Author Topic: Type 3 (Read 8975 times)

Josh · « **Reply #25 on:** April 18, 2012, 12:27:08 PM »

One more idea. At the risk of getting flamed by people saying "you're just copying off of other games"... A new type such as this with the standard deck size may be a good time to test the very first Redemption mulligan. There's nothing worse than drawing a bunch of LS and no ECs at the beginning of a game, so please hear me out.

Here's my idea, just as a start. The original D8 with LS going to play occurs as normal. Then, before determining who goes first, the players may select a mulligan. Mulligans would have 3 requirements:

1. All LS already drawn stay in play. Only the 8 cards in hand are shuffled back into deck. You should never be able to mulligan away a bad LS draw. You should be able to mulligan away a bad LS draw and a bad hand though.
2. The opponent may choose who goes first, regardless of LS count. This is to prevent mulliganing as a way to play more LS and guarantee going first (not sure why someone would do this, but I think this should be the rule just in case). If both players mulligan an equal number of times, then going first is determined normally. If both players mulligan but one player mulligans more times, then the player who mulliganed fewer times may choose.
3. The mulligan draw is 1 less card than the prior hand. So 1 mulligan = D7, 2 mulligans = D6, etc., with each time LS remaining in play.

Thoughts?

Drrek · « **Reply #26 on:** April 18, 2012, 02:07:04 PM »

Quote from: jmhartz on April 18, 2012, 12:27:08 PM

One more idea. At the risk of getting flamed by people saying "you're just copying off of other games"... A new type such as this with the standard deck size may be a good time to test the very first Redemption mulligan. There's nothing worse than drawing a bunch of LS and no ECs at the beginning of a game, so please hear me out.

Here's my idea, just as a start. The original D8 with LS going to play occurs as normal. Then, before determining who goes first, the players may select a mulligan. Mulligans would have 3 requirements:

1. All LS already drawn stay in play. Only the 8 cards in hand are shuffled back into deck. You should never be able to mulligan away a bad LS draw. You should be able to mulligan away a bad LS draw and a bad hand though.
2. The opponent may choose who goes first, regardless of LS count. This is to prevent mulliganing as a way to play more LS and guarantee going first (not sure why someone would do this, but I think this should be the rule just in case). If both players mulligan an equal number of times, then going first is determined normally. If both players mulligan but one player mulligans more times, then the player who mulliganed fewer times may choose.
3. The mulligan draw is 1 less card than the prior hand. So 1 mulligan = D7, 2 mulligans = D6, etc., with each time LS remaining in play.

Thoughts?

I'm against implementing this in type III, and not because I hate the idea of mulligans or anything, but because I think that with the significant rule changes to the standard type of redemption it already has, I would very much like to see how the games play out with those rules before implementing any more large changes to the structure of it.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #27 on:** April 18, 2012, 03:27:50 PM »

Quote from: Drrek on April 18, 2012, 02:07:04 PM

I'm against implementing this in type III, and not because I hate the idea of mulligans or anything, but because I think that with the significant rule changes to the standard type of redemption it already has, I would very much like to see how the games play out with those rules before implementing any more large changes to the structure of it.

Actually experience has taught me the opposite perspective. When I first created the format of TEAMS, it obviously was a big change to the way the game was played, but in addition to having a partner, I also added in some other big rule changes. These included "Intro-Prep", the first "Dom-limit", changing the definitions of "your" and "opponent's", and giving eratta to the card "Doubt". It was fun to test all these things out in an event that quickly caught on as being very popular.

When Rob decided to make TEAMS an official event, he dropped some of these changes (the errata for Doubt and the definitions of "your" and "opponent's"), but he kept some of the others (Intro-Prep and the Dom limit). I suspect that this could work the same way. You could create Type 3 with a new deck card limit, LS goal, good/bad ratio, and mulligan rule. Then if this becomes very popular and Rob decides to make it official, he could keep/drop any of those. But if you like the idea of mulligans, then you might as well try it. Other than ROOT, there's not really any other way to try out new ideas like this on a big scale. And sometimes it is easier to add a new thing to a new category, than it is to change an existing one.

Korunks · « **Reply #28 on:** April 18, 2012, 04:17:30 PM »

Not sure how I feel about mulligans yet, I think I will try to test in a few games and see if it help or hinders. It is something I missed from MTG.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #29 on:** April 18, 2012, 04:32:09 PM »

I dislike mulligans for T3. They'd be good for T1, but T3 already has a lot of checks in place. People shouldn't be rewarded for poor deckbuilding by being able to redraw.

I am Knot a Blonde! · « **Reply #30 on:** April 18, 2012, 04:45:46 PM »

Quote from: Korunks on April 18, 2012, 04:17:30 PM

Not sure how I feel about mulligans yet, I think I will try to test in a few games and see if it help or hinders. It is something I missed from MTG.

Ooohh you said the "M" word! :O

Korunks · « **Reply #31 on:** April 18, 2012, 04:47:39 PM »

Quote from: I am Knot a Blonde! on April 18, 2012, 04:45:46 PM

Quote from: Korunks on April 18, 2012, 04:17:30 PM
Not sure how I feel about mulligans yet, I think I will try to test in a few games and see if it help or hinders. It is something I missed from MTG.

Ooohh you said the "M" word! :O

I better go into hiding then.

