Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Redemption® Resources and Thinktank => Topic started by: Gabe on March 21, 2015, 03:34:12 PM
-
A discussion has started (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/redemption-tournaments/poll-preference-about-potential-changes-used-in-tlg-tournaments/msg539433/#msg539433) about what it might look like to have a mulligan in Redemption. For those unfamiliar with the term "mulligan" as it relates to card games, it's a means of redrawing your opening hand.
Feel free to post your ideas and concerns about what it might look like for Redemption to institute a rule that allows players to mulligan.
-
In my mind the mulligan would work like this: 1. Both players draw as normal. 2. The option to mulligan would go to the player with the most souls first but both players decide to mulligan or not before any action is taken. 3. Any player who has chosen to mulligan then returns all cards including souls to their draw pile, shuffles, and then draws again as normal. 4. Once each player who has mulliganed has completed their draw, putting Lost Souls in play, and replacing them; their opponent chooses two cards from their hand randomly and under decks them before play begins. 5. Now each player has the option to mulligan again starting with the person with the most lost souls. 6. Each time a player mulligans that player has two more cards under decked from their hands so that a player who has mulliganed twice would lose 4 cards; so on and so forth. 7. Play begins when both players choose to not mulligan.
Thoughts?
A couple ideas about lost souls staying or going after each draw.
1) If a player is playing a deck that works to tuck lost souls then having them all out would be an advantage assuming they have the means to tuck them quickly
2) Lost Soul production is such a huge part of the game now that even if my opponent draws no Lost Souls I can produce enough to win with my own deck.
-
I would say lost souls stay out if you mulligan and you draw 7
-
I can tell you from 15 years of experience teaching Redemption to young players that Lost Soul Drought is the number one reason that they quit playing. The game is boring since they cannot win LSs, and they are frustrated that they have to keep discarding cards at the end of their turn. Thus, I will never support a mulligan plan that allows a player to redraw without keeping drawn LSs in play.
The underdecking idea would play right into the hands of demon defenses that take cards from the bottom of the deck, so I don't support that idea either.
I fear that the desire to make the game more favorable for seasoned players will drive new players away. If the mulligan is not being used to just help a player get a different starting hand, then it will ultimately ruin the game.
With that said, a mulligan plan that does keep LSs in play is something that I would very much like to see, since new players often have deck-building weaknesses that lead to bad draws.
-
The underdecking in my post is random and chosen by opponent for clarification. I would be alright with keeping lost souls out. I have one question though. If we don't reset everything then what is the point of a mulligan?
-
Maybe we can have the following option:
1) Only can take it if you have at least one lost soul out.
2) If you decide to take a mulligan, you shuffle all but one of your lost souls into your deck.
3) Give opponent the lost soul
OR
1) Only can take it when you have two or more lost souls
2) Shuffle all but two lost souls into deck
3) The two lost souls that are out are restricted from entering sites for the first two rounds as well as protected from removal from play (edit: by holder) for those two turns (to stop burial/suffling/place underdeck).
-
The underdecking in my post is random and chosen by opponent for clarification.
I had missed that, so thank you for clarifying.
I would be alright with keeping lost souls out. I have one question though. If we don't reset everything then what is the point of a mulligan?
The point was to recoup from a bad draw. If you draw LSs but no defense, then a mulligan can hopefully get you some defense. What we don't want is someone to draw a bunch of LSs, then decide that they don't want to defend a bunch of LSs, so they hope for a mulligan with no LSs. Since you are more likely to not draw LSs, this would be a Soul Drought technique.
-
I am with YMT. Under no circumstances should the souls go back into the deck.
I am also opposed to being able to do multiple mulligans unless it becomes more costly (I prefer a "draw one less" rule for each successive mulligan).
Lastly, we have to deal with the issue that it is more advantageous in multi (and booster especially) to continue with mulligans until you have every soul in your deck out. This makes sure you go first and will usually leave you with options to rescue with since people can come at you.
-
I agree with concerns about using a mulligan to cause a Lost Soul drought if all drawn souls are returned to deck. However, when one player draws several Lost Souls and the opponent draws few (or no) Lost Souls, a mulligan that doesn't return souls to the deck isn't likely to help overcome that lopsided start.
What if we found a middle ground between the two options? What if part of the cost of a mulligan is that you must leave one of your Lost Souls in your territory? If you don't have one you must play one from your deck before redrawing.
Also the cost of drawing 1 less card for each mulligan seems fair.
-
You would have the same statistical chance of drawing Lost Souls as you did with the first draw. I will admit that if I have no Lost Souls with my scenario, I would be more inclined to not take a mulligan for fear that I would draw Lost Souls on my secondary draw. I concede that doing it the way I have proposed will lead to more of the same that has been happening at Redemption tournaments for years with Lost Soul drought since it is a part of the game which has been addressed by Lost Soul production. I am not wanting to help players avoid drawing cards they don't want (i.e. Lost Souls) which is why I am not altering the statistical chance of them being drawn. I am wanting to help players draw cards they do want (i.e. their Heroes, evil characters, dominants, sites, artifacts, etc.) by giving them a second chance at it but with an increasing chance that their opponent may randomly underdeck the card(s) they were digging for.
@Gabe: The cost of one less card is adequate with a game like MTG where you only draw one card per turn but with Redemption, for it to even matter a little bit it needs to be more. We playtested up to losing three cards which seemed a bit much. Two seemed to be the sweet spot. Also...I am fine with leaving one Lost Soul out per mulligan but it needs to be chosen by the opponent from Lost Souls already on the table or if none are available then the opponent gets to choose from all available Lost Souls in their opponents deck.
-
What if we found a middle ground between the two options? What if part of the cost of a mulligan is that you must leave one of your Lost Souls in your territory? If you don't have one you must play one from your deck before redrawing.
That's...actually pretty good, honestly. Though your opponent should choose the soul (which, since the Hopper counts, would penalize mulligan to get rid of souls even more).
Also, I think some things (like Revealer and Hopper) should happen AFTER mulligan. Otherwise you could just shuffle that Hopper back into opponent's deck or get rid of a Revealed soul.
