Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Why doesn't Pokemon...

Status
Not open for further replies.
charmander rox said:
Well, ehich would you rather have:

30 random cards in your hand from your opponent mulliganing so much

or

any 7 cards you like in your deck in your hand?
Click to expand...


If you draw 30 cards, and you end up with a "random hand" then your deck is god awful and you don't deserve to win.

The point I am trying to make is a good deck can beat a bad deck even if the bad deck starts with liek 15 cards, which focuses alot more on skill in deckbuilding and less on luck of the draw.
 
ok everyone's saying they like it but it's not likely to happen..

the question i'm asking is WHY it won't happen. Maybe someone from PUI will see this and answer..

I don't see any disadvantage to lowering the luck factor
 
The japanese are very much into fair play, honesty, politeness. Allowing mullys bc your 1st hand isnt "fabulous" is just not very sporting. Luck is a part of the game. They want to keep that portion in.

Keith
 
I like things the way they are. The luck that does exist in this game, keeps people coming back to tournaments to play again. And by "people" I mean people with inferior playing skills.

I think a moderate level of luck is good for the game. If, occasionally, someone makes the top cut that otherwise would not (if the game were 100% skill and 0% luck), that will keep inferior players coming back to the game.
 
The optional mulligan proposal is a hardy anual.

45 minute Match play in swiss. Would have similar effect. ;) Not the same I agree but match play does offer a way out for those awfull hands that everyone gets occasionally. Match play we can do now without any change.

I did make a proposal for a modification to the ELO win expectancy that takes account of the very real possibility that match outcomes are determined by luck. It's introduction would help to address the dichotomy that is tournament play for ratings and tournament play for fun. This is something that POP could introduce without having to refer back to PCL. I'm certain that POP do want the ratings sysem to be a fair determinant of who gets a rating invite, and that skill ought to be the major component of that determination. However there is no obvious fix that will be approved of by all.

-----------------

Should you lose the chance at a scholarship just because of luck, why not? The best players show up at the top tables all the time. They will get their share, so why not spread the wealth. If it takes a bit of luck to do so then so be it. The best players still take the lion's share of the prizes.

What would anyone who is unable to accept the unlucky hand determining a single game think of Japan's tournament structure where you have to go undefeated for X games in a row to make the cut?

Would the optional mulligan make FTKOs more or less likely? It is not at all clear which way it would go.
 
It is a card game! Luck always has been and always will be a part of it. I build decks that depend on luck and speed to give me a different way to beat the self-described "elite players" and it is a great feeling when it happens. Sure it can come back to bite me, as in the 2 City finals where all my luck ran out at the end!

See you tomorrow!
 
I do support that mulligan system. Having a Tech Basic start always kills me when it happens. Think of it when Holon's Magnemite was around. When people use that in their decks and start with it, it gets really depressing. The same thing goes for Holon's Castform when you're not using any delta Pokemon. I can't name one person who loves the luck factor, as everyone I know always get frustrated when they lose to luck sacks in a 1-2-3 for example. I really hope PCL considers this because like Desert Eagle said, it could eliminate luck, with prizes being that only factor.
 
Lawman said:
The japanese are very much into fair play, honesty, politeness. Allowing mullys bc your 1st hand isnt "fabulous" is just not very sporting. Luck is a part of the game. They want to keep that portion in.

Keith
Click to expand...

don't you think there is enough luck involved in the cards? Plus, if they established a good system for this I could see it working. My suggestion is to have 1 optional mulligan, you draw 6 instead of 7 and your opponent draws 2 cards from your mulligan. This way it would make you think whether you want to risk your hand again because you'll have 1 less card. Your opponent will have 2 extra cards which are huge. It's strategy, and strategy is better then luck in my book.
 
chriscobi634 said:
don't you think there is enough luck involved in the cards? Plus, if they established a good system for this I could see it working. My suggestion is to have 1 optional mulligan, you draw 6 instead of 7 and your opponent draws 2 cards from your mulligan. This way it would make you think whether you want to risk your hand again because you'll have 1 less card. Your opponent will have 2 extra cards which are huge. It's strategy, and strategy is better then luck in my book.
Click to expand...

Christian: Not saying the proposal is a bad one. In fact, I think we "could" make it happen. The issue is, will Japan ever consider it? This would change many components of the game mechanics. I just dont see it happening. Yes, there is plenty of luck in the cards. It is part of the game!

