Reinventing the Mulligan System

[DarthPika]

Nopoke, I don't consider something as trivial as no call energy a bad start. I consider a lone mesprit and a hand full of SP trainers a bad start. THIS is why I think there should be an optional mulligan. For that once in a tourney dead hand that can cost you a critical match.

 

[NoPoke]

Nor do I.

If you allow players an optional mulligan then lacking call in your eventual starting hand may become players definition of a bad start.

Post a deck and I'll tell you how likely that lone mesprit and hand of (unusable) SP trainers actually is.

 

[SteveP]

In addition to what NoPoke said about Call Energy, an optional mulligan could (and probably will) affect how players construct decks. Knowing they'd get two chances to get an acceptable starting hand, they might "push things to the limit" and add even more "tech" cards, increasing the likelyhood of a bad hand. In a sense, the change might actually propagate the very thing it's trying to fix. This would be akin to a poor person who suddenly acquired extra money. Are they going to continue to live within their means, or are they going to spend it freely, without any consideration that eventually they'll be poor again?

 

[DarthPika]

I seriously doubt that good players would change their lists for 1 optional mulligan.

 

[nnaann]

Nopoke, I don't consider something as trivial as no call energy a bad start. I consider a lone mesprit and a hand full of SP trainers a bad start. THIS is why I think there should be an optional mulligan. For that once in a tourney dead hand that can cost you a critical match.

I don't want this to get into a debate about Call Energy, but it's definately not trivial. Pachirsu was popular before, and many people refuse to play decks without Call Energy because the lack of consistency. In matches against similar skilled players, matchups, luck and starts decide games. A lone Mesprit and a hand full of SP trainers is so unlikely, you're quoting a game which is nearly a year old. How many games have you played since and had OK starts? Besides there are decks which set up virtually every time alot more consistently like Shuppet provided they aren't tomb locked or Deafen'd.

 

[baby mario]

If you choose to play a deck that has a bad start 9/10 games, you should know that and accept it.

If you choose to play a deck that has a bad start 1/100 games, then the same thing applies.

Good decks still win, good players still top cut. A few hard luck stories doesn't warrant a major rule change imo.

 

[toradam]

If you choose to play a deck that has a bad start 9/10 games, you should know that and accept it.

If you choose to play a deck that has a bad start 1/100 games, then the same thing applies.

Good decks still win, good players still top cut. A few hard luck stories doesn't warrant a major rule change imo.

My point exactly. This game is a game of luck. The luck is what makes the games interesting, and gives everyone a chance, but the most consistent deck will usually win.

 

[pat460]

Gonna respond to both posts

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.

Right there in the bold you stated why there is no need for optional mulls. If the top players are already viewed as skillfull, and not thought of as lucky, then there is no need to reduce luck because top skilled players are already doing better than Mr. Joe Lucksac.
I dont think bad starts are an ESSENTIAL element of the game, but they are an element that isn't going anywhere any time soon.

In addition to what NoPoke said about Call Energy, an optional mulligan could (and probably will) affect how players construct decks. Knowing they'd get two chances to get an acceptable starting hand, they might "push things to the limit" and add even more "tech" cards, increasing the likelyhood of a bad hand. In a sense, the change might actually propagate the very thing it's trying to fix. This would be akin to a poor person who suddenly acquired extra money. Are they going to continue to live within their means, or are they going to spend it freely, without any consideration that eventually they'll be poor again?

I doubt good players would change their lists to account for mulligans. Top MTG lists dont take that into consideration, and MTG technically has 6 mulls lol.

 

[AoTF]

why not consider the following. Before the game starts and prizes are set. Each player have take 1 mulligan if they deem it so . If a player does so before they draw they place the top 3 cards into the lost zone. Then the set-up proceeds as normal.

* this is a take on the mulligan rule that UFS used but instead of 3 cards they used 5.* Now granted after you mulligan,Draw your opening hand and then place 6 prizes you are left with 43 cards left in deck. Seeing as how in pokemon a player doesn't have cards to be able to play where are game such as UFS and Raw Deal did. 43 cards is a pretty good number of cards left in deck and should be enough to work with.

 

[SteveP]

Right there in the bold you stated why there is no need for optional mulls. If the top players are already viewed as skillfull, and not thought of as lucky, then there is no need to reduce luck because top skilled players are already doing better than Mr. Joe Lucksac.

My whole purpose for my statement you bolded was to lead into the follow-up question. If skill is good, isn't more skill better (so long as it doesn't mess up any essential elements of luck)?

I dont think bad starts are an ESSENTIAL element of the game, but they are an element that isn't going anywhere any time soon.

If you don't think they're essential, then you wouldn't mind if they were reduced, right?

I doubt good players would change their lists to account for mulligans. Top MTG lists dont take that into consideration, and MTG technically has 6 mulls lol.

You might be right, but I'll bet that some players might add that extra tech because of an increased sense of confidence in avoiding a bad start. It's speculation on both our parts. Like my poor person example -- if you give them more, they'll spend more. George Carlin's "Stuff" comedy routine is a prime illustration of this kind of behavior.