Mulligan
After all players have drawn their cards, but before drawn Lost Souls activate, each player, beginning with the player with the most Lost Souls in territory, may decide to mulligan. In the same order, each player that decided to mulligan then returns all but one Lost Soul in their territory and their hand to deck; if there is no Lost Soul in their territory, the opponent to their left may choose one from their deck to place in territory instead (it is not considered drawn for abilities).
The remaining deck is shuffled, and the player draws one fewer starting cards (7 total for the first mulligan). That player may repeat the same process, drawing one fewer each time, until they decide not to mulligan any more.
Then, the next player who decided to mulligan completes the same process, until all players who decided to mulligan complete the process.
Finally, all Lost Souls drawn (but not placed by an opponent as above) activate; after they complete, determine player order as normal and begin.
EDIT: Actually, Hopper wouldn't work still how I wanted it to with this definition. This isn't an easy one to design.
-
I agree with Ironica's 1 and 2 comments about possibilities:
Maybe we can have the following option:
1) Only can take it if you have at least one lost soul out.
2) If you decide to take a mulligan, you shuffle all but one of your lost souls into your deck.
In my opinion these would be best combined, in that: Shuffle all but 1 lost soul into deck, and under deck one afterwords. If no lost souls out, then underdeck 2 cards, available to each player once, starting with the player with the most lost souls.
-
I personally am not a fan of mulligan, I makes mayhem doesn't have as much play value.
-
How so? If I mulligan to get a hand that I want and you Mayhem on the second turn (since it can't be played first turn) that is still pretty good or at least exactly the same as it is now.
-
I personally am not a fan of mulligan, I makes mayhem doesn't have as much play value.
I have a few problems with this as a reason. First, weakening an already powerful card isn't really something I'd be concerned with, even if mulligans would do that. Secondly mulligans don't really fulfil the same purpose as Mayhem, while there are some similarities, Mayhem is a card you can play at any time to either improve your situation, weaken your opponents position or as a last ditch effort to get something you need (your opponent is going for the win and you can't stop it, you can play Mayhem hoping to get something to fight with, or pull a win by drawing Son of God if you are only one soul away from victory) while mulligans are about turning a bad starting hand into something more workable.
I agree with YMT that Soul Drought is a major issue and any mulligan option will have to not favor soul drought, but I also think Soul Flood is an issue we can help alleviate . I'm actually a fan of one mulligan where you leave one drawn soul (if any) in play. No decreasing of hand size or anything. However I am also thinking as a T2 player, so it's possible that the needs of T1 are different. I like it because it's simple, requires no underdecking, and it's fairly well controlled.
-
You would have the same statistical chance of drawing Lost Souls as you did with the first draw.
If the chances were exactly the same, then the theoretically probability of drawing a LS would be 1/2. Therefore, if you did draw a LS on your first hand, then theoretical probability would suggest that you would not draw a LS if you drew a new hand. One success per 2 attempts.
You seem to be taking this personally, as evidenced by your sarcasm. Please understand that I am not opposed to your plan, but rather to the plan of having a mulligan rule that allows the retracting of LSs. This isn't personal. ;)
-
I'm 100% in line with Gabe's suggestion of playing one soul from your deck and dropping one card. Honestly one card wasn't as big of a deal 2-3 years ago but in the balanced to defensive heavy game we have today 1 card cost seems suitable with a mulligan.
-
YMT...I am trying to understand where you are coming from. The secondary draw would come after a shuffle which means all probabilities would be reset. I am not a fan of my ideas more than yours and please hear that my ideas are not MY ideas but the ideas of a fairly good group of players and elders whom I have run them by. I have been working on this for more than the last few days. I just want to make sure that we get it right or as close to right at the onset as we can. I appreciate your input and don't want you to think I am taking it personally. If me asking the reasoning behind your statements is me taking it personally, then so be it.
-
YMT...I am trying to understand where you are coming from.
I thought I was pretty clear.
The secondary draw would come after a shuffle which means all probabilities would be reset.
Except that probability does not "reset" when you are comparing consecutive trials. If there is an equal probability of drawing versus not drawing a LS, then the theoretical probability is 1/2. This means that for every two trials, there will be one draw with a LS and one draw without a LS. Since you have already drawn one with a LS, and now you want to mulligan, theoretical probability would suggest that the second trial would not have a LS. The probability of drawing two consecutive hands with LSs is lower over two trials.
-
You really are my math teacher. I did not know that. I stand...err...sit corrected. ;)
-
YMT is correct that the probability of drawing 2 consecutive hands with lost souls is less than the probability of drawing lost souls in either hand. However previous trials don't have any impact on later trials in situations like this. Another thing is that theoretical probability cannot be applied to small sample sizes, because anomalies can easily show up and make it look different, but as you use larger and larger sample sized the trials will become closer to the theoretical probabilities.
-
Just a thought- mandating that to mulligan you must leave a LS in territory would also prevent people from drawing exactly one LS and shuffling it with their hand instead of revealing it (whether intentionally or unintentionally). Or else maybe the revealing of your hand before mulliganing could be part of its cost...
-
However previous trials don't have any impact on later trials in situations like this.
They do in theory.
Another thing is that theoretical probability cannot be applied to small sample sizes, ....
:o Theory is theory.... it can be applied anywhere. ;)
...because anomalies can easily show up and make it look different, but as you use larger and larger sample sized the trials will become closer to the theoretical probabilities.
That is referred to as Experimental Probability. I was only talking about Theoretical Probability in my posts.
With that said, I was generalizing based on the comments being made. The actual probability of drawing a LS versus not drawing a LS is not identical since there is roughly 1 LS per 8 cards in a deck (depending on the number of cards in the deck). Thus, an initial draw of 8 cards should yield one LS, rather than no LSs, in theory. But in consecutive trials, the likelihood would shift toward there not being a LS in the second trial if there was one in the first trial.
-
However previous trials don't have any impact on later trials in situations like this.
They do in theory.
