Look what happened in the qualifier: img (this isnāt me btw)
Do you rly think that this is good for the game?
You are arguing that variance should be reduced but seem to have little awareness of the full impact of reducing variance. This isnāt particularly uncommon but itās also not particularly useful. Even if we were having a thoughtful discussion of how much variance should be in Faeria and the nature of that variance, we would never reach any real conclusions as it ultimately comes down to taste.
Consider for a moment though that your problem may not be with variance itself. Consider that you have the option of removing the type of variance you are encountering from the game. If you really want to, you could play a deck with 30 turn 1 playable harvesters. But you donāt. You donāt play that deck because those low variance strategies ultimately arenāt very good. What you really want isnāt a reduction in draw variance, what you want is for everyone to be playing lower variance decks. If you simply reduce draw variance, as you propose, you will end up having little to no impact on the actual variance of the games, as even greedier decks with more situational combo cards would be made better. You (and players in general) would switch to those greedier decks, which would result in about as many punishing situations in which one (or both) players get non functional draws.
I absolutely am not claiming that the variance in Faeria is perfect but I am comfortable with it and I wouldnāt reduce the variance if given the choice. Quite the opposite actually. Variance could stand to be increased and Iād prefer going back to a full mulligan only system in which you must keep everything or redraw everything.
1 Like
[quote=āRamora, post:30, topic:6313, full:trueā]
Even if we were having a thoughtful discussion of how much variance should be in Faeria and the nature of that variance, we would never reach any real conclusions as it ultimately comes down to taste.[/quote]
Wrong. If the conclusion of that discussion would be āitās tasteā, the answer to the question would be āstatus quoā. Faeria is a released game, and itās too late to choose, mix and match which type is preferred if the specific governing the segregation is taste. The answer is ādonāt change what worksā.
And that is the point. There is nothing wrong with all-or-nothing nor with guaranteed-no-re mulligans. This is why the answer is: donāt change now. Keep status quo. Unless there is a REAL reason to change it, and that reason not being ābut I drew bad cards!ā.
I donāt have problem with any of proposed implementations. I have problem with suggesting one of them is MLG PRO SKILL MLG 360 NOSCOPE, and the other is literally Satan.
(and I quite like the idea of all-or-nothing, but once again, I do not think it would be a good idea to switch now)
1 Like
I would like the full mulligan if doesnāt give you back the same cards. Maybe it would be an even better solution because you have varaity, you canāt build perfect hands and you reduce the āunplayable handā problem
Sounds interesting. Would be even more interesting if Faeria will have graveyard interactions one day.
IIRC, you actually can (or at least could) do that in Gwent (it appears you have been inspired by mulligan system from that game).
Wow what a debate 
Nonrepeatable mulligan just reduces draw RNG a bit. (I noticed that in Faeria often one card solves the outcome of the battle. And Faeria is quite draw dependent game) So Abrakam can easily improve his brainchild with nonrepeatable mulligan. Thatās it.
For example: this is a fan deck of one of the best Faeria deck-builders Modgnik The Disciple Deck It auto loses if Auroraās Disciple did not draw till 20 card in the deck. And nonrepeatable mulligan can slightly improve the chances of such a deck.
I mean, they have changed mulligans before, but I mostly agree with you. Without good reason to change, no point in changing.
Your conclusion doesnāt follow from your premise. Simply because draw RNG exists, and there is a method that can reduce draw RNG, doesnāt in any way imply that draw RNG should be reduced.
It canāt be true that it is generally the case that reducing draw RNG improves a card game. If that were the case, then all card games would devolve into games with no Draw RNG. We havenāt observed this though, therefore draw RNG is desirable in at least some games at some non-zero level. Why should we prefer reduced draw RNG, given that it is not generally the case that draw RNG is bad for a game?
I edited my post, see my simple example pls
So, you want to reduce variance, to make higher variance strategies like disciple OTK stronger? Now the question becomes, why should higher variance strategies be stronger?
1 Like
I have been wondering whether the RNG is working correctly.
I have many times got the same 2 single-copy cards I discarded back, and I routinely get 1 back. It feels far too often for chance, but it needs testing.
I am going to try, probably tomorrow, say 200 mulligans vs AI with a no-duplicate deck. Iāll see whether Iāve just got confirmation bias or whether itās bugged.
As for personal preference - I prefer the raw RNG. Itās damn annoying to get back discards, but changing that affects balance. For example, heals are great IMHO, the main downside is drawing them very early.
IMHO the best way to deal with RNG issues is more games. Perhaps even simultaneous games (although that does have opponent-deck-knowledge issues - eg Radiance).
Their RNG is kinda crap. I have swapped out all 3 cards in draft, where 2 of the cards I had 1 apiece and the other 2, and I still pulled all 3. I have noticed various instances of this since I started a couple weeks ago.When I have full sets of 3 of very card in my deck, it is understandable. When I happens frequently when I only have 1 instance of the card, there is a problem.
1 Like
I want any decks to be stronger and less dependent on draw rng.
Did you wondered why there is a mulligan in CCG?
Thing is, the strength of a deck is always relative to the other decks you could be playing. Reducing draw RNG helps high variance decks at the cost of making low variance decks (in relative terms) weaker.
Let me know if you need any help analyzing the data.
Iāve actually never played Gwent, or the Witcher, but I will take that as a compliment, since they seem like quality games. Is the Mulligan system in Gwent similar to the way I describe? In what way is it different?
I didnāt play every card game but I tried a lot of them and i never saw a mulligan that gives you back the same card that you discarded if you donāt have other copies. I donāt know how to explain it anymore but it is just wrong. I donāt understund how can it be a good think.
You cannot have a discussion if you cannot acknowledge the other side.
How can anyone take you seriously, if you say to the other side: āYouāre just wrong, I cannot explain it, but I donāt understand how can you like what you likeā. In matters of taste, acknowledge or shush. The fact that you prefer one option to another does not make the other one wrong, and saying this out loud is rude - to say it lightly.
In some games you canāt even play cards until turn 3 and some times even turn 4, isnāt it a valid argument? Those games are just lost 100% no matter what you do because you canāt do nothing. You canāt say that this is just my opinion. This is bad for the players and itās bad for the game. Do you really canāt see it? Itās unbelievable.
Yeah, nice answare
No, it isnāt. But Iāve already touched on this. The existence of non-functional draws does not in anyway imply that draw variance should be reduced.
So unplayable games means variance for you?
