan System

[Biggie]

TPCi never sees any problems. :/

Which is exactly why the tournament rules never change year to year right?

Seriously, when was the last time they actually asked the players what they thought needed some improvement?

Just because we have not asked you does not mean we have not been asking questions. :wink:

Name one time where they LEGITIMATELY asked the playerbase and made the decision based on it.

I'm curious, what defines legitimately asking the player base about something in your mind? We talk to our players daily, we meet a good number of them every year, and we offer several ways for our players to contact us about anything they would like. Just because you aren’t there for the conversation does not mean that the player base is not talking or that we are not listening. It's also important to note that making a decision based on player feedback is not the same as making the decision you asked for.

 

[ryanvergel]

no japanese cards->10%
extended time limits


i think there have been numerous changes that were the result of tpci "hearing" the playerbase. those are two clear examples, the former being one very very obvious one.

 

[ShadowCard]

Seriously, when was the last time [TPCi] actually asked the players what they thought needed some improvement?

Just because we have not asked you does not mean we have not been asking questions. :wink:

TPCi asks me such questions all the time, approximately every 6 weeks at latest. I'm sorry I don't always have answers for them.

DarthPika, shouldn't you be writing an article to improve upon the average one that is currently pinned on the front page?

 

[Sabett]

i know that im gonna get torn down for this... but here i go anyway...

There are no GLARING problems with the current mulligan system. every tcg i have ever played, there have been bad losses due to a horrible start. and while i admit, it does completely suck to have an uxie start, its just a part of the game that EVERYONE has to deal with(Does that make it fair? maybe not. but its just something you have to deal with).

I also enjoy miniatures games(Hordes in particular) as i see them as almost purley skill and strategy, but there are times that luck has completly ruined my chances of winning(ie. needing a 4 on 3 dice and rolling all 1's).

My point is, that the current mulligan system is largly the luck(IMO the same as a fainting spell flip, etc.) and its just something that people are going to have to live with.

-Lawso

It would be an opinion that having the current mulligan system is based on luck is not a glaring problem. I would say that it is a glaring problem.

Also, saying that it's just something you'll have to live with doesn't have anything to do with the subject at hand. No understanding whatsoever has been given on the practical implecations of a new system being approved, but I also don't want to know how you would know that we just have to live with it. This is not the place.

I like the idea of searching your deck for two cards and then drawing five more to start every game. That would be really cool.

But one optional mulligan would also be really nice. =\

I "enjoyed" losing to a Junior the other day with my Energy/Energy/Energy/BTS/Crobat G/Looker's Investigation/Poke-Turn start. With 12 energy in the deck (four of which are Call), my only draw card was my one Looker's. Really?

Yeah. Optional mulligans please.

Searching for two cards, would be very abusive in that you could look for anything. If you meant only basic pokemon, then donks would be eliminated and that's not something that should be done. We're not trying to eliminate donks, we're trying to reduce how often they happen.



Some things I'd like to point out to everyone on this thread. This discussion is not about the TPCi, or any sort of authority in the Pokemon world. This thread is about discussing a workable mulligan system for pokemon, and people's concerns if it's necessary or not. I understand that actually getting this system to be implemented could take a long process, or has already been discussed and has reached the conclusion that it is unnecessary, for reasons we have not thought of. But whatever the case, it is not this threads place to discuss it. Please stay on topic, if you would like to discuss the practical implecations of this system to be worked into the current game state, then create another thread. Although, I don't know whether or not that subject would be apporpriate for pokegym.

Please stay on topic, thank you.

 

[SteveP]

Here goes. Food for Sabett to feast on. From the Tournament Rules SoTG section (note the words in red):

1. The Spirit of the Game
As a game of skill, Pokémon is enjoyed for its complex strategies, entertaining characters, and
atmosphere of friendly competition. While the objective of a Pokémon tournament is to determine the
skill level of each player involved, our ultimate goal is to ensure that every participant has fun. It is this
attitude that Pokémon Organized Play wishes to emphasize during Pokémon tournaments.