B-Shellshocker: Running that tech holon magnemite or castform IS a risk you TOOK when you built that deck! You know there may and will be a time when you start with it only and may very well lose that game. Of course, that tech probably WON you more games than it cost ya, so the risk/reward was worth it in the long run.

I remember a states last year where I ran a 1-1 Milotic line (sharing) (Shiftry EX deck before they altered the attack ruling). Very first match, I got donked w/ a feebas only start. On my 2nd turn, I did draw into the Milotic, but my oppo's deck was sooooo weak, the only supporters in his hand was a Mr Stone's (2 in fact plus a potion!) :eek: I didnt need energy, I needed a celio's, a Mentor, ANYTHING to start a set up. I played him for fun after that donk and creamed him 6-0. I dont even think he laid more than 30 damage or so on me for the game.....his deck was soooooo bad. That match killed my resistance and my chance to topcut in one of the very few events I got to play in last year. BUT, I knew that was a chance I took with the feebas in the deck. Milo won me many more games than it ever did cost me.....it just bit me in a premier event!

Keith
 
ninetales1234 said:
I like things the way they are. The luck that does exist in this game, keeps people coming back to tournaments to play again. And by "people" I mean people with inferior playing skills.

I think a moderate level of luck is good for the game. If, occasionally, someone makes the top cut that otherwise would not (if the game were 100% skill and 0% luck), that will keep inferior players coming back to the game.
Click to expand...

The prize factor is already a unique thing from other games that adds a huge luck element to the game. The game wouldn't be 100% luck if mulligans were allowed.

A limit of like 2-3 mulligans would work also, doesn't have to be unlimited. Would save time, and would help reduce luck tremendously.

Some areas just have less tournaments than others, so the chances of making ratings are already low. Add in those 4 game point swings that I mentioned in the OP and it's clear luck plays a HUGE factor in ratings invites for areas that don't have 10 city championships.
 
hmm i dont really like this. im not a good player, so i have to rely on my opponents getting bad hands to win games. i would probably lose every game under this mulligan system and become clinically depressed, forced to take cymbalta in order to sleep at night.
 
"I can't name one person who loves the luck factor"

Me! Me! Me! I'm one. Quit whining. Go take your "skill" to another game.
 
Flaming_Spinach said:
I think we should be allowed one Paris Mulligan per game, and your opponent should get two cards from it. That, IMO, would be balanced.
Click to expand...

I agree. You can't really abuse this and it still allows you to get away from some awful hands. It's not just tech basics that you get nailed with either, sometimes your hand is just unplayable. The example in the initial post does happen.
 
Lawman said:
That is why there is a skill factor in building a 60 card deck. EVERY card counts! Luck is part of the game.

I agree that it sucks to get the 1 starter/tech basic only and no way out, but again, it goes to deck building. This has happened to everybody that has played this game. You can always opt to go the "safer" more consistent route w/o all the techs too.

IF this were to occur, I'd say you should draw 1 less card, until you get to say 4 cards, then stay there and the oppo. gets an option to draw a card then.

Keith
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you here Keith. I personally feel that this is a great idea because while luck is a factor of just about any game the real reason someone should win or lose should not be because of luck but because of skill.

You can build the "safest" deck without any techs to reduce your chances of getting a bad start, but you can't prevent it.

Saying "luck is great of the game" ignores the fact that in an ideal situation luck should NOT be part of the game. Luck is for lotteries, Pokemon is like chess.

And I understand coin flips are in the rules but I consider that "balanced" luck because you and your opponent have the same chance of winning flips, so it is a moot point there.

Again I have to say the main concern of a player should be making a misplay not getting donked.

Do marathon runners worry about running faster than their opponent or tripping?

Does a tennis player worry about being more accurate than their opponent or having their racket break?

Do drivers worry about watching the road or having a pothole open up in front of their car?

Does a presenter worry about memorizing his speech or having the power go out?

There are a lot of things I guess we "should" worry about because they could happen, but in a fair competition they should not have to be worried about because they won't happen. If they do, that is a shame and it will be generally accepted that it was not a fair match.
 
Last edited:
Flaming_Spinach has the best idea IMO. Now I don't like the luck factor but it's part of the game, if we had a mulligan rule than we wouldn't have any more upsets which I like to see. So in conclusion I want them to change it but I can understand if they don't.
 
rhodesia123 said:
hmm i dont really like this. im not a good player, so i have to rely on my opponents getting bad hands to win games. i would probably lose every game under this mulligan system and become clinically depressed, forced to take cymbalta in order to sleep at night.
Click to expand...

lawlz.

I think that pretty much sums up those who would be opposed to this change.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top