Then explain, why your take on rng is better? Existing one has an advantage of being cohesive and has status quo. Your approach has the disadvantage of “rng removing” clause. Your take on rng is symetric and thus leaves the environement exactly as rng based as before - and has the stigma of “because I had a bad game”. I am yet to see a solid argument.
An experienced player is able to win even if they get nothing but events in the first turn. If your deck contains so many you draw nothing but events for the first Three turns, Then you are in big trouble.
I have found that mulliganing the entire hand greatly reduces the chances of getting the same cards the second time. In partial mulligans, the chance of that happening is about 50%. Which is a bit high, but I don’t see how it can be improved
3/28 is 50% how exactly? O_o
What I meant is - in a partial mulligan, I seem to draw the same cards about half the time. Based purely on personal experience, not maths. Sorry for any confusion.
They should have done it long ago. I do not understand what awaits Abraham 
The thing is , I also doubt, that the mulligan is not faulty. Yes, there is a chance that when you have 3 cards of one name in your hand, even if you mulligan it , you will receive it again. But it is only a chance, not 80-85%probability.
In fact, there is something strange in Faeria about mulligan. Very very often when I receive some unique card in the hand, after I mulligan it, I receive it again. As if the deck was not shuffled, but just the card was put back on it, and then again taken. It happened many many times, especially, when I mulligan 1 card from 3. About 85%chance that I will have a card back if I mulligan only 1 card. That’s why I now prefer to mulligan all three cards even if I do not like one card. In this case, the probability of different cards seems higher.
1 Like
At least the chance to get back the same exact cards (not copies) should be 0%, I don’t know the probabilities but it happened to me a lot of times and it is so frustrating and pointless. It just doesn"t what it is supposed to do.
1 Like
Personally, my only hang up on the mulligan is that you need to decide all of your discards before you get to see the new cards you get. It would be nice if you could discard one card, see what you get, then decide if you want to discard another card or keep what you already have. Obviously you wouldn’t be able to discard the card you just drew, but it would be nice for help planning your first turn. Does anyone agree with me on this, or am I alone?
Why? What is your argumentation? Why should it work like that?
I know why it shouldnt. Because with 10 by 3 setup you would get way too high chance to open up in perfect way. Instead of building for reliability you would bukld for quick draw. Which would, funily enough, put more weight in RNG.
I ask again, what is the play by play for this idea? Repeating “coulda shoulda woulda” without any backing makes this discussion pointless and… well, not a discussion.
What’s the point of having a mulligan that gives me back exactly the same cards that i discarded even if I don’t have any other copies of those cards in my deck? It makes no sense at all.
2 Likes
It gives you another attempt at rng. Perfect sense. Im surprised I didn’t get minimum post length alarm replying to that.
Got any real arguments?
Yeah, let’s keep the game frustrating instead of improving it a bit. It’s fun when i get the same card back and I’m sure that everybody enjoys it and it is absolutely the best part of the game. #havingfun
1 Like
And again, this is not an argument, this is a slippery slope fallacy. You present your statement as if more random mulligans would always create irritation and frustration and less random ones would never cause that. Which is OBVIOUSLY false.
You completely ignore my argument that more reliable mulligan would make it much easier to spec into perfect opening hands, uhm… rush anyone? Yes, that would lower frustration a lot. It’s better for rush to have reliable opening hands than having one bad game in a dozen.
I will admit, I am loosing my temper here. But how can I not if you keep repeating that you are oh so hurt by that one bad game you had? Oh, it so made the whole game worse that you lost that one game! No, seriously, give it a rest. I had a few bad games myself. I ain’t screaming “gimme cheats!”. Because at this point you could as well. Boo-hoo, you lost one game, lets carter to you and make you win more games by making uneducated adjustment without thinking it through. Because you lost one game.
At this point… just grow some balls, god dammit. I gave you plenty of reasons why it’s not worth changing the status quo, and you are yet to give one argument. All you do is cry, cuz you lost that one game. Well, you will loose more. Thug life, boyo, you ain’t winning 'em all.
I’m done. If you have nothing to say, don’t.
And I din’t even bring out the big guns. Special Attack: Nuclear Salvo!
Texas Hold’Em
There, all your crying was invalidated. Learn to play or change games, games ain’t changing to fit you.
One game? I wish it was just one game but there were like 3 or 4 games in a row that i didn’t have nothing to play on turn 1 and 2 and I couldn’t even draw because of corse at the start I need to make lands. And I don’t use bad decks, I just copied them from pro players. And I think that you should rly do something to fix this because it is rly bad when it happens because you just can’t play, there is nothing that you can do in a game like that. Do you rly don’t care if such a bad thing happens? If the rusher gets a perfect hand it makes hard to bit him but you can still play and maybe find some good plays and win but if you get un unplayable hand you just lose 100% and you can’t do nothing about it. Am I rly crazy to ask for this small change? I don’t think so. I rly think that this change can improve the game a bit
Look what happened in the qualifier: img (this isn’t 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 isn’t particularly uncommon but it’s 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 don’t. You don’t play that deck because those low variance strategies ultimately aren’t very good. What you really want isn’t 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 wouldn’t reduce the variance if given the choice. Quite the opposite actually. Variance could stand to be increased and I’d prefer going back to a full mulligan only system in which you must keep everything or redraw everything.
1 Like
[quote=“Ramora, post:30, topic:6313, full:true”]
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 “it’s taste”, the answer to the question would be “status quo”. Faeria is a released game, and it’s too late to choose, mix and match which type is preferred if the specific governing the segregation is taste. The answer is “don’t change what works”.
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: don’t change now. Keep status quo. Unless there is a REAL reason to change it, and that reason not being “but I drew bad cards!”.
I don’t 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 doesn’t give you back the same cards. Maybe it would be an even better solution because you have varaity, you can’t build perfect hands and you reduce the “unplayable hand” 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. That’s it.
For example: this is a fan deck of one of the best Faeria deck-builders Modgnik The Disciple Deck It auto loses if Aurora’s Disciple did not draw till 20 card in the deck. And nonrepeatable mulligan can slightly improve the chances of such a deck.
