Mulligan improvement

Feedback and Suggestions
#60

Yes. And there is a SQUARE TON of that already in the topic.

  1. I have no problem with draw RNG and personally would prefer even higher variable all-or-none mulligans.
  2. Because I don’t mind loosing odd game to bad draw and love winning bad draw games.
  3. Because I find lucky-draw late game to be much more infuriating than early game, and I don’t mind that too.
  4. Because it’s a part of the draw of card games and their specific “underdog chance in hell” appeal.
  5. Because it’s a part of the draw of card games and their specific “don’t remember, adapt” appeal.
  6. Because I see no reason why high variance draws or low variance draws are better or worse.
  7. Because it’s post launch and the time to mess with base settings is long gone.
  8. Because the payoff is way too low to kick status quo.
  9. Because in comp tournament setting it’s easily offset by something as simple as BO format.
  10. Because you still failed to provide any argumentation.

INB4:

“But it’s luck and I LOST A GAME and there is no skill and it’s bad and I cannot see why you have fun so you are wrong because my fun is only fun and luck is not fun and you’re having fun wrong!”

#61

Yeah, I’m the one on a soapbox, you aren’t. And you also give a lot of valid argumentations that aren’t personal taste at all…
So i will answer only to the “non personal opinion” points.
7. I am a programmer and I know for sure that a change like this is super easy to do, it doesn’t take much time and it doesn’t require to develop any new stuff at all, it’s just a small change.
9. In a tournament you chose your decks order in a way to counter your opponent’s decks and if you lose your only good deck against a certain opponent deck, then only luck can save you at that point.
10. Again, losing a game because you can’t even play a card is a big argumentation. If you lose on turn 10 because your opponent draws flame burst when you have 3 healt it is luck but it isn’t only luck because you had a chance to play and to do something and your opponent as well did something to get you to 3 life so he doesn’t win only because that one lucky draw.

#63

You criticised me because I was talking about my personal taste so it wasn’t a valid argumentation. Then you talked about your personal taste, I rimended you about your point that a personal taste isn’t a valid argumentation and then you got mad and starded to insult me. Yeah, rly mature. After this you are totaly right and I’m wrong.

#64

And even in insulting you, I made more argumentation than you playing the victim. Because fun fact, even though you precisely cherry picked the only part you could cling onto from my whole post, you misinterpreted it and warped it as much as you can, you’re still wrong.

Because you mistook perspective for personal taste. I wrote I don’t mind something, which can be translated into something is fine (not an opinion, a fact proven by endless history of card games and supported by game theory). In this scenario I put trust in you to understand I wrote from first person perspective, but related to idea at large, with proper backing throughout the topic.

As if that wasn’t enough, I merely wrote I don’t mind something. I did not write I prefer it. Quite the opposite, I stated few times in this topic I would prefer higher variance draws to the existent ones, and even then acknowledged such change is not a good thing due to status quo. So I already wrote my personal preference is not a valid argument for change.

To top it off, the burden of proof is the duty of accuser. You accuse existing system of being inferior, I compliment it on being sufficient. Just as in criminal case, or in any logic discussion, you are now burdened with proving why the system is bad and needs a change, while I can stay my hand and rest on “I like it” as long as you don’t provide any viable and tangible reasoning for your case. Meaning that YES, in fact my personal taste is more important than yours, because it’s supporting the status quo, and because I came to the game, and you expect the game to come to you. Unless you provide substantial proof of either volume or importance of your and others personal preference being towards your party, the fact you don’t like it means squat. Nada. Zilch. Just as your drama nad theatrics, in which you cry for the state of the game and on how immature I am.

Even in cherry picking in my arguments, you fail. And this is because, which you clearly don’t want to admit, you cannot win. It’s all about personal preference, thus there exists not an argument that is going to sway yours over the existing state of the game. Not mine, mind you! I would prefer different system too! But I am too smart to pretend my likes and dislikes are words of God unto this word, and unless the game changes to fit ME, it’s bad and wrong and luck based and no skill and whatever silly reddit hash tags you spew during the length of this topic.

#65

[quote=“Ramora, post:41, topic:6313”]
Let me know if you need any help analyzing the data.
[/quote]I’ll post my raw data and my analysis so you can check that I did it right. Just starting now.

First 50 tests:

1000000010
0000000001
1100000200
1000000110
1010210200

  • 0: 36
  • 1: 11
  • 2: 3
  • 3: 0

Feels reasonable.
Takes ages though, I’ll do another 50 then check.

1001110001
0001010011
0000001000
1100211010
0000200001

  • 0: 32
  • 1: 16
  • 2: 2
  • 3: 0

(~35s per test :frowning: )

Shower then stats.

#66

Who misinterpreted what? I never said those things. I’m not accusing the existing system of nothing. Actually I think this is one of the best card game ever. It’s unic with the land system and the faeria banking that doesn’t go to 0 at the end of the turn. I just saw a thing that can be improved and I’m here to suggest it because that is why this section exist and you can’t tell me that I can’t do it. You disagree with me? Ok, I don’t care, you aren’t God either and you aren’t making any real argumentation, you are just accusing me of anything possible just to prove that I’m wrong. You talk about theater, about the fact that I can’t win so I invent stuff. Are you for real? I repeat, you are rly mature. I don’t care about your “competition” between me and you. I’m just trying to make the game better because I care about it and that’s why this section exist.

#67

Thats is a haul and a half you did there. Job well done!

What was the deck composition? Was 30x1? It does seem legit, if you take low sample size into account.