That's not true at all. What probability theory is stating is what the probability of each individual case is. That won't change based on what happens before or after it, it simply is. If you roll a 6 on a die you still have exactly the same probability of rolling the six the second time, whether you are dealing with real situations or theoretical probability. The only thing that is different is when you look at groups and can say that there is a 1 in 36 chance of rolling 2 6s in a row, but that doesn't change the fact that after you've already rolled a six there is a 1 in 6 chance of rolling another six.
-
The only thing that is different is when you look at groups and can say that there is a 1 in 36 chance of rolling 2 6s in a row, but that doesn't change the fact that after you've already rolled a six there is a 1 in 6 chance of rolling another six.
You are still basing your opinion on one trial. I am basing my opinion on two trials. The theoretical probabilities are most certainly different in two trials. Assuming the equal probability of drawing (D) versus not drawing (N), for two trials the sample space would be DD, ND, DN, NN. The probability of drawing LSs in both trials is 1/4, while the probability of one hand having a LS and the other not is 1/2.
Since we are not focusing on the same measurement of trials, we do not necessarily have to agree. I am just stating the logic behind my opinion. This is only in relation to one redraw. If players are allowed to mulligan several times (which I do not support), then the probability of drawing LSs in three consecutive trials would be even lower.
-
The only thing that is different is when you look at groups and can say that there is a 1 in 36 chance of rolling 2 6s in a row, but that doesn't change the fact that after you've already rolled a six there is a 1 in 6 chance of rolling another six.
You are still basing your opinion on one trial. I am basing my opinion on two trials. The theoretical probabilities are most certainly different in two trials. Assuming the equal probability of drawing (D) versus not drawing (N), for two trials the sample space would be DD, ND, DN, NN. The probability of drawing LSs in both trials is 1/4, while the probability of one hand having a LS and the other not is 1/2.
Since we are not focusing on the same measurement of trials, we do not necessarily have to agree. I am just stating the logic behind my opinion. This is only in relation to one redraw. If players are allowed to mulligan several times (which I do not support), then the probability of drawing LSs in three consecutive trials would be even lower.
I agree with your results, but I'm somewhat disagreeing with your explanation of it (or at least my perception of your explanation of it). I already said I'm in favor of a single mulligan that you keep one lost soul in play (if you drew any that is) partially to avoid people trying to mulligan into soul drought.
-
I agree with your results, but I'm somewhat disagreeing with your explanation of it (or at least my perception of your explanation of it).
I know... it's definitely a matter of perception (for both of us). I am basing my opinion on the bigger picture of a mulligan rule resulting in two trials. You (and uthminister) are basing your opinion on just the next trial. I just wanted to make sure that we all are seeing what the other is thinking. ;)
I already said I'm in favor of a single mulligan that you keep one lost soul in play (if you drew any that is) partially to avoid people trying to mulligan into soul drought.
I was only responding to the idea of full redraw. I could live with keeping one LS in play. ;D
-
I like the idea of having to leave a soul in territory, and wouldn't be opposed to having to fetch one from your deck if you don't have one (though I don't necessarily see this as being necessary), but I do NOT like the suggestion of having an opponent be the one to choose it from your deck. It would be giving that player an unfair advantage to be able to view a player's entire deck before the game even officially starts.
If you don't want the player to be able to choose the one from their deck (to prevent them setting up a combo like CBP soul) have them select 3 souls from their deck and have the opponent choose randomly, or something like that.
Edited slightly for clarity.
-
I actually don't like the searching a soul out of your deck. I'm not sure if there's any specific reason aside from it fells clunky to me and it can give your opponent an advantage that I don't think is necessary.
-
Why don't we try pokemon's mulligan style? Mulligan until you get a lost soul? Or why do we not try a rule that starts the game with a soul in play no matter what. Then institute a free mulligan where you can ship the hand back for a new hand of 8 one time? Just my suggestions.
-
Then institute a free mulligan where you can ship the hand back for a new hand of 8 one time?
This.
Can someone please explain to me why they feel there is a need to penalize a player who chooses to mulligan? What is the reason for not just allowing everyone one free optional mulligan at game start?
-
Can someone please explain to me why they feel there is a need to penalize a player who chooses to mulligan? What is the reason for not just allowing everyone one free optional mulligan at game start?
Good point...a bad draw is not necessarily a player's fault, so why penalize them for a do-over? A few reasons I can think of are that mulliganing slows down the game, and makes us sound like Frodo talking to Gandalf in the Mines of Moria.
“I wish I didn't draw this hand. I wish no one would ever have to draw such a hand!"
“So do I, and so do all who play to get such draws. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the hand that is given us.”
;D
-
Can someone please explain to me why they feel there is a need to penalize a player who chooses to mulligan? What is the reason for not just allowing everyone one free optional mulligan at game start?
Good point...a bad draw is not necessarily a player's fault, so why penalize them for a do-over? A few reasons I can think of are that mulliganing slows down the game, and makes us sound like Frodo talking to Gandalf in the Mines of Moria.
“I wish I didn't draw this hand. I wish no one would ever have to draw such a hand!"
“So do I, and so do all who play to get such draws. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the hand that is given us.”
;D
This is perhaps the best post I've seen on the boards in a long time. But I'd have no problem with one free mulligan. The only difference between that suggestion and mine is that mine leaves a single lost soul out (if you drew any lost souls in your opening hand).
-
jesse wins the thread!
So if we allow a free mulligan then do Lost Souls stay out that were drawn? I would contend that if they do then the "free" mulligan isn't truly free.
-
They have to stay out. Otherwise I mulligan every hand I don't have a hero or do have a soul.
-
jesse wins the thread!
So if we allow a free mulligan then do Lost Souls stay out that were drawn? I would contend that if they do then the "free" mulligan isn't truly free.
This.
-
Play one unprotected lost soul out of your deck if you mulligan. So no female only, nt only, first rd, speed bump, */4.
In type 2 play 2 souls from your deck.
-
One free mulligan per tournament. A mulligan is a mulligan, everything goes back draw over. No penaltys. Keep it simple
-
One free mulligan per tournament.
This would be a nightmare to enforce, and really I think kinda defeats the purpose of putting mulligans in.
