Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Quote from: Master KChief on July 01, 2010, 01:50:34 PM

its one of the absolute best ways to cut down on the luck factor of a ccg.

^This.  If I want luck, I'll go play Texas Hold-Em.

Hold'Em actually takes a lot of skill, thank you.

false. many pro mtg players use paris mulligans. its one of the absolute best ways to cut down on the luck factor of a ccg.

Not for Redemption. Name a reason to not mulligan if I don't get at least 2/10 dominants in my 50 card deck's opening hand. There isn't one. It just wouldn't work for Redemption.

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on July 01, 2010, 11:18:55 PM

Hold'Em actually takes a lot of skill, thank you.

This, I know.  But admittedly more luck than Redemption.

I would still disagree. Hold'em isn't a game of luck in my opinion, it's a game of statistics and oddsmaking. And poker facing .

Quote from: SomeKittens on July 01, 2010, 06:28:39 PM

Quote from: Master KChief on July 01, 2010, 01:50:34 PM

its one of the absolute best ways to cut down on the luck factor of a ccg.

^This.  If I want luck, I'll go play Texas Hold-Em.

Hold'Em actually takes a lot of skill, thank you.

Quote from: Master KChief on July 01, 2010, 01:50:34 PM

false. many pro mtg players use paris mulligans. its one of the absolute best ways to cut down on the luck factor of a ccg.

Not for Redemption. Name a reason to not mulligan if I don't get at least 2/10 dominants in my 50 card deck's opening hand. There isn't one. It just wouldn't work for Redemption.

there are many, MANY reasons i would mulligan a hand that had 2 dominants in it.

thats the point of a mulligan, to cut down the bad luck and get a better opening hand. the cost-risk benefit associated with it is everytime you do it, you have to keep lost souls in play and draw one card less. there is no guarantee you'll draw your supposed 2 dominants, and the odds go down after every time, but its better than keeping a crap hand.

If you're finding yourself in a situation where you regularly wish you could mulligan, build a better deck (preferably with more defense).  If you're finding yourself in a situation where you rarely wish you could mulligan but those rare occasions are costing you tournament wins then bug your host about running more than the minimum number of rounds.

Redemption does not need mulligans.  Mulligans would be bad for Redemption.  That's my opinion.

This is all fine and dandy for some experienced players, but new players get quite frustrated with poor draws, and the direct relationship to their poor deck-building skills (which they get reminded of by people like you). A poor opening draw for a young player is practically a death sentence at tournaments. They will lose 5-0 in a few turns and feel like going home.

I think a mulligan is worth considering for the benefit that new and young players will reap from it. Whatever inconveniences appear for experienced players would be minor at best, and more likely just a pet peeve of a few.

Hey,

Quote

A magic player sees a smaller percentage of their deck in any given game than a Redemption player does.

again, not true. roughly 30% of a typical mtg deck is lands, so thats largely a chunk of the same stuff there. not only that, but mtg also allows 4 copies of any given card, which many pro players will max out on. while it may be true redemption comes out on top in the sheer number of cards, in terms of an mtg player actually 'seeing' more of their deck mtg has redemption beat.

Your point about the redundancy in magic decks is a valid one.  But even with four copies of a card in my deck it's still possible that none of them would be in the top 20 cards of my deck (although admittedly less likely).  

the cost-risk benefit associated with it is everytime you do it

This is the problem, there is so much drawing in Redemption that starting with a smaller hand size isn't much of a cost.  Who cares if I start with 5 cards in my hand rather than 8 if those five cards include Hur and Gifts of the Magi, or Pentecost and First Fruits?

The only chance it would be fair is if you did something like take one of the lost souls in your deck and put it in your opponents Land of Redemption to let you mulligan, or letting your opponent search their draw pile for any card each time you mulligan.

A poor opening draw for a young player is practically a death sentence at tournaments. They will lose 5-0 in a few turns and feel like going home.

I would much rather beat a young player 5-0 in 4 turns and have them walk away thinking "man that was a bad draw" then have a longer game where I completely dominate them, win 5-0 without Son of God and have them walk away thinking "man I'm not any good at this game."

I believe the best way to guard against young players losing bad/a lot and losing interest in the game is to do more game nights and fewer tournaments so that you can make sure they're matched up against people with similar abilities.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

make sure they're matched up against people with similar abilities.