 

[pat460]

My whole purpose for my statement you bolded was to lead into the follow-up question. If skill is good, isn't more skill better (so long as it doesn't mess up any essential elements of luck)?


If you don't think they're essential, then you wouldn't mind if they were reduced, right?


You might be right, but I'll bet that some players might add that extra tech because of an increased sense of confidence in avoiding a bad start. It's speculation on both our parts. Like my poor person example -- if you give them more, they'll spend more. George Carlin's "Stuff" comedy routine is a prime illustration of this kind of behavior.

Skill is good, and more skill could be better or worse, but I don't think it should invade one of the biggest factors that luck has on the game. If mulls were allowed, luck would be left to basically only draws, and wouldn't be near as prominent in the game. Which is why though I think that bad starts aren't essential, they probably shouldn't be changed too much like this. If anything, more and more security blanket cards could come out, like call 2.0 or something, to reduce it, but I don't think they should ever leave. they have been a part since base, and you know, " if it aint broke, don't fix it".

And, yeah, the deck changes thing would be completely speculation, so theres not much more we can do with that lol.

 

[SteveP]

If you google "game design principles," you'll see a variety of expert articles about what makes a game desireable and exciting to play. While different games appeal to different people, one of the overriding essential elements of any game is that all players feel they have a "fair" chance of winning when the game starts.

A few years back, Pokemon made a huge change to even-out game starts when they ruled that the first player can't play trainers/supporters/stadiums on their first turn. The major reason for that change was to give the second player a chance to recover from an opening assault. Now, "the tide has turned," and the second player has a significant advantage, much like the first player in those early years of Pokemon. Perhaps an optional mulligan isn't the end-all remedy, but IMO, it has potential to somewhat even-out game starts.

 

[pat460]

Howso? How does optional mulls help the person going first more than the person going second?

 

[Kayle]

Going first, you have problems getting extra Basics into play, making it easier for you to get donked.

This thread doesn't seem to be going anywhere, by the way. The same arguments and the same proposals have been going on for about eight pages, it seems like. Or am I mistaken? I don't think even the players can agree on optional mulligans... I doubt PUI will take much consideration into it.

 

[SteveP]

Howso? How does optional mulls help the person going first more than the person going second?

Sorry if I mislead you. My purpose was to illustrate how PCL implemented a new game rule to try to even-out starts. An optional mulligan shouldn't help one player more than another. It should just help reduce the number of lopsided starts by giving players a greater possibility of avoiding bad starting hands.

Going second is generally considered better than going first, but I have a set up deck (Shaymin, Yanmega, Celebi, RoseliaSP) that actually wants to go first. Same goes for my Gengar/Spiritomb deck. So, the argument about whether going first or second is best, I guess really depends on a number of things.

 

[pat460]

Right, so why mention the advantages of going first vs second if you don't think mulls would help either player more?

 

[SteveP]

Right, so why mention the advantages of going first vs second if you don't think mulls would help either player more?

It's late, but here's my reasoning.

Years ago, PCL saw a problem. Things weren't balanced at the begining of the game, so they made a change to try to even things out. STOP here. Don't delve into what that problem was -- just focus on the abstract idea that PCL made a change to try to balance the opening turns of the game, to give players a more even chance to win.

Now, apply that abstract concept to how an optional mulligan can likewise balance the starting hands.

Game design principles stress the need to start a game on equal-grounds. Given two equally-skilled players and equipment, no starting position should have an extreme advantage over the other.

I'm about done with this topic. It's been enjoyable debating a game mechanic that works well in other games. I think it would fit quite naturally in Pokemon.

 

[pat460]

It's late, but here's my reasoning.

Years ago, PCL saw a problem. Things weren't balanced at the begining of the game, so they made a change to try to even things out. STOP here. Don't delve into what that problem was -- just focus on the abstract idea that PCL made a change to try to balance the opening turns of the game, to give players a more even chance to win.

Now, apply that abstract concept to how an optional mulligan can likewise balance the starting hands.

Game design principles stress the need to start a game on equal-grounds. Given two equally-skilled players and equipment, no starting position should have an extreme advantage over the other.

I'm about done with this topic. It's been enjoyable debating a game mechanic that works well in other games. I think it would fit quite naturally in Pokemon.

Right, PCL saw the problem and tried to fix it. But how would mulls fix anything about balance issues between who goes first and second at game start? I understand your saying they would but I don't see how.

 

[SteveP]

Right, PCL saw the problem and tried to fix it. But how would mulls fix anything about balance issues between who goes first and second at game start? I understand your saying they would but I don't see how.

Dang, I can't get you off that thought about optional mulligans and who goes first or second. I don't know if you're doing that on purpose to "rib" me or not.

Optional mulligans DON'T balance issues regarding who goes first or second, at least not directly. What they DO balance is the oppurtunity for players to start games without an extreme disadvantage regarding starting hands. That's all. Forget about who goes first or second.