-
One free mulligan per tournament.
This would be a nightmare to enforce, and really I think kinda defeats the purpose of putting mulligans in.
Yeah, I agree that it needs to be game-to-game, and not administered for the whole tournament.
Again, though, I just want to point out that Multi/Booster will benefit from mulligans for no other reason than to have souls out.
-
I'm beginning to think that a mulligan is not going to be a good idea after all, regardless of the stipulations (or lack thereof). Mulligans appear to work in other card games because their game mechanics are different (i.e. The Pokemon TCG requires Basic Pokemon to start the game, thus redrawing until you get a Basic Pokemon is necessary). Redemption mechanics may be such that a mulligan would cause more problems than it solves.
To echo Bill's final statement, we need to keep this simple for hosts/judges, as well as new players. Searching for an "unprotected" LS (or any other restriction) would make more work for the judges, and new players wouldn't know the difference. Even keeping track of who did use a mulligan already during a specific tournament (or category if that ends up as the next suggestion) would still make more work for the host and require the reporting of the players.
The best way to implement a mulligan rule would be with simple requirements that players can monitor among themselves. This could include any of the following:
1. For limited use - once per game
2. For drawn LSs - [at least] one drawn LS stays out per redraw (opponent chooses which LSs stay)
3. For redraw penalty - draw one less card
Although many of the other suggestions make sense to skilled players, I just think we will make things too complicated to monitor at the host level, and make it more difficult to teach to new players.
At this point, since we seem to be divided on whether the LSs should be shuffled back, I will leave my vote at no mulligans (even though I still believe that with the correct stipulations they would be good for the game).
-
If CGD ever decided to officially implement a mulligan rule, it might be best if it was an optional rule for only State, Regional and National tournaments, similar to what has been done with top cut.
-
Gabe, I appreciate you breaking this topic off. There have been many good points made and this Bible major has learned more about math on this one thread than I ever did in Bible college. :o
-
This has been a good discussion thus far. It will be fun to see what, if anything, TLG decides to try for mulligans and how that works out.
-
I personally think mulligans would be terrible. The only way I see it working is if you can only mulligan part of your hand (maybe 3 cards) to redraw the same amount. Even then I don't like it.
The idea of being able to mulligan as many times as I want also seems incredibly time consuming.
-
how about
when a player 1 mulligans they shuffle hand and lost souls into deck. Player 2 gets to choose 1 lost from player 1 deck and put it into play. Player 1 then draws 7 cards.
-
how about
when a player 1 mulligans they shuffle hand and lost souls into deck. Player 2 gets to choose 1 lost from player 1 deck and put it into play. Player 1 then draws 7 cards.
Again I repeat my earlier sentiment that I don't think we should give any player an advantage just to punish someone for wanting to mulligan. Mulligans would be to HELP people with bad draws, not give them a worse starting position. If you restrict mulligans too much then nobody's going to want to take one and it wouldn't be worthwhile to even have the option.
-
how about
when a player 1 mulligans they shuffle hand and lost souls into deck. Player 2 gets to choose 1 lost from player 1 deck and put it into play. Player 1 then draws 7 cards.
Again I repeat my earlier sentiment that I don't think we should give any player an advantage just to punish someone for wanting to mulligan. Mulligans would be to HELP people with bad draws, not give them a worse starting position. If you restrict mulligans too much then nobody's going to want to take one and it wouldn't be worthwhile to even have the option.
What if the opponant chooses 1 lost soul to stay in play, or opponant draws 7 cards?
-
when a player 1 mulligans they shuffle hand and lost souls into deck. Player 2 gets to choose 1 lost from player 1 deck and put it into play. Player 1 then draws 7 cards.
Once again, would anyone be kind enough to please explain why y'all feel it is necessary to punish a player for taking a mulligan? I do not understand this.
To echo Bill's final statement, we need to keep this simple for hosts/judges, as well as new players.
How about once at the start of the game either player may choose for any reason at all to shuffle all all cards back in their deck and redraw eight?
They have to stay out. Otherwise I mulligan every hand I don't have a hero or do have a soul.
Choosing to mulligan whenever you draw single lost soul would be a sub-optimal decision. If you do a complete mulligan (shuffle everything and redraw 8) you are more likely to draw 2+ lost souls than you are to draw 0 for any legal Redemption deck. Unless you are saying we should have games rules to prevent you personally from playing poorly, I do not understand why you feel this is a reason for requiring lost souls to stay out.
-
How about once at the start of the game either player may choose for any reason at all to shuffle all all cards back in their deck and redraw eight?
You appear to have missed my earlier statements about unrestricted mulligans involving drawn LSs, which I will never support even if I am trolled.
If you do a complete mulligan (shuffle everything and redraw 8) you are more likely to draw 2+ lost souls than you are to draw 0 for any legal Redemption deck.
Math trolling... :o
Unless you are saying we should have games rules to prevent you personally from playing poorly, ...
General trolling.... :(
-
I know a lot of ideas have been thrown out, but then what's one more ;). All players get one mulligan per game. They leave out half their lost souls from their first hand, if any, rounding up. Opponent chooses which of those lost souls stay. No other penalties apply.
Just an idea. I'm not worried, I know you guys will find something that works. If this helps I'll be happy.
-
I'm glad there is so much support for allowing Mulligans in this thread, because to be frank, there isn't a single good reason not to allow them. They contribute to the fun of the game by drastically reducing the chances that a player will lose from the beginning because they drew a bad hand. Considering the fact that any kind of Best 2 out of 3 format isn't really viable in Redemption because of game lengths, I think implementing Mulligans is a great way to mitigate the possibility of really bad luck knocking someone out of a tournament. I genuinely don't believe there is a single good reason to oppose them, because they maximize player skill and reduce luck, while making the game less frustrating for everyone at every skill level.
That said, I think we're seriously over-complicating what a mulligan should look like. The less conditions or steps that have to be taken, the better. Thus, I propose the following:
The player who has drawn the most souls gets to choose whether to Mulligan first. A player can choose to mulligan one time per game. All souls drawn stay out. The entire hand is shuffled and the player draws 8, replacing souls as necessary.
