Reinventing the Mulligan System

[NoPoke]

If you have a painless optional mulligan then all that will happen is that everyones starts will improve. You get power creep: the fast decks get faster, which just leads to the definition of what consitutes a bad hand shifting.

I'm not against an optional mulligan but I am concerned that it is being advocated as a way of mitigating the typical variations in opening hand that are due to randomisation. That is more than likely to have some very unfortunate side effects.

 

[Sabett]

I'm not talking about consistent builds. I mean that entire decks should be forced out of the format by donk decks, and deck choices that are more consistent as a whole (i.e. SP) would be encouraged.

People liking to play the archetype means they view donks as anything but a problem; they are the main reason behind playing one. Whether donks are bad is simply your opinion. Why should the noob who's been getting lucky with Machamp have to be put at a disadvantage while you become safe from the only threat he poses?

Donk decks already only donk on a coin flip, in addition to their starting hand. You didn't answer my question before, which was "Because people like to play a certain archetype excludes any sort of problem it might create?", saying that people like it doesn't really answer that question. Also, we're trying to reduce the luck factor that completely excludes any chance for a player, noob or veteran, from having any sort of decision in fighting back in-game. It says in the rules that pokemon is a game of skill and that you're supposed to determine each player's skill level, not who's going to get a bad hand and have no means of displaying his skill.

If you have a painless optional mulligan then all that will happen is that everyones starts will improve. You get power creep: the fast decks get faster, which just leads to the definition of what consitutes a bad hand shifting.

I'm not against an optional mulligan but I am concerned that it is being advocated as a way of mitigating the typical variations in opening hand that are due to randomisation. That is more than likely to have some very unfortunate side effects.

That's why a 6 card hand was decided for the mulligan, it's worse to start off with than 7 cards. It's not supposed to encourage inconsistent decks at all, since the mulligan is unreliable at best, it's to give you a better hand than a bad one you started with.

 

[SteveP]

If you have a painless optional mulligan then all that will happen is that everyones starts will improve. You get power creep: the fast decks get faster, which just leads to the definition of what consitutes a bad hand shifting.

I'm not against an optional mulligan but I am concerned that it is being advocated as a way of mitigating the typical variations in opening hand that are due to randomisation. That is more than likely to have some very unfortunate side effects.

Agreed, mostly. Often, the effects of change don't always go as expected. But, I'm not convinced that an optional mulligan will help faster decks go even faster. I think they'll just become more consistant.

If players are using optional mulligans to improve an average-okay hand to a better hand, there's always the potential for the second hand to be worse. Some players will take risks, others not. But, that's a good thing - you'll have the choice to take the risk with an optional mulligan.

 

[Box of Fail]

Donk decks already only donk on a coin flip, in addition to their starting hand. You didn't answer my question before, which was "Because people like to play a certain archetype excludes any sort of problem it might create?", saying that people like it doesn't really answer that question.

If many people like it, it is not a problem to most people, correct?

Also, we're trying to reduce the luck factor that completely excludes any chance for a player, noob or veteran, from having any sort of decision in fighting back in-game. It says in the rules that pokemon is a game of skill and that you're supposed to determine each player's skill level, not who's going to get a bad hand and have no means of displaying his skill.

Some people want to reduce it, others don't. PCL doesn't have any problem with this luck factor.... What do you mean, 'we're trying to reduce the luck factor'? You and some people who agree. An equal amount of people oppose the elimination of this extreme luck factor. The 'we' feels inclusive, as if you're insinuating that the general public is trying to reduce the luck factor, which is totally untrue.

The rules don't say anything about skill; that's the parent's guide, aimed at marketing. The same group has said that you should be worried because Manectric's Power Wave can damage your bench in their official guide.

Luck is an intrinsical part of the Pokémon franchise. I would say that the TV show, and also the videogames, indicate that Pokémon is meant to be half luck, half skill. If you've ever done competitive VG battling you know what I mean (crits, OHKO moves, evasion, prediction, paralyzing, freezing, flinching, 'hax' items, etc). The game is so full of luck that many competitive battlers ban tons of different things. If you wish to implement an optional mulligan into fun games with your friends, by all means, go ahead.

The central theme of Pokémon is that an average 10-year-old kid can beat the elite, often through almost entirely luck. Why should a noob with a Machamp deck be barred from donking a skilled, worlds-tier player in round 1 of nats, severely hurting his chances of top cut and dropping his rating by 40 points?

 

[Skull Hatter]

The central theme of Pokémon is that an average 10-year-old kid can beat the elite, often through almost entirely luck. Why should a noob with a Machamp deck be barred from donking a skilled, worlds-tier player in round 1 of nats, severely hurting his chances of top cut and dropping his rating by 40 points?

I don't know, because trolling in real life is infinitely worse than trolling on the internet?

 

[pat460]

I don't know, because trolling in real life is infinitely worse than trolling on the internet?

