Reinventing the Mulligan System
- Thread starter Sabett
- Start date
- Status
Sabett
Active Member
Not one person on here has explained at all how the god hand is supposed to deal with a moderate hand and 5+cards from the opposing player. A god hand doesn't just come out of the blue in most cases, it takes a quite a few tries, has no one read that for each mulligan the opponent gets to draw a card?
Also, I don't see how deciding who goes first once you see your hand with the old system is any better than deciding beforehand, you know your hand will be fine, because of the new mulligan system.
That would be a worse mulligan system for pokemon than the magic system, and directly manipulative and abusive.
Victory Bell
Member
Well that "handicap" gets the champ player a much better chance of geting their chop candy champ hand. If The other player has a lone basic and not much else, odds are still low that they will get either a basic or a call before the champ player goes second.
I actuly like the "pick a starter" idea. It adds skill, (I always start with Sableye now!) Kills the mulligan rule, and adds interesting deck building ideas. The only issue is that It breaks cards that were never ment to be broken (3 bees and dol t2 anyone!?!)
Btw I thought that prof logo comment was kinda mean. Thats like me pointing to my sig when I want to make a point. (Which I dont do)
baby mario
Front Page Article Editor<br><a href="http://pokeg
There would have to be some way to stop people using mulligans to abuse time limits.
Too easy to go 1-0 up in top cut or best of 3 swiss, then mulligan away the time until the opponent has no chance of winning the 2nd game.
Too easy to go 1-0 up in top cut or best of 3 swiss, then mulligan away the time until the opponent has no chance of winning the 2nd game.
Victory Bell
Member
Thats a good point.
Shuppet going second with a few plus cards from the oppnent. Either takes it to time or decks opponent.
Knowing if you'll go first or second WILL impact what hand you hope to start with, and thus influence how you take voluntary mulligans.
Please, don't turn Pokemon into starting "god" hands every game!!!!
Sabett
Active Member
If that player has a lone basic then it's that players fault that he lost, he had the choice to mulligan to something else, but no he decided to stick with a hand that only had one basic, no call and either knowledge that he was going first or had no way to get more basics. Sounds like that player should lose to machamp.
The pick a starter idea is much more abusive than my idea, you even described how abusive it can be, game development would have to become too narrow to accommodate that rule.
Also I don't care if someone thinks I was mean, I didn't intend for it to be mean, you're the one who sees it as so. Also don't you think I could just as easily find it mean that someones reciting basic rules, even more so since they are the one's being discussed about?
I've already addressed this, absolutely no where in the rules I provided did it amend the rule of stalling. It is still in effect, what you are describing is a direct example of stalling.
I would guess there would have to be some limit to it, even though you still can't stall with the system, but the problem arises of what happens once you mulligan twice and have no basics. Revert to old rules, or have them lose... Why does everyone think you can just eat up time with this? Are you allowed to shuffle your deck until time goes out? No, then why would it be ok to intentionally eat up time here?
Obviously it will change how you decide on your hand, but to the same token in the current rules your hand that you draw will determine how you will go first, more so. You already know that with the new mulligan system you will at least have a good hand, so you can already decide if you want to go first or not. In the current rules the hand you draw would heavily change your decision on going first or not.
Also no one here is understand a single thing I repeat over and over again. Do you know how rare a god hand is? You think it's just every four out of hands? No, it will take several mulligans to do that, giving your opponent such an advantage that no god hand could possibly deal with. Oh look I got machamp first turn. That's ok I have two stage twos out and a claydol, GG sir. Or do you think that with this system, both players with aim to get a god hand? First of all, they will not get it in the same amount of mulligans, second of stalling will still come into play. What do you think is going to happen when a person mulligans 7+ times? The opponents going to call a judge, obviously. Stalling, once again, still applies to the new mulligan system, just like it does for every other thing in Pokemon.
You honestly think people are going to mulligan 10 times just so they can get a god hand? Do you understand what kind of amazing advantage that is for their opponent? Oh, I get to mulligan three times for a moderate hand and then draw 7 cards, sounds like that god hand wasn't worth it.
Agreed, but to an extent. "Dead" hands will always be a possibility that shouldn't be entirely eliminated by allowing unlimited mulligans.
And, you're opponent's good fortune of drawing a "god" hand should NOT mean you're entitled to the same good fortune.
baby mario
Front Page Article Editor<br><a href="http://pokeg
Ok, so you call a judge and complain about the amount of mulligans. Player doing the mulligans says 'Yeah, I just keep getting bad hands'. Seeing as per your rules he doesn't even have to show his bad hand, there is no way of disputing this. Even if he does have to show the judge subsequent hands, whether they are bad or not is a matter of opinion. Do we really want judges ruling on whether or not a hand is good enough not to mulligan?
Besides, what with the 7 mulligans already used (in your example), plus the judge's intervention, a ton of time has already been used up. Does the judge allow a big time extension? What will that do to the smooth running of the tournament?
