(Higurashi, you're below. Maybe someday I'll bother with the forum quotes, lol.)
MORMEGIL:
"It is not true that this change would produce the same number of potential bugs of any other change to the system, since it requires the going back and forth of player actions at the start of a match until both are satisfied of their draw."
It is not necessary for there to be a repeated communication between players while draws are being resolved. This could be handled between the player and the server until the player has decided on his hand (if he is even given multiple chances), and that final decision can then be communicated to the other player, as but one example.
To take a different angle, by using your logic, why not eliminate the player's ability to decide what card to discard when his hand is full at the end of a turn? Instead, the server could randomize the selection, thereby eliminating the need for the player to communicate this information. I imagine this was incorporated in the game because the ability to select the card allows the player to make a skill-based decision, something that adds value to the players overall experience. The exact same is true of a mulligan.
"If you kept it for PvE it would be easier, but also more useless as you can just quit and replay - something most farmers do a lot."
I would suggest reflecting on what this game was like when you were just starting out. You have a lot more matches with daunting odds, a light purse, and a minuscule income. Yes, you can just quit and replay, but for someone working towards just the simple opportunity to build a different deck, that means hours on end, and in a way that is not remotely reaching it's potential for enjoyment. This game obviously has a strong core at it's fanbase, but it would be wise to take into account the experiences of those who are just becoming familiar with the game. The more people that enjoy the game, the more support you will have. The more support you have, the more resources at your disposal. The more resources you have, the easier it is to fix bugs, such as synch.
"Most of the PvP players here agree that PvP matches are ruled by deckbuilding and luck. By introducing a mulligan system you enhance the importance of deckbuilding over luck. You do not eliminate luck, as the starting hand is often less important than subsequent draws; you do not eliminate bad draws, as the reduced starting hand will result in more quanta-screwage."
Nor did I claim that it would eliminate it; only mitigate. And that is a great thing.
"Also, there are a lot of less convoluted systems to enhance deckbuilding over luck, one of which is to increase the number of duels played against the same opponent. Best of 5 is common nowadays, as it ensures less RNG-dependancy without creating the problems you can see listed above."
A system that also mitigates, but does not eliminate. I'd suggest both. As for less complicated, I would ask: what about time-sensitive? What about maximizing the players experience? This is why I don't understand the fierce resistance to this suggestion. Yes, there are other changes that could be implemented to help reduce the undesirable factors within the game, but the value of this particular change cannot be denied. People keep trying to point towards other suggestions on related matters, many of which are good. But it doesn't mean that this suggestion should be dropped; it only means that there are multiple ways to improve the game.
"Also, a mulligan system will most likely not change the few balancing issues we have in this game, as it will effectively strengthen the chances of a strong deck to win over a weaker one, thus enhancing the power of the already strong decks without solving any real issue, since even frustration over RNG is not going to disappear with a mulligan ("Man, I would totally have had this game if I wasn't forced to mulligan down to 5 cards before getting a good hand!")"
It doesn't affect the balance of cards; that was more a target of the other points I brought up. It does provide a different sort of balance, in that it increases the odds of possessing the cards you want to execute the strategy you designed within the deck. As you said, this means that a well-designed deck is less likely to lose against a poorly designed deck. Now, call me crazy, but that sounds like exactly the scenario you want in a game. Don't use luck to provide developing players a chance at winning. That could be far better addressed by creating tiers in PVP, something that already exists to a certain extent. And really, how fulfilling is a win that you earned simply because your opponent couldn't play a single card? Can't we shoot for a bit more than that?
HIGURASHI:
"While Eternity is incredibly powerful against the AI, it rarely plays a deciding role in PvP since the latter is dominated by speed and almost everyone are forced to pack PC. That points at a lack of balance in itself, and can be attributed to the low amount of cards in the game so far. Something that is slowly being alleviated."
Yeah, it's that requirement to include certain cards that affects the diversity in deck-building. It's not just powerful against the AI; many decks I have experimented with have fallen prey to matches against an AI with Eternity, effectively reverting me to a starting point in the game. This isn't really an enjoyable playing experience, which is the most important factor in a game. Obviously, I could anticipate this when building my deck, but you can only prepare for so many cards, and because of the power of them, it is assured that you will find yourself losing to a single card at some point. But, I am interested in seeing what new cards come out, as I really enjoy the current feel of each individual quantum. I'm just hoping that it moves away from the trend to be overwhelmingly powerful, and more towards providing an interesting change to the contest.
"That could certainly be one solution. In trying to balance cards like this, you'll have to do them one by one, which can at first unbalance the game even more, but the end result would be an environment that is less rock-paper-scissors. In the case of Eternity, one could let it bounce your own creatures to prevent decking out, since that's often what it's used for."
It will be a long time before this game is completely balanced, that is for sure. Well, as complete as any CCG can be; this game format is really a perpetual work in progress, regardless of what game you are talking about. I'd say it took magic a good 5-6 years before really solidifying their masterpiece. As long as Elements is moving in the right direction though, I imagine it would receive enthusiastic support.
"It's quite a bit harder nowadays, which I noticed when starting an alternative account. I love going to PvP 1 with it, and building Silver Arena decks as well, but the grind has gotten even worse as of late. However, if you know what you're doing, you'll be running RoL/Hope or Flay 'Em in a week or two, which -really- speeds up your electrum gain. Regardless, you're correct in that there are few optimal decks for FG's when you're running unupped. The best way to make electrum to get to the aforementioned partially upped decks has now become the daily FG, farming Elders with Grabbix and the occasional trip to the Arena (Bronze is a decent place to get rares from the bonus spin), unless you want to take your chances with Liquid Antimatter."
That's funny...pretty much doing all of what you said already, lol. Running a RoL/Hope deck for this past week, that I built by playing Elders for far too many matches in a row with Grabbix. Contrary to the perception that Scaredgirl had of me, I have been doing a lot of research on the game since I wasn't finding a lot of success with my own experimentation early on. Now I've just started using a modified form of Liquid Antimatter (which I really wish had been named Dark Matter) in the Silver and Gold leagues since they are not quite as monotonous and provide big electrum rewards when you win. But, that sure seems like a sign of too much rigidity in this game, that the decks to be used as you grind your way up are so uniform. While I was using a Darkness quantum denial deck in Bronze league early on, I haven't found a lot of flexibility, due to the combination of high difficulty curve and low electrum/card rewards.
On a related note, the RoL/Hope deck is a prime example of a deck that has a lot of difficulty dealing with a single card like Eternity, and the reason why it was one of the first examples that popped into my head. But, I'm just not interested in doing another thousand monotonous Grabbix matches against Elders, so I'm seeing how these methods go.
"I cannot stress that enough: heavy restrictions make for a much more interesting and challenging environment to build for. This is true for -all- card games. Period."
I curious as to what you mean by this. Restrictions certainly can make a game interesting