#68

Deck was unique, 30x1. Neutrals starting from the top, and skipping ones that sounded similar. If it seems legit I don’t feel like doing another 100.

I did wonder if solo practice tests are identical to multiplayer, since they use an online server. But it’d be odd to write that code twice.

#69

To crunch on the numbers:

Test vs Math (hypergeometric distribution)

Chance to redraw into a new hand
0.68 / 0.72

Chance to redraw one card

0.27 / 0.259

Chance to redraw two cards

0.05 / 0.02

Chance to redraw three cards

0 / 0.0002

Yep, I would say the results speak for themselves.

1 Like
Same cards from mulligan
Replace Mechanics Broken
#70

Agreed. So it’s just confirmation bias then (unless it is different for multiplayer).

#71

Yeah, they are saying that it is possible to get the same hand back even if you have only unique cards, so it is possible to get them back multiple games in a raw.

#72

This conversation has gotten heated a few times, and I’d just like to remind everyone it’s okay to have disagreements with one another, but please discuss them in a respectful manner. I’ve deleted one post that went above and beyond what was needed to be said and used excessive vulgarity.

The feedback is appreciated, but don’t make things personal.

#73

Looks good. If we were being really rigorous, we would use some kind of analysis of variance to confirm results. But I’m feeling lazy tonight.

#74

You can already fix it. You build your deck, you can make it impossible to get non-functional draws. I quote myself again.

If you change the mulligan rules in the way you propose, all you will end up doing is causing everyone to play more greedy situational cards, resulting in likely the same actual likelihood of players getting non-functional draws. There is no good sollution to non-functional draws. Your proposal is a change without a difference

#75

It’s impossible to make a good deck with 27 harvesters but a deck with 24 may be fine. I think that you are overestimating this change. Why will you play more gready decks? If you use more big cards, you won’t have enough faeria to play them anyway. If you use more events, you have a bad deck no matter what you have in your starting hand because you need creatures in late game as much as you need them in early, not only for harvesting but also for trading and/or to go face.

#76

Rayton7, relax my friend. The only question that opponents ask: WHY do we need nonrepeatable mulligan? But they dont see the answer in this topic and require mathematical evidence. Well If they conduct a dialogue in this way answer first: why do we ALREADY have mulligan (with mathematical evidence)? I’m sure none of them will answer this question because it will destroy their position… It’s just sophistry.
Personally I’m not worried about improved mulligan. Because it can slightly improve the starting gameplay. But cant improve radically Faeria gameplay in general.
I’m much more worried about:

  1. Highly draw dependent gameplay (A lot of duels in tournaments end with the top deck)
  2. Broken rush (opportunity to strike once orb before trade)
  3. A terrible chance of receiving epic cards (~3% epic cards of the total number of cards in boosters)
#77

To be clear, by greedy, I mean situational. Cards that are powerful in combination with other cards, but do nothing on their own. Think cards like Elderwood Embrace, Flashwind, or Mythmaker. If you reduce draw variance, then you reduce the natural penalty for situational cards, encouraging players to run more situational cards. Because players end up running more situational cards, the actual impact of your mulligan change is basically nothing. You will still end up getting about the same number of non-functional draws because you will still be just as unwilling to reduce the variance of your draws through deck building because you already think “It’s impossible to make a good (low variance) deck.”

I’ve tried to explain this to you multiple times now and I’m done trying. If you still don’t understand me, oh well. Someone else can explain it or maybe you will figure it out on your own.

#78

I think most of persons arguing in this thread in one or another way mentioned that there’s some level of desired consistency. What they can’t agree on is what this level should be. A strong point was presented by Galileus (as for me - strong enough to make all subsequent vitriol totally unnecessary): current mulligan system is already a part of the game, and to change status quo devs should have some serious reasons. Let’s give rein to imagination and try to guess what reasons could be considered “serious” in this context.
It would be useful to define some sort of “consistency criterion” first. The first one that have come into my mind was “probability to have the particular card in hand (or milled) in different moments of the game”. Still a bit vague, but in game like Faeria, when interactions with your deck are scarce, it’s usually just a simple function that monotonously increases from some positive value at the start of the game to 1 at the 30th card drawn. According to this definition, hypothetical game that allows you to play any card of your deck at any moment of time would have highest “consistency”, and the game with size of deck that is much greater than number of cards you require to play an average game would be really inconsistent in comparison to Faeria.
Now - closer to the point: that “particular” word in definition is really important. Usually some types of decks are way more consistency-deended than others. First of all, I’m speakig about some combo decks, and decks built around one legendary card (for those familiar with Hearthstone - any Reno deck is a good example). So I guess mulligan mechanics can be changed as a part of game balancing (for example, MtG - a game with a long history and a lot of different play modes had developed several mulligan types that were “default” for different modes in different times).
Does current situation in Faeria calls for this particular balancing tool? Now that’s a question I can’t answer. But I hope devs eventually will.

1 Like
Multiplayer time limit - how is it for you?
#79

Just to link to my time-limit thread, more games reduces RNG noise and lets skill show through. So, to make competitions fairer there should be tons of games - I’d go for 13 for competition finals (the very last game, not that weird definition of finals that some sports have), and at least 7 for all games after qualifying - increasing as you get closer to the finals. But that’d take a long time unless the games were played faster.

#80

If Abrakam will listen guys like u and broken muligan rng I am will leave from game. Because it will become impossible to calculate odds and create correct decks. For example, I just won’t be able to understand how many cards of type will enough in current deck and why.