It's silly to punish people for bad luck, but it still deters people from attempting to trade an average hand for a good one, by threatening additional soul draw. I don't think there's a single good reason that Lost Souls should be put back in the deck.
-
They increase luck, they just mitigate bad luck. There's a difference.
-
They increase luck, they just mitigate bad luck. There's a difference.
You're splitting hairs. It reduces the chances of one player losing because they had bad luck, which is what the game cares about.
-
The percentage of games actually lost to "bad luck" is extremely small. While most players don't actually realize it, most games are lost to inferior deck design and/or less than optimal choices during the game.
-
Wow...ouch! I mean, you are right, but laying down the honesty hammer. With that being the case generally speaking, increasing the chance of souls being available for players who have superior decks to rescue and players having better hands to make bad choices with would be nice. 8)
-
How about once at the start of the game either player may choose for any reason at all to shuffle all all cards back in their deck and redraw eight?
You appear to have missed my earlier statements about unrestricted mulligans involving drawn LSs, which I will never support even if I am trolled.
I have seen your earlier statements, I just do not understand the basis for them, and I am asking for someone to explain them to me.
As I said, on an opening draw of eight a player is more likely to draw 2+ LS then he/she is to draw 0 for any legal Redemption deck. Given this, the idea that mulligans would be a cause of soul drought appears to have a somewhat dubious basis.
You base your categorical opposition for open mulligans on concerns about young players having fun. How do they feel about games where they draw three or more lost souls in their opening hands and have no way to prevent being overrun and losing in three turns? Do they enjoy those games?
Unless you are saying we should have games rules to prevent you personally from playing poorly, ...
General trolling.... :(
Actually, quite the opposite. This was Olijar-specific trolling made in direct response to his trolling of the thread.
The percentage of games actually lost to "bad luck" is extremely small.
While true in general, this is grossly oversimplified. The whole basis for ANB-reset decks is to take advantage of opening draw variance. There is a reason why back in the day I was able to beat clearly superior players on a regular basis using those decks.
-
As I said, on an opening draw of eight a player is more likely to draw 2+ LS then he/she is to draw 0 for any legal Redemption deck.
Obviously the probability of drawing 2 or more LSs is going to be higher than drawing none, since you are comparing 7 combined outcomes to 1. Since there can only be one outcome of the two trials, you would have to compare the probability of any one of the outcomes of 2 or more LSs to none, rather than all of them at once. If you do a proper comparison, then the probability of two versus none would be the closest. The probability of 3,4,5,6,7 or 8 LSs on the initial draw would certainly be lower individually than drawing none. I doubt you would argue that the probability of drawing 8 LSs is higher than the probability of drawing none. ;)
-
Drawing no lost souls is so obscenely strong that I'm willing to end up with 2-7 instead of just 1 if it gives me the opportunity to have 0.
-
You base your categorical opposition for open mulligans on concerns about young players having fun. How do they feel about games where they draw three or more lost souls in their opening hands and have no way to prevent being overrun and losing in three turns? Do they enjoy those games?
Yes, actually, they do! ;D At least they get to play their cards and have battles. Soul Drought causes them to discard a bunch of cards each turn in the Discard Phase..... woo-hoo...
Actually, quite the opposite. This was Olijar-specific trolling made in direct response to his trolling of the thread.
Actually, I was trolling.... :maul:
-
Something to consider: will allowing mulligans change deck-building strategy?
I think it would...instead of having a balanced deck, it would perhaps lead to decks that are skewed in some advantageous way, with its player mulliganing until they get that starting advantage. Good and proper deck-building should consider how to overcome a difficult start, how to survive and bounce back. Perhaps allowing a mulligan would actually have the opposite of the intended result and actually cause superior deck-builders & players to lose more.
Think about it...if you are playing the national champ, won't you mulligan if you get anything less than a fantastic starting hand? Especially if there's no cost? Is it fair to the national champ, who probably doesn't need a mulligan no matter what they draw? Perhaps this is why if we do allow a mulligan, there should be a cost after all...
-
Something to consider: will allowing mulligans change deck-building strategy?
I think it would...instead of having a balanced deck, it would perhaps lead to decks that are skewed in some advantageous way, with its player mulliganing until they get that starting advantage. Good and proper deck-building should consider how to overcome a difficult start, how to survive and bounce back. Perhaps allowing a mulligan would actually have the opposite of the intended result and actually cause superior deck-builders & players to lose more.
Think about it...if you are playing the national champ, won't you mulligan if you get anything less than a fantastic starting hand? Especially if there's no cost? Is it fair to the national champ, who probably doesn't need a mulligan no matter what they draw? Perhaps this is why if we do allow a mulligan, there should be a cost after all...
First of all, no one is suggesting unlimited free mulligans (as far as I know, because that would just be silly) either a single "free" mulligan or having some kind of stacking detriment (usually losing cards in the starting hand).
Next I will suggest that mulligans will have little effect on deck building, since they likely won't be used in an attempt to turn an okay hand into a good one, but to turn a really bad hand into a workable one, by giving more opportunities to have a decent hand.
As I said, on an opening draw of eight a player is more likely to draw 2+ LS then he/she is to draw 0 for any legal Redemption deck.
Obviously the probability of drawing 2 or more LSs is going to be higher than drawing none, since you are comparing 7 combined outcomes to 1. Since there can only be one outcome of the two trials, you would have to compare the probability of any one of the outcomes of 2 or more LSs to none, rather than all of them at once. If you do a proper comparison, then the probability of two versus none would be the closest. The probability of 3,4,5,6,7 or 8 LSs on the initial draw would certainly be lower individually than drawing none. I doubt you would argue that the probability of drawing 8 LSs is higher than the probability of drawing none. ;)
Actually EmJayBee83's point makes sense (assuming his math is correct, which I'm trying to figure out, but am having some difficulties when I add it up sum the probabilities of drawing each number of lost souls from 0 to 7 and get 1.1. But all EmJayBee83 cares about is 0 compared to 2 or more, since 3 or 4 would also be just as (or more so unfavorable outcomes) so comparing 0 to 2+ makes perfect sense.