Ah, infinatly worse, or better? Imagine you are a new player, learned to play like 2 weeks ago ro something. O look, its states, and your round 1 is who you view to be the best player in the area. Oh, look, you donk him. Imagine the insane happiness of beaitng that top player, with your noob status. THATS what Pokemon seems to be aiming for more than a game of complete skill, moreso lately than previously. If you want to play a game that is completely skill, go play chess, otherwise get used to luck factors.

Now, normally, Ide troll you here, but I'm so tired of these threads, I don't even see troll value in this anymore. tis a sad, sad day.

 

[Skull Hatter]

It's really the principal of the thing.

You worked so hard on your deck, it's consistent and everything. You get a bad hand, so you try to play it out. They lead with like, a skull fossil or a Machop. Donk.

So this kid is laughing and laughing while your shot at the top cut are efficiently gone, seeing as how this kid probably won't do that greatly either.

If that's not trolling, I don't know what is.

 

[SteveP]

Some people want to reduce it, others don't. PCL doesn't have any problem with this luck factor....

The rules don't say anything about skill; that's the parent's guide, aimed at marketing....

Although I agree that luck is an essential part of Pokemon, I don't agree that TPCi puts it on "equal footing" with skill. I invite you to read the first sentence in the SOTG section of the Tournament Rules. I also remind you about who gets invited to Worlds (tournament winners and highly ranked players). Skill MUST generally be stressed over luck in a competitive environment.

Luck has it's place in Pokemon. I think Sabett and others have done an admirable job of arguing how bad luck with starting hands warrants serious consideration of an optional mulligan. The recommendation is justifiable in the context of a competitive environment.

I know it's an old cliche, but competition isn't always about winning, but how the game is played. An optional mulligan CAN improve how the game is played, plain and simple.

 

[SuperWooper]

How about we keep the mulligan system exactly as it is? Year after year, many of the same players earn Worlds invites, and many of the same players appear at or near the top of the ranks. This is a sign that the system is working! Let it be.

 

[SteveP]

How about we keep the mulligan system exactly as it is? Year after year, many of the same players earn Worlds invites, and many of the same players appear at or near the top of the ranks. This is a sign that the system is working! Let it be.

This topic isn't about changing the current mulligan system. It's about adding something new to the mix. Although this "optional mulligan" recommendation and the "no-basics mulligan" share the "mulligan" word, they are quite different.

For me, the optional mulligan recommendation isn't about fixing something. It's about adding something to make the opening a bit more skill-prone. Don't you think the top players would be in favor of something like that?

There are many players "on the fringe," players who barely missed Worlds, players who lost a critical game or two to chance. An optional mulligan can have a great effect on those fringe players.

Obviously, if you think that luck should be vital to winning games and getting invitations to Worlds, this topic is not for you. Luck can and should win games in Pokemon, but anything that makes the game more skillful should not be so easily discounted.

 

[Box of Fail]

It's really the principal of the thing.

You worked so hard on your deck, it's consistent and everything. You get a bad hand, so you try to play it out. They lead with like, a skull fossil or a Machop. Donk.

So this kid is laughing and laughing while your shot at the top cut are efficiently gone, seeing as how this kid probably won't do that greatly either.

If that's not trolling, I don't know what is.

Winning a game isn't trolling. He probably didn't do it for the sake of ruining your topcut chances. You're completely forgetting the noob's perspective... what you and Sabett are basically saying is that if you are paired with someone less skilled than you in a tournament, you should automatically end up winning, because then it is a true test of skill. Noobs want to win, too. Maybe they're involved in several card games, or they don't want to buy Roseanne's or go to league for Claydols. Maybe they're too lazy to invest their time into building the best deck they can. Maybe they want to play their favorite Pokémon, which just happens to be Aggron.

You and Sabett both seem to be ignoring the noob, thinking 'he should go on HeyTrainer and get competitive'. But Pokémon is a place for all to shine, and people who don't put any effort into their decks are just as important as those who lose sleep assessing the metagame, testing, and tweaking their lists.

 

[Yoshi-]

If I were to start a game and could just win like that I'd quit again sicne the game is obviously crap...
Back when I started I borrowed a great deck from a friend who really knew what he did. Still I got completly beaten up since I didnt know how to play it and just got outplayed.
This was just normal and got me going, getting informed, learning, etc etc til I finally won my first tournament.

Sure the game shouldnt have 0 luck but right now its just too much luck.
You want noobs who cant play to have the same shot at winnign as someone who practises a lot?
Why dont you go play dice, pokemon is still supposed to be a game of skill

 

[SteveP]

A newbie who has skills belongs in Pokemon. A newbie who thinks he/she is entitled to win lots of games by luck belongs in dice games (echoing yoshi).

It's not that newbies are unimportant. But, once they sit down to play Pokemon, they shouldn't feel that their lack of experience/preparation entitles them to have an even-chance of beating someone with superior experience/preparation. They MIGHT win, but the odds SHOULD be stacked against them.

 

[pat460]

A newbie who has skills belongs in Pokemon. A newbie who thinks he/she is entitled to win lots of games by luck belongs in dice games (echoing yoshi).

