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).
It's not my fault you misunderstand the topic at hand, we've been talking about a new mulligan system this entire thread, and nothing about the means of implementing at all, and the first time the subject does come up I say that it's not this thread's place. Honestly, on my part I think I was pretty clear. Talking about the actual process to implement includes so many things that hasn't been brought into the discussion at all, and I doubt there'd even be that many people who'd know the actual process that needs to be taken in order to make this new mulligan system a part of the game. So it's distracting from the topic, and seen impractical given our resources.
I never said that luck being bias was the problem, it's that it
randomly (as is always implied when using the word luck) puts people into situations where their skill level means absolutely nothing at all, in a game where that should for the most part be the deciding factor.
You've completely skewed what I've said, I'm saying to talk about the mulligan system, not the TPCi. Which is exactly what people were doing. What statistics are you talking about? I have NO statistics at all. Maybe made up by you yes, but not by me. Or maybe you mean when I talked about the few games I played with the mulligan system I don't advocate anymore, and that I've already denounced last time you posted. Those weren't statistics either though, I had no numbers.
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.
When I say that pokemon was meant to be played with 6 prizes, that's an argument against sudden death situations, not donks, at all. Sudden death is fine, but it should be used sparingly, not often. I made it clear in a post earlier how donks are not the same as sudden death situations. My problem isn't with luck in general, it's when it takes away all your resources and doesn't give you a leg to stand on. I've said before in this thread that coin flips and top decking are fine to me; I just want luck to be able to be combated against.
^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.
Is it wrong to have people play
real games?
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.
#1 can also not make a difference in you getting bad starts. (The number yes, but it will still happen). Also the mulligan system we're talking about doesn't really give you enough power to let go on the deck building factor, it's not that good.
Would you want me to create a thread to discuss implementing it? It seems this is a recurring issue.
-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
It would still help more than the initial bad start you had, with no mulligan.
But they wouldn't get the donk if you had more than one basic, correct? Rendering their efforts futile, as you have another basic.
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.
This is one of the sole reasonings I've had for a new mulligan system. With the current one in place, I can lose without being able to do anything, with a new mulligan system, I can at least try to fight back, have an actual decision, no matter what.
Some other things that haven't been discussed on this thread that much, but has been here since the beginning.
That you would flip to see who goes first before drawing hands, and that your opponent wouldn't be seeing your hand when you mulligan, until you mulliganned once, and then reverted back to the old rules.
Thank you everyone for posting on the topic, and please tell me if you would like a thread opened about actually implementing this into the current game system.
