Why doesn't Pokemon...

[Venjamin]

lawlz.

I think that pretty much sums up those who would be opposed to this change.

... Honestly, you'd think that newer players were amoeba the way they get ragged on. So -what-? They need to be able to win... or eventually they'll quit. Pokemon is a game for everyone, not just the 'elites'. I don't want the less skilled players, or the players who can't afford to buy six boxes, or the players who don't have the ability to make it to every top-tier tournament to quit.

Plain and simple, I like the current mulligan system, and I've had my fair share of lame starts [ turn one Feebas delta? Yeah, I know that feeling. ] and I've made my peace with that. Yeah, it's lame that I'm going to lose points, but that is the risk I take running a milotic line, or any other tech line.

I disagree that a paris mulligan system will help. A best two of three will certainly help... if you get a bad start twice in a row, it's honestly not the opponent's fault.

Along with that, it will make the game much more enjoyable on the part of the players who aren't as good - a five minute blowout for one match is just as depressing to players who aren't as good as a two minute donk is to anyone.

It's not wrong to take the weaker players into account when discussing heavy changes like this. I don't want Pokemon to turn in to Yuugiou where it's so terribly cutthroat that no one really has fun playing any more. I take SOTG seriously - and any game where SOTG is a priority should be a fun experience.



-

As for the 45, best two out of three... I have to agree with NoPoke. It would be exceedingly taxing on the staff, but honestly, a good States match will do the same thing. Speaking for myself only, I wouldn't have any problems staying longer to make the game more enjoyable, and in my opinion, all of the Staffers I've met so far would be in the same boat. We staff for the love of the game, and extending the game wouldn't hurt my feelings any.


Now let me go burn my soap box.

 

[homeofmew]

This would be very very nice if this actually happens. (WHICH IT WON'T)
No Basics = Normal Mulligan (you have to show)
Don't Like your hand = MTG Mulligan (don't have to show)

 

[SteveP]

SteveP: was that 60 min match play in the swiss?

Yup. It was what the better players wanted. Since then, I've "seen the light." Less than half our players play the game that competitively. Generally, the better players will make the playoffs. With playoffs, there's not as much need to "put so much meat" into the swiss rounds.

 

[NoPoke]

Yup. It was what the better players wanted. Since then, I've "seen the light." Less than half our players play the game that competitively. Generally, the better players will make the playoffs. With playoffs, there's not as much need to "put so much meat" into the swiss rounds.

I agree. Its why I am not expecting 45 minute match play to do much more than allow a quick concession and the possibility of recovery. In that respect Kant is correct in that it is inferior to a working paris mulligan. The difficulty with the paris mulligan is two fold. First there is the need for PCL to endorse it and second that we don't know what unforseen impact it might have on the game. I don't know for certain but I read somewhere that Belgium uses 30 minute match play for the swiss rounds. I must try and find out more about 30 minute match play.

Some time ago you used to agree that swiss+1 was better than swiss at determining who should make the cut. Do you still hold that view? Personally I don't like the prospect of lots of tournaments where significant numbers of X-2s routinely miss the cut.

 

[SteveP]

Mulligans worked in another TCG I played, Lord of the Rings. I'd have to test it to see if it can work for Pokemon.

If I had my way, players could pick their starting Pokemon, thus no-basic mulligans would be eliminated. Players would then draw 6 cards. If desired, they could do a 1-time mulligan and draw 5 cards.

We do best-of-3, 30-minute matches at our pre-releases. For contructed, I wouldn't go less than 45 minutes. The incomplete 2nd game rule makes match play unattractive for anything less than 60 minutes.

Regarding swiss+1, I am definately an advocate when playoffs are not involved. But, with playoffs, I don't see the need.

All 1-loss and less players should make the playoffs, IMO. The top cut is too small if that doesn't happen. Two loses should be where the cutoff happens, where tiebreakers are used. I love the anticipation and anxiety when the final standings are posted.

 

[sar86]

All the optional mulligan is going to do is take a limited metagame, as to what can consistantly win, and make it even more limited. That would completly eliminate speed decks if you can keep trying to draw a new hand until you get the start you want as they are less likely to be able to get that quick win that they depend on. Luck is a big part of anygame and a well built deck will make top cut anyways. If you get a really poor start, and lose a a direct result of that twice or more in the swiss round of a tournament, then it's likely that your deck isn't built well enough. The same thing applies if you get that terrible start 2 of 3 times during one playoff round (For the record, I believe that there is no excuse for only having a best of 1 playoff. Plan for a long tournament, no one should get screwed out of a great day because their one bad start of the day is during the playoff round). POP has put the necessary rules in place to ensure that one bad start on the day doesn't cost you a tournament, but lets not forget that this is a card game, luck is part of a card game. If you don't like it maybe you shouldn't be playing, There are other hobbies out there.

 

[Druester]

i think that this would be a great idea......if there was more control because if you could mulligan until you have what you need to win it would take the sport out of playing and the fun of the game away so i say yay to a two card Mulligan limit.

 

[FriedBlaziken]

During the 2005 Nationals, we had mulligans (max of 5)

 

[ryanvergel]

NoPoke:

Swiss does allow for a tiny bit of bad luck, but not enough for all the easily possible factors: bad matchups, bad draw, bad opening hand, etc. If we could at least offer an easy, simply way of cutting out an unnecessary possibility like starting hand (which doesn't allow ANY skill to come into play. You simply lose.) we should. Just imagine all the strategy that would go into the game when you have to determine whether or not to mulligan your mediocre or not-good-enough starts vs say an autoloss or mirror.

If I had a 10-90 matchup and only got a 60%goodness start, I may wanna mulligan and quite literally try to donk them with a god-start.

But like you pointed out about lots of x-2s missing cuts, losing 1 round in swiss to bad setup only allows 0-1 other losses to be because of ANYTHING else. So, really, you have to go x-1 because a horrendous starting hand doesn't even allow a real game to take place. An atrocious hand is god giving you an autoloss. If you get a bad opening hand then you really don't have any room to make mistakes or have bad matchups.