-
So then how about:
1. Both players draw as normal and lay out LSs (which will stay out).
2. The player with the least LSs in territory chooses first if they want to mulligan (their one and only opportunity).
3. To mulligan, simply reveal your hand, then shuffle it, and redraw 8.
4. The player with the next highest LSs can now choose to mulligan or not (also their only opportunity).
This would hopefully encourage players to only mulligan to get emergency defense, as you wouldn't want to mulligan with 0 LSs only to likely put 1+ out there while revealing 8, nor would you want to with 1+ LSs lose some defense you already drew, especially at the cost of revealing that defense.
If you have less LSs to start, you are at an advantage (especially with 0), so you might want to stand pat instead of revealing your hand (which is to an extent like revealing your deck). Whereas if you have more LSs than your opponent(s), defense is top priority and would thus be the mulligan motivation...which is what we want, right? For the mulligan to be more of an emergency choice versus used to gain a dominant starting position.
-
From what I understand, the point of a mulligan would be to speed up the game (no offence) or make the game more competitive and balanced (lost souls, but no defence). If there were NO penalties or restrictions, it would sometimes be used for those reasons, but what I think would happen, would be that it would be used whenever someone draws a lost soul at all, unless they had a really strong defence as well. This would neither speed up the game nor make it more competitive. It shouldn't be the norm, it should be a leader ditch attempt to get a defence if you have none but drew lost souls.
As such, as long as at least one lost soul stays out, I would be fine with it. I don't think anything else would be required, since that would solve the main problem of it being used to induce drought. But otherwise I would be strongly opposed.
-
...it [a no restriction mulligan--mjb] would be used whenever someone draws a lost soul at all,...
If you had one LS out, and you took a free mulligan, your chances are better to have a greater number of LS out afterwards than they are to have fewer LS out. If you are really trying to cause LS soul drought this would be a sub-optimal decision.
As I said, on an opening draw of eight a player is more likely to draw 2+ LS then he/she is to draw 0 for any legal Redemption deck.
Obviously the probability of drawing 2 or more LSs is going to be higher than drawing none, since you are comparing 7 combined outcomes to 1.
As a direct counter-example... In a legal redemption deck you are about 30% more likely to draw 1 Lost Soul than you are to draw 2 or more. These results have much more to do the relative probability of the draw distribution as opposed to the number of outcomes.
If you do a proper comparison, then the probability of two versus none would be the closest.
I am attempting to replicate what players would do in actual practice (which I feel is the best comparison). If you are trying to determine a strategy for taking a mulligan strictly to prevent LS flood, a player would set a minimum number of LS drawn as a trigger--not set different rules for each number. Alex's and Kram1138's proposed heuristic is a prime example of that.
(assuming his math is correct, which I'm trying to figure out, but am having some difficulties when I add it up sum the probabilities of drawing each number of lost souls from 0 to 7 and get 1.1.
Given the Redemption draw mechanic of ignoring LSs as drawn, it is way simpler to use a Monte Carlo simulation to determine the relative probabilities than to attempt to calculate from first principles. (This just meant as a helpful tip.)
-
...it [a no restriction mulligan--mjb] would be used whenever someone draws a lost soul at all,...
If you had one LS out, and you took a free mulligan, your chances are better to have a greater number of LS out afterwards than they are to have fewer LS out. If you are really trying to cause LS soul drought this would be a sub-optimal decision.
As I said, on an opening draw of eight a player is more likely to draw 2+ LS then he/she is to draw 0 for any legal Redemption deck.
Obviously the probability of drawing 2 or more LSs is going to be higher than drawing none, since you are comparing 7 combined outcomes to 1.
As a direct counter-example... In a legal redemption deck you are about 30% more likely to draw 1 Lost Soul than you are to draw 2 or more. These results have much more to do the relative probability of the draw distribution as opposed to the number of outcomes.
To put numbers to this discussion, with a 50 card deck with 7 lost souls, the probability of drawing 1 lost soul is 42%. The probability of drawing 2 or more is 31%. The probability of drawing no lost souls is 27%. I'm not sure where you're getting that 30% more likely to draw 1 than 2+. 42 - 31 does not equal 30%. You are 11% more likely to draw 1 than to draw 2 or more. So, since the chances of getting 2+ lost souls on a redraw is not much higher than getting none, the benefit of getting none would arguably be worth the chance, compared to the cost of getting 2+ when you had 1 before. But even still, if I draw 2+ ls, there is still a 70% that I decrease the number of lost souls I drew if I mulligan.
Once you consider a 56 card deck with 7 lost souls, the probabilities are 1: 42%, 2+: 26%, 0: 32%. In this case you're 6% more likely to draw none than 2+, and probability would say to mulligan every time you draw a lost soul, unless you had a really strong defense.
And the numbers are essentially the same for T2, except that for 105 cards, the chances of drawing 0 are only 2-3% higher than 2+.
-
I am not a fan of a mulligan personally except under one condition, on initial draw at beginning of game he/she draws 5 or more lost souls. Then the shuffle and draw one less would be good as long as you keep one LS in play. This would be the only scenario I would support. There are many ways to manipulate your LS's in today's game, especially with LS special abilities, sites, shuffling, protection, and so forth. I believe it will only cause more frustration if you can shuffle your hand just because you don't like it on your initial draw. It's part of the game, that's why they call it "luck of the draw". It happens and with so much speed and ways to go get cards you need, you'll get what you need anyway. Just my thoughts. :-\
-
So, I seem to have missed this thread... what about taking a page from Hearthstone's book?
You draw 8 as usual (souls going into play and cards draw to replace them), then at that point, you can decide what cards you want to replace. You shuffle those cards back in and re-draw to replace them (souls go into play and you draw to replace them)
Being able to keep some cards while replacing others will give both players a chance at having a strong opening hand. You can't use it to force a soul drought, and both players end up with 8 cards.
-
As a direct counter-example... In a legal redemption deck you are about 30% more likely to draw 1 Lost Soul than you are to draw 2 or more.