I am Knot a Blonde! · « **Reply #32 on:** April 18, 2012, 04:48:48 PM »

Quote from: Korunks on April 18, 2012, 04:47:39 PM

Quote from: I am Knot a Blonde! on April 18, 2012, 04:45:46 PM
Quote from: Korunks on April 18, 2012, 04:17:30 PM
Not sure how I feel about mulligans yet, I think I will try to test in a few games and see if it help or hinders. It is something I missed from MTG.

Ooohh you said the "M" word! :O
I better go into hiding then.

Yes, before the forum assassins come for you. (whom i assume are already on their way)

Josh · « **Reply #33 on:** April 20, 2012, 11:48:48 AM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on April 18, 2012, 04:32:09 PM

I dislike mulligans for T3. They'd be good for T1, but T3 already has a lot of checks in place. People shouldn't be rewarded for poor deckbuilding by being able to redraw.

I understand this, but even if you put 20 ECs in your 60 card T3 deck, you will on (rare) occasion draw no ECs and a bunch of lost souls. That's not bad deckbuilding, that's an inconvenient outcome that defied the odds. Sure, if you put 10 ECs in your 60 card deck, that's different. But if the mulligan rule is balanced, this won't matter.

So that leads to my next question. Is my proposed mulligan rule balanced? Is the cost high enough so that mulligans will only be used if necessary (as opposed as a way of players simply trying to improve their hand a little bit), while still providing a possible remedy to the deadly combination of terrible starting hand + lots of LS available?

I am Knot a Blonde! · « **Reply #34 on:** April 20, 2012, 12:01:22 PM »

Quote from: jmhartz on April 20, 2012, 11:48:48 AM

Quote from: Minister Polarius on April 18, 2012, 04:32:09 PM
I dislike mulligans for T3. They'd be good for T1, but T3 already has a lot of checks in place. People shouldn't be rewarded for poor deckbuilding by being able to redraw.

I understand this, but even if you put 20 ECs in your 60 card T3 deck, you will on (rare) occasion draw no ECs and a bunch of lost souls. That's not bad deckbuilding, that's an inconvenient outcome that defied the odds. Sure, if you put 10 ECs in your 60 card deck, that's different. But if the mulligan rule is balanced, this won't matter.

So that leads to my next question. Is my proposed mulligan rule balanced? Is the cost high enough so that mulligans will only be used if necessary (as opposed as a way of players simply trying to improve their hand a little bit), while still providing a possible remedy to the deadly combination of terrible starting hand + lots of LS available?

The punishments are somewhat ridiculous. The punishment for mulligan is to lose that one card to fix your hand. All this extra stuff is fluff that is completely unnecessary. And, if your opponent has more cards in hand AND fewer lost souls in play than you, dont you think you should be given the advantage of at least choosing to first or play first just because of LS count? (or course, if you mulligan and still have less than your opponent, they would choose.) normal rules there. Otherwise, too complicated and noone would EVER mulligan. It has to be balanced and actually usable at the same time.

Minion of Jesus · « **Reply #35 on:** April 20, 2012, 01:16:36 PM »

Agree with IAKAB. The original idea was better.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #36 on:** April 20, 2012, 01:52:25 PM »

Quote from: jmhartz on April 20, 2012, 11:48:48 AM

Is my proposed mulligan rule balanced?

I'd drop the part about choosing who goes 1st, but I'd increase the hand-downsize to -2 each mulligan. Leave the LSs out, and whoever has the most can choose who starts.

Since a player would be down 4 cards after mulliganing twice, no one would do that on purpose just to get to draw first (only 3 cards). Therefore the LS thing would be unnecessary.

Korunks · « **Reply #37 on:** April 20, 2012, 02:22:10 PM »

I don't really want to add mulligan to this rule set. The main goal of this category is to balance T1 and T2. We haven't really added any rules that aren't already in the game and I kinda want to keep it that way. I couldn't drum up much support for this idea with our group testing this, and even though it's a long shot to ever become an official category but IMO adding this won't help that objective and may hurt it.

I am Knot a Blonde! · « **Reply #38 on:** April 20, 2012, 02:41:11 PM »

but honestly, if someone has even a decent hand... mulliganing a decent hand is still going to hurt them, even if there strategy works. They don't know if they're going to get good cards with additional lost souls, or even still be able to get more lost souls out! its all chance. You cant say that people are going to start doing it just to go first, because even if they do mulligan, that doesnt guarantee them more lost souls or the same level of power of cards that they mulliganed. In the end, its a major risk with a high chance of only hurting them.

Redoubter · « **Reply #39 on:** April 20, 2012, 06:44:22 PM »

While I like the idea of mulligans personally, I don't see them having enough support across the whole Redemption community, and I also think it adds complexity that doesn't need to be there (and makes things harder for new players, always something to be avoided).

This game already has a draw 3 each turn, which makes up for bad hands in most cases. Mulligan is more needed in games that only draw 1 per turn and therefore cannot recover as quickly from a bad starting hand.

Cactus Game Design Message Boards

News:

Author Topic: Type 3 (Read 8975 times)

Josh

Re: Type 3

Drrek

Re: Type 3

Prof Underwood

Re: Type 3

Korunks

Re: Type 3

Minister Polarius

Re: Type 3

I am Knot a Blonde!

Re: Type 3

Korunks

Re: Type 3

I am Knot a Blonde!

Re: Type 3

Josh

Re: Type 3

I am Knot a Blonde!

Re: Type 3

Minion of Jesus

Re: Type 3

Prof Underwood

Re: Type 3

Korunks

Re: Type 3

I am Knot a Blonde!

Re: Type 3

Redoubter

Re: Type 3