Sabett, that should provide quite a bit of weight for your petition here. Adding some "stategy" to getting a non-bad starting hand, or better starting hand, is within the scope of TPCi's own words with regards to SoTG. :thumb:

 

[DarkMagnus]

also as a point this might be a bit outta TPCi's control this might be a change that can only be implimented by the Japanise overlords that rule our game and keep us from making any big changes..... another point they change things all the time 40 minute rounds? no rotation? Coin flips for who goes first? can't play traienrs first turn? , also i'd like to point out that we are the only game that complains as much as we do and actually gets any changes to the game, game operations are hard to change to the game think of how it changes EVERYTHING,. so in short built a bridge

 

[Jeremy Badeaux]

Sabett, the title of this topic is, "Reinventing the Mulligan System"(I would think the topic creator would know his own title). lol
If you had made the title, "Reinventing the Mulligan System in the way that I like most and blasting anybody who thinks that there is a better way to accomplish my goal while completely ignoring the actions needed to implement said change", then you would have a very good point.

If this whole proposal is just your veritable classroom doodle of a stick figure superhero(with a little cape with a jigglypuff on it and everything) and not meant to advance past people whining, then why even post this topic?

If anything, the threadjack that happened was from DP and it was such a large insult thrown at the company that we all love that people had to respond(most forums call that trolling or flamebaiting).

As for the constant dispute about fair vs. unfair. . . Does your deck look at you at the start of a match and say things to the effect of, "Boy, I think yew look a little too much like a martian for my taste so you might just want to get out of my tournament"?
What bias is there in dumb luck?

Anyways, since this topic is not allowed(at topic creator's request) to be about anything involving proper implementation of the system he wants, or the effects it would have on the game, or even rebuttals to his made up statistics, then I guess I'll make my way out of this topic(again).

 

[Box of Fail]

I'm starting to agree more on the limited amount of mulligans, 2 sounds fine, and then if a basic isn't in the last mulligan it could revert to the current rules.
I can easily manipulate situations that are currently possible in the game to make the judge give a decision when stalling happens, and to be done in such an elaborate and extensive manner could be considered cheating which would end the match. However, I don't advocate unlimited mulligans anymore, so this wouldn't be an issue to come up, but I didn't change my mind because of this issue.

Just because it's always been doesn't mean it shouldn't change, Pokemon's already changed rules before, it's not above them to do it again.

I don't mind having a luck factor in the game, it's the unfair and unintended luck factor that I don't want in the game. Also I can tell you I and can more than likely promise Darth Pika ran
all of those cards you listed, and still lost.

EDIT: Chess is 100% skill, there is no luck involved whatsoever, unless of course I guess if a player starts random putting pieces into places, but then you would probably just win against that. Also, we're not talking about playing chess, we're talking about playing Pokemon, so I don't really understand how playing Chess is an alternative.

How can you keep using that word? The way the game is right now is completely 100% intended. The creators made Pokémon and invented each an every rule, each and every card. Pokémon was not "intended to be played with six prize cards", as you keep saying; taking six prize cards in one of 3 ways listed to win in the rulebook, and each of those ways is legit. Machamp is rock-solid proof that benching was an intended part of the game, and Flygon LV.X is rock-solid proof that decking was an intended part of the game. Neither of those methods can be used to achieve victory if six prizes are taken. Entire decks revolve around winning by decking, and those have no interest in taking even one prize card. So how is the luck factor "unintended", if it's part of the game? Do you mean to say that one of the people at PCL snuck Rare Candy on the card list, and that donks were never really intended, because PCL wants the game to be all skill? I doubt it. Crap hands are no doubt a fully intended part of the game, so people should be made to grit their teeth and bear it, when they lose through no fault of their own.

As for chess, I think of it as a huge game of Tic Tac Toe. 20 years from now, I expect there to be a computer that can always make the optimal move in chess, so that it's impossible to lose. Games with no luck and all skill have an absolute end, just like how X can never lose in Tic Tac Toe if they play correctly. There is always one optimal move, where in Pokémon and other games with a high luck factor, there are risks to take that make it impossible to always determine what will work out best.

 

[Victory Bell]

^Well what fun would chess be if we were perfect?

Also I dont think he ment it as luck was not suppost to be part of the game but more as it shouldent control the game. Like it does agains a t1 champ.

 

[DarthPika]

^ That's basically how I see luck in the game. I have no problem with it being part of the game. What I have a problem with, is when it prevents the game from ever actually starting. I understand that there will always be some luck involved with set up, but having 1 optional mulligan to work with would certainly help.

 

[Box of Fail]

^But with an optional mulligan, it'd be hard to make donk decks work at all, and thus people would switch from cheap decks like Machamp, Shuppet, Rampardos, HoPe, and that cool deck that got 4th at worlds, and start playing set up decks that require real games.