Wow. Hobbit and SirNobody, you guys are made for each other.

That's because Tim is actually Nathan's long-lost older brother.

~Britta

Don't forget to tell your victims about how poor their deck-building skills are before they leave.

oh beleive me i do, I even tell their parents sometimes after the game, "make sure Jimmy has a legitimate deck, before he plays the Almighty H13"
And then I make the whole family get a tat.

PS I hate that you can only rescue 5 souls now.. ...btw I AM THE MOST HUMBLEST PERSON I KNOW!!!!!! how dare you call me Arrogant.

Wow. Hobbit and SirNobody, you guys are made for each other. The arrogance is almost stifling.

Don't forget to tell your victims about how poor their deck-building skills are before they leave.

Okay jokes aside. I am not going to speak for my self but Tim Maly is one of the most humble winners I know. He is saying that he would rather have people walk away saying wow I had a bad draw and lost 5-0,(letting that be the Scapegoat) because chances are they won't beat themselves up to bad. Rather than beating a kid 5-0 in a longer game were he might feel bad about himself for having a bad deck. He is being nice, not arrogant. I don't think you understood our posts. I was arguing against mollegans because they would hurt little kids too annd Tim was  well being respectful to the RLKS by offering some solutions. We don't enjoy beating up little kids. I hope that clears things up. 

Quote from: SirNobody on July 01, 2010, 01:32:32 PM

If you're finding yourself in a situation where you regularly wish you could mulligan, build a better deck (preferably with more defense).  If you're finding yourself in a situation where you rarely wish you could mulligan but those rare occasions are costing you tournament wins then bug your host about running more than the minimum number of rounds.

Redemption does not need mulligans.  Mulligans would be bad for Redemption.  That's my opinion.

This is all fine and dandy for some experienced players, but new players get quite frustrated with poor draws, and the direct relationship to their poor deck-building skills (which they get reminded of by people like you). A poor opening draw for a young player is practically a death sentence at tournaments. They will lose 5-0 in a few turns and feel like going home.

I think a mulligan is worth considering for the benefit that new and young players will reap from it. Whatever inconveniences appear for experienced players would be minor at best, and more likely just a pet peeve of a few.

I agree that the younger players should be shown some fairness by the more advanced players because they are already at a disadvantage by playing against the "top players". I would be willing to let a newer kid mulligan in a tournament, even if I lost to them because (let's face it) nobody likes losing. And if they are anything like me, they'll get tired of getting beat all the time since they don't know what they're doing. 

I don't think the problem is losing, but it more comes when player feel like they can't do anything, a lot of younger less experienced players seem to be having just as much fun even though they don't win, so long as they are treated well and be able to play some cards.

Now in saying that I will also say that some people just don't like losing and I don't know what can be done when those people keep losing.  But I know I love playing the game and being pushed to the limit of my abilities and deck capabilities whether I win or lose

Hey,

oh beleive me i do, I even tell their parents sometimes after the game, "make sure Jimmy has a legitimate deck, before he plays the Almighty H13"
And then I make the whole family get a tat.

Yeah...I've so got that tat.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on July 02, 2010, 01:42:04 PM

I am not going to speak for my self but Tim Maly is one of the most humble winners I know.

So, Sir "Nobody can beat me" is only arrogant on the boards?  

I'll take your word for it, Mr. "Hobbit you quit now before I rough you up"13.  

Please point out to me where he stated that no one can beat him. Yes, he may have seemed to imply that he always beats RLKs (as we in Minnesota so affectionately call younger players), but RLKs do not make up the entire Redemption community, therefore you cannot quote him as saying 'nobody can beat me'. Also, the implication that he will always beat RLKs is not really arrogance, it's more of a fact. From what I know, the last few times he lost to an 'RLK' was when he played Nathan in 2004, back when Nathan was still the size of a hobbit (thus why he has "that tat"), and a few others at Nationals in 2005. (Thus why Minnesota is known for its RLKs). For him, losing to an RLK is an anomaly, therefore, I don't believe you can call him arrogant just for saying how he prefers to win the 99.99% of games he plays against RLKs. Furthermore, I find it very distasteful to take such a cheap shot at someone's character in order to make their opinion look bad. Such a tactic won't get you very far in winning people to your opinion, and I don't think it sets a very good example, either.

~Britta