And a skilled player who thinks there should be no luck should play chess, right?

 

[Muk Man]

And a skilled player who thinks there should be no luck should play chess, right?

Im sorry but this is just PWN!

 

[Box of Fail]

And a skilled player who thinks there should be no luck should play chess, right?

Haha, what I've been saying this whole time, but summed up in a bitingly concise way.

 

[SteveP]

And a skilled player who thinks there should be no luck should play chess, right?

"Out of the blue" statements like this result in top-selling books like Arguing With Idiots. If someone presents intelligent debate, but their opponent can't rebute with intelligent counter-points, they'll resort to meatless "Oh Yeah!" comments like the one above.

"Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.":tongue:

 

[pat460]

"Out of the blue" statements like this result in top-selling books like Arguing With Idiots. If someone presents intelligent debate, but their opponent can't rebute with intelligent counter-points, they'll resort to meatless "Oh Yeah!" comments like the one above.

"Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.":tongue:

So, you saying that a new mulligan system would reduce the luck factor in the game, which is true, btw, is more intelligent of a claim than my claim that people who truly want a game that matches skill against skill with no luck to play chess. This is true, yes? If not, disregard the rest of this post.

Okay, assuming you think that your post was more intelligent, let me make a post that might fit the master's desires.

Pokemon, in both the tcg and video game series, is a combination of luck and equations. The equations for the video games are obvious, such as the ball catch rate or the damage one, you know what I mean. But the tcg ones are not so obvious. the equations are the chances that your deck willl work well enough to beat your opponent. for instance, you have a certain chance of getting a bad 1 basic start. This can be calculated using an equation, which would depend on the amount of bad basics in your deck, the amount of good ones, the amount of cards that allow you to get around them( call, ect). There are also equations to see how games play out, such as win ratios for decks(i.e. this deck has a 60-40 against that deck kinda stuff)

So, pokemon is based on equations, right? Well, those equations are all just the way to determine the chances of something happening, like getting a bad start or drawing that energy you need, or winning that game. Chance, in itself, is luck. If you get the desired outcome form an event left to chance, its "lucky". If not, its "unlucky". So, because luck is just an extension of chance, which is an extension of the equations based on the cards in your deck at a given time, and the state of the game at that given time, "luck" is an irremovable part of the game.

However, if you want to play a game where you can't loose due to "luck", I recommend a game that is not based on equations, such as chess, which is all skill. There are other games that do not involve chance, but chess is the most prominent one, and thats why I use it as an example. If you take all the chance out of any game, it becomes chess 2.0. Many games simply can not have the chance removed form them, such as Pokemon, without loosing what makes them themselves. If you were to take out the chance in Pokemon, it would be a completely different game.

Because chance is always going to be a factor in Pokemon, it is silly to try to remove the chance in one aspect, such as the chance of getting donked. Though it is probably the most unpleasant part of the chance involved with Pokemon, it would be silly to remove it and not all chance.

That long enough to qualify as an "intelligent debate" response for you? So, taunt me a second time, I have a lot of time and very few things to do with it.


EDIT: pretty cool post for my post #2000 lol. also, though I love arguments, I will have to continue this tomorrow as this week is semester exam week lol and its 12:14 where I live.

 

[SteveP]

Well done! That's more like it.

At no point have I advocated the removal of luck from Pokemon. I absolutely accept it's existance as an essential part of the game. Additionally, I've strongly refuted the author's claim that bad starting hands are "unfair." So, in a way, you're "preaching to the chior" about luck and it's fairness.

Nevertheless, in a competitive environment, skill should dominate, generally speaking. In that context, an optional mulligan should not be categorically rejected with irrelavent statements like "go play chess" or false comments like "bad starts are good for the game."

I understand that some games in Pokemon will be won by luck and some by skill. Nevertheless, Pokemon champs and top players are viewed as being more skilled than lucky, wouldn't you agree? If you do, then wouldn't you also agree that something that advocates skill is a good thing, so long as it doesn't destroy the essential elements of luck?

Are bad starts an essential element in Pokemon? I don't think they're essential, but if you do, then I can understand why you would consider an optional mulligan to be damaging to the game.

 

[NoPoke]

How about we keep the mulligan system exactly as it is? Year after year, many of the same players earn Worlds invites, and many of the same players appear at or near the top of the ranks. This is a sign that the system is working! Let it be.

There is plenty of evidence, such as the above, that pokemon tcg IS already a game of skill.

Bad starts are inherent in pokemon tcg. Changing the muligan/start procedure won't prevent bad starts because deck order is supposed to be random. The most likely outcome is that the definition of what constitutes a bad start will change. Currently if you play 4 call energy then you have a 40% chance of starting with a Call. Starting with no call energy isn't a disaster but is less than optimal for many decks. Change the start procedure and now you make starting with call energy a 70+% chance. What is most likely to happen is that players will view the absence of Call energy as an indicator of a bad start when they get donked. The optional mulligan doesn't remove the presence of bad starts it just changes the definition. Call energy is just an example there are plenty of others.