 

[Lawso42]

^Well what fun would chess be if we were perfect?

Also I dont think he ment it as luck was not suppost to be part of the game but more as it shouldent control the game. Like it does agains a t1 champ.

well, how often do you still lose to a machamp when you still draw 2 or 3 basics? if a machamp can take out the first pokemon turn 1, that is still a HUGE loss in momentum and tempo. even if you can get an evolved up next turn, you're still scrambling to recover.

-Lawso

 

[Victory Bell]

^^But how much would that one mulligain realy help against his t1 champ anyway?

I just dont like this idea because it will just become less of an issue when hgss hits. As long as you dont get donked, champ has nothin' on them prime pokemon. I think this would just help overhyped donkphant anyway. The amount of donk playing will go lower (except for donphant which looses to a huge new archtype any way.)

^how often do you start with 2/3 basics? If your playing sp maybe but you still loose that matchup in the long run.

 

[SteveP]

One of the most essential elements for victory in a game of chance is how you understand and manipulate the probabilities into your favor. Some probabilities cannot be manipulated or overcome, by any means.

In the narrow-view, probabilities swing wildly. In the long-run, probabilities even-out. Many games that involve high elements of chance also last multiple rounds. In the case of bad starting hands in Pokemon, in the long run (over the length of many games), the number of bad hands for a particular deck will approach some leved-out percentage. To lower that percentage, two things need to happen. 1) deck reconstruction and/or 2) an optional mulligan. Depending on the deck, #1 or #2 will have a greater impact. As of this moment-in-time, #1 is our only option; thus, the numerous posts on this topic about how important it is to either reconstruct your deck or learn how to "deal with it." If option #2 is ever implemented, some players might become lazy and start to disregard option #1 more and more.

Anyway, this continues to be an interesting discussion, even if nothing more than a better understanding comes out from this debate.

 

[Lawso42]

^^But how much would that one mulligain realy help against his t1 champ anyway?

I just dont like this idea because it will just become less of an issue when hgss hits. As long as you dont get donked, champ has nothin' on them prime pokemon. I think this would just help overhyped donkphant anyway. The amount of donk playing will go lower (except for donphant which looses to a huge new archtype any way.)

^how often do you start with 2/3 basics? If your playing sp maybe but you still loose that matchup in the long run.

-an optional mulligan wouldn't help that much against turn 1 champ.

-and the example i was thinking was starting with 1-2 basics and a call(which isn't too much of a stretch) which would net you a start of 3-4 basics while missing an energy drop.

and one final thing, wouldnt an optional mulligan make it a tad easier for a player to play a donk deck? As if they start rather lackluster(no machops, skull fossils, etc) they would be able to take another stap at getting the ingriedients for the donk.

just my 3 cents

-Lawso

 

[SteveP]

Regarding an optional mulligan and donk decks, you could easily argue that it would help donk decks just as much as it could hurt them.

ADDED: Ditto Lawso42 above (he beat me to the SUBMIT button). :biggrin:

 

[ShadowCard]

^ That's basically how I see luck in the game. I have no problem with it being part of the game. What I have a problem with, is when it prevents the game from ever actually starting.

From my understanding, you also have a problem with luch when it hinders your progress during a game and you also have a problem with luck when it ends the game in your opponent's favor :tongue: :lol:

 

[DarthPika]

If it ends the game in their favor, then there was probably SOMETHING I could have done to prevent it. At least I got to have the chance to win.

 

[Muk Man]

I like the idea of searching your deck for two cards and then drawing five more to start every game. That would be really cool.

But one optional mulligan would also be really nice. =\

I "enjoyed" losing to a Junior the other day with my Energy/Energy/Energy/BTS/Crobat G/Looker's Investigation/Poke-Turn start. With 12 energy in the deck (four of which are Call), my only draw card was my one Looker's. Really?

Yeah. Optional mulligans please.

Searching for two cards...lol NO WAY

yeah i'll just grab this sableye and darkness energy...lol

Or i'll grab these 2 plus power

 

[prodigal_fanboy]

Searching for two cards...lol NO WAY

yeah i'll just grab this sableye and darkness energy...lol

Or i'll grab these 2 plus power

Or I'll grab these 2 Pokedrawer and effectively use my search AFTER seeing what other pieces of a combo puzzle I start with. That's legit.