Leave it as is, its a part of pokemon IMO. It takes loads of skill coming back from terrible starts and still win a game. I think its fun, although I can see why some people might become "fraustrated" when perpetual bad starts occur (is it the deck or just bad luck?). I thought this was the reason people play 4 of their best basic pokemon, 4 call energy, 4 bebe's, 4 roseanne's, 2-2 claydol, etc, in order to prevent "bad" starts.
Meh if I wanted to play a game with minimal luck factor I'd just play chess. Lol, I wonder what the people on the chess boards complain about when it comes to things that aren't fair or lack "skill."
Meh if I wanted to play a game with minimal luck factor I'd just play chess. Lol, I wonder what the people on the chess boards complain about when it comes to things that aren't fair or lack "skill."
Sabett
Active Member
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.
The Dark Toxicroak
<a href="http://pokegym.net/forums/showpost.php?p=
The mulligan system doesn't need changing.
It does what it is meant to do the best it can. It makes people try to build a deck that won't mulligan. If they add in you can have up to 2 free mulligans then donk decks. If you consistently get bad hands then learn to make a good deck don't blame the working system that has been in place forever.,
It does what it is meant to do the best it can. It makes people try to build a deck that won't mulligan. If they add in you can have up to 2 free mulligans then donk decks. If you consistently get bad hands then learn to make a good deck don't blame the working system that has been in place forever.,
AzNightmare
New Member
I still find it funny how each player is participating in the coin toss hoping to lose instead of win.
Since when did losing a coin toss (in any sort of game) become an advantage?
Since when did losing a coin toss (in any sort of game) become an advantage?
Sabett
Active Member
It's been said ad nauseum that consistent decks still get bad starts, the idea is to eliminate bad starts as feasibly possible so that consistent decks don't have to lose randomly out of the blue, when it is most crucial.
The bolded part of your post clearly shows me that you have not been reading the entire thread. Please go read my first post, and DarthPika's first post.
I've had a problem with going first being a cripple as well, that was partially the reason why I came up with this.
Jeremy Badeaux
New Member
Something funny about this topic is that in all of its incarnations, it is almost always posted by somebody who got gipped because of a bad hand at some big event.
Does anybody remember back when some people started using decks with fossils and one basic?
It was a horrible setup because it dragged things out and any player using said deck could simply decide if he/she liked the hand enough to start with it.
There will always be a luck factor in Pokemon. Always.
For arguments sake, let's say that this rule is put into effect(two optional mulligans) and you get a warm-fuzzy from it.
How long until somebody else loses to a bad hand and starts complaining that two mulligans just aren't enough?
Your proposal is also something that I would never want to be stuck teaching to a new child learning to play the game(how do you explain to a 5-year old what is or is not a good enough hand?).
Also, if the mulligan rule works as advertised, it would remove the need for match play entirely, right?
Perhaps you could enlighten us by sharing the results of your playtesting with the mechanic to see how it works in practice?
Does anybody remember back when some people started using decks with fossils and one basic?
It was a horrible setup because it dragged things out and any player using said deck could simply decide if he/she liked the hand enough to start with it.
There will always be a luck factor in Pokemon. Always.
For arguments sake, let's say that this rule is put into effect(two optional mulligans) and you get a warm-fuzzy from it.
How long until somebody else loses to a bad hand and starts complaining that two mulligans just aren't enough?
Your proposal is also something that I would never want to be stuck teaching to a new child learning to play the game(how do you explain to a 5-year old what is or is not a good enough hand?).
Also, if the mulligan rule works as advertised, it would remove the need for match play entirely, right?
Perhaps you could enlighten us by sharing the results of your playtesting with the mechanic to see how it works in practice?
Victory Bell
Member
Why would we change the mulligain system anyway? If it is to prevent donks I can see better, more precise ways of doing things... I dont see optional mulligains as something that would help the current state of the game.
Chess and Poker are good examples of more luck based and skill based games and good for proving points/makeing comparasons.
Btw chess is 99.9% skill the only luck is who goes first.
Chess and Poker are good examples of more luck based and skill based games and good for proving points/makeing comparasons.
Btw chess is 99.9% skill the only luck is who goes first.
Sabett
Active Member
Less incidents will obviously happen once this would be in effect, also do you have any examples of people starting up a thread because they got gypped? Also what does that have to do with anything?
And if you had read the entire thread of a whole 2 pages, you would've already seen that I understand this would be complicated for younger players to work with, and I've already suggested that it be limited to older age groups.
I haven't done extensive testing, but of what I have done has only had good results. No bad starts so far, however that was with unlimted mulligans.
Also the part that I bolded in your post makes absolutely no sense, it's bad starts that remove the need for match play entirely.
EDIT:
What do you mean? Do you typically get a bad hand out of a typical three hands from your deck? Now that is a problem with the deck itself or a very coincidental incident. This alone would almost entirely eliminate bad starts with the right and consistent builds.
Also I understand chess and poker can be good comparisons in this situation, but telling people to go play that game as an answer to this problem isn't helping anything at all.
You got me on chess though, lol I knew there was something.
- Status