To put numbers to this discussion, with a 50 card deck with 7 lost souls, the probability of drawing 1 lost soul is 42%. The probability of drawing 2 or more is 31%. The probability of drawing no lost souls is 27%.
Thank you for providing the number. I wanted someone else to post them as a cross check of what I did.
I'm not sure where you're getting that 30% more likely to draw 1 than 2+. 42 - 31 does not equal 30%. You are 11% more likely to draw 1 than to draw 2 or more.
You are not correctly calculating the comparison of the the likelihood of the two specific events. If I flipped two coins and asked you you how much more likely you were to get one head and one tail (50%) than you were to get two tails (25%), the correct answer--well not correct per se, but the standard answer--is twice as likely (50%/25%) , not 25% more likely (50% - 25%).
So, 42% / 31% = 1.35--which means you are 35% more likely to see 1 LS than you are to see 2+ LS. (This is actually higher than my stated value, because I mis-remembered the exact numbers.)
-
As a direct counter-example... In a legal redemption deck you are about 30% more likely to draw 1 Lost Soul than you are to draw 2 or more.
To put numbers to this discussion, with a 50 card deck with 7 lost souls, the probability of drawing 1 lost soul is 42%. The probability of drawing 2 or more is 31%. The probability of drawing no lost souls is 27%.
Thank you for providing the number. I wanted someone else to post them as a cross check of what I did.
Rather than going back and actually having to remember how to calculate probabilities, I wrote a quick program that simulated drawing over 1,000,000 trials or so. Those numbers might not be exact, but with a million trials, its close enough that no one cares.
I'm not sure where you're getting that 30% more likely to draw 1 than 2+. 42 - 31 does not equal 30%. You are 11% more likely to draw 1 than to draw 2 or more.
You are not correctly calculating the comparison of the the likelihood of the two specific events. If I flipped two coins and asked you you how much more likely you were to get one head and one tail (50%) than you were to get two tails (25%), the correct answer--well not correct per se, but the standard answer--is twice as likely (50%/25%) , not 25% more likely (50% - 25%).
So, 42% / 31% = 1.35--which means you are 35% more likely to see 1 LS than you are to see 2+ LS. (This is actually higher than my stated value, because I mis-remembered the exact numbers.)
Ah. That's what you meant by it. Then yes, you are correct. But again, this is dependent upon the number of cards and lost souls in your deck.
And to restate my original position, I would prefer no mulligan, but if it was going to be done, keeping a ls would be preferable.
-
Rather than going back and actually having to remember how to calculate probabilities, I wrote a quick program that simulated drawing over 1,000,000 trials or so.
Me too! (Even the same number of trials. ;) )
Hey, Kids, here is a pro-tip for you...Markov chains are much easier in Monte Carlo.
-
The percentage of games actually lost to "bad luck" is extremely small. While most players don't actually realize it, most games are lost to inferior deck design and/or less than optimal choices during the game.
I would argue that the existence of Son of God and New Jerusalem (along with dominants in general) makes that less true for Redemption than it is for other CCGs. Quite a few games come down to who draws (or searches) one or both of them first.
-
I just ran a Monte Carlo for the Olijar strategy (i.e., take a free mulligan whenever you draw any number of Lost Souls). Frankly it is disastrous. Over 75% of games would start with at least one player having no lost souls available for rescue.
Oh well...
-
So, 42% / 31% = 1.35--which means you are 35% more likely to see 1 LS than you are to see 2+ LS. (This is actually higher than my stated value, because I mis-remembered the exact numbers.)
But again, as kram pointed out, you are using a 50-card deck for your argument. A 56-card deck would not have that same result, since you are more likely to draw none than to draw 2+. A 50 card deck in Type 1 is more of an exception because there are 7 LSs per 50 instead of 7 LSs per 56. This exception would occur each time a player added one LS to reach the next threshold (i.e. 8 LSs in a 57 card deck). I would argue that those people want to draw LSs for their strategy, therefore it is not a proper example for this discussion. Since I am arguing on behalf of new/young players, they are far more likely to have a 56-card deck than a 50-card deck, unless someone instructed them to make their deck smaller.
-
So, 42% / 31% = 1.35--which means you are 35% more likely to see 1 LS than you are to see 2+ LS. (This is actually higher than my stated value, because I mis-remembered the exact numbers.)
But again, as kram pointed out, you are using a 50-card deck for your argument. A 56-card deck would not have that same result, since you are more likely to draw none than to draw 2+.
Just for the record, Kram's number for the 56-card deck are off substantially for the 1 and 2+ cases. For the 56-card deck you get (0,31.8%), (1,37.0%), and (2+,31.2). So yes, there is a 0.6% difference--so after 150 games you would expect to have one more 0-lost soul game than 2+ lost soul game. The 56 card deck is the only legal Redemption deck that would exhibit this inversion because it is the only deck that allows a 7:1 non-soul to soul ratio.
Not that any of this is really relevant to the discussion of mulligan rules any more (see my last post).
-
I just ran a Monte Carlo for the Olijar strategy (i.e., take a free mulligan whenever you draw any number of Lost Souls). Frankly it is disastrous. Over 75% of games would start with at least one player having no lost souls available for rescue.
Oh well...
Bases on the numbers that you said, this makes sense, You have an ~1/3 chance of getting 0 and ~2/3 chance of getting any lost souls (I'm using very rough estimates to make the math easier). So you have a 1/3 chance of not drawing souls already and another 1/3 chance of getting no lost souls on the second draw, so they add together something like 1/3 + 1/3 - 1/9 (if I'm doing something wrong it's because I haven't done statistics in many years) which makes about 5/9 which over 2 players you get 5/9 + 5/9 - 25/81 = 65/81 = .80 or 80%.
So I guess this gives support to my idea of a single mulligan where you keep one lost soul out (if you drew any) and keep the same number of cards in your hand.
-
Remember when you thought I was dumb yesterday
-
So do you decide whose mulliganning first based on who has drawn the most lost souls? Because whether or not my opponent mulligans may make me change my mind.
-
So do you decide whose mulliganning first based on who has drawn the most lost souls? Because whether or not my opponent mulligans may make me change my mind.
I wasn't really thinking about it, but that makes sense to me.
-
So, 42% / 31% = 1.35--which means you are 35% more likely to see 1 LS than you are to see 2+ LS. (This is actually higher than my stated value, because I mis-remembered the exact numbers.)
But again, as kram pointed out, you are using a 50-card deck for your argument. A 56-card deck would not have that same result, since you are more likely to draw none than to draw 2+.
Just for the record, Kram's number for the 56-card deck are off substantially for the 1 and 2+ cases. For the 56-card deck you get (0,31.8%), (1,37.0%), and (2+,31.2).
Ah yes. It was off. Thanks for the correction.
-
So do you decide whose mulliganning first based on who has drawn the most lost souls? Because whether or not my opponent mulligans may make me change my mind.
I would think the player with the most lost souls in territory has the first option to mulligan. Just like when you begin the game.
-
So do you decide whose mulliganning first based on who has drawn the most lost souls? Because whether or not my opponent mulligans may make me change my mind.
I would think the player with the most lost souls in territory has the first option to mulligan. Just like when you begin the game.
I should delete this post for insubordinance. You know what I meant.
-
I just ran a Monte Carlo for the Olijar strategy (i.e., take a free mulligan whenever you draw any number of Lost Souls). Frankly it is disastrous. Over 75% of games would start with at least one player having no lost souls available for rescue.
Oh well...
Can confirm. For a comparison, with no mulligan, approximately 40% of the games start with at least one player not drawing a lost soul. That's a fairly large difference. Interestingly, for a 56 card deck, these numbers are only slightly higher for a 56 card deck.
-
Just for the record, Kram's number for the 56-card deck are off substantially for the 1 and 2+ cases. For the 56-card deck you get (0,31.8%), (1,37.0%), and (2+,31.2).
So the probability of 0 was almost identical to 2+, just off by decimal percentages. So I wasn't that far off by guesstimation... ;D
Not that any of this is really relevant to the discussion of mulligan rules any more (see my last post).
LOL. You must have posted while I was typing my last post. I think I saw the red banner, but I just clicked "submit" because I was in a hurry. The other thought that I had that may affect random probability is the fact that most Redemption players shuffle in piles to distribute the LSs better, which makes them slightly less random.
-
I think the decision should take into consideration the added complication to the game, the time it takes away from play in tournaments, and the fact that it potentially lengthens the average game time.
Is the added complication of a mulligan worth it? I know it's not much, but it does add one more layer to the game and makes it ever so slightly out of the reach of understanding for younger/newer players. It probably is, I'm just tossing that out for thought :-)
The player who has drawn the most souls gets to choose whether to Mulligan first. A player can choose to mulligan one time per game. All souls drawn stay out. The entire hand is shuffled and the player draws 8, replacing souls as necessary.
If this is adopted, I would encourage this with the modification that they draw one less than before.
It's silly to punish people for bad luck, but it still deters people from attempting to trade an average hand for a good one, by threatening additional soul draw. I don't think there's a single good reason that Lost Souls should be put back in the deck.
I see it more as a consideration/calculation of risk vs. reward. Unless we allow people to pick their opening hand, there's always going to be a risk of drawing a combination of lost souls and weak defense. If you want to mitigate that, play closer to heroless or herolite. Luck of the draw is part of the fun of the game. If we mess with that, it sure feels to me like there should be greater risk than just possibly drawing more Lost Souls - i.e. draw fewer cards.
-
Is the added complication of a mulligan worth it? I know it's not much, but it does add one more layer to the game and makes it ever so slightly out of the reach of understanding for younger/newer players.
I think that new/young players would love to have the opportunity to get a new hand if their starting hand is awful. Since they are new, their deck-building skills may not be very good, so the likelihood of a bad draw is fairly high. ;)
Also note that if LSs are kept out, and both players mulligan, then there will be a bunch of LSs available right at the start. In my experience, young/new players like the thrill of the battles, even if they lose. Getting battles in early and often will be a boost for the game.
-
Remember when you thought I was dumb yesterday
Yesterday was more like further confirmation. ;)
-
i may be crazy but i have more nats titles than westy
-
i may be crazy but i have more nats titles than westy
Yeah but that was booster draft, so it doesn't really count.
-
booster is the hardest category
-
I know I'm a little late to this conversation but what about this option:
If the player chooses to mulligan then they set aside their hand face up, shuffle all souls into their deck, draw a full replacement hand, choose whether or not to mulligan again, (if yes then repeat previous), then resolve lost soul abilities and lastly the opponent then places the original hand(s) on the bottom of owner's deck.
There are a few factors that create tension here. If you can't shuffle the lost souls back in then I don't see a point of having a mulligan. The main reason for mulligan imo is to address those games where you draw five lost souls and no defense which leads to a very quick and boring game. It is not fun to lose or win this way.
I understand the concern about lost soul drought and players trying to abuse mulligan's to increase that. I don't like the options of searching the deck for a soul or choosing one to leave out because I think that adds more complication to it. I also don't think drawing one less card is really helpful here. In magic that is a sufficient deterrent but in Redemption if they draw one less card then there is less chance of them drawing souls and some decks might actually like starting with less cards.
I think my suggestion would alleviate the soul drought issue because the odds for drawing more lost souls should increase with each mulligan. So if you get three or more souls it might be worth doing the mulligan but if you only drew one soul then I doubt it would still be favorable to mulligan in hopes of getting 0. The opponent also gets to see some of your deck and choose the order of the bottom cards which I think would be enough for players to only want to mulligan if they have a truly unplayable starting hand.
It's silly to punish people for bad luck
It is not about punishing people but if there is no significant drawback to using the mulligan then it will lead to being overused. You don't want people doing a mulligan simply because they don't have Guardian, SoG, favorite hero, fortress, etc in their opening hand. If someone wants to mulligan simply so they can get Auto to start then their should be some balancing factor to that.
Might thoughts here are only for type 1 2-player because the dynamics for multiplayer and type 2 are different and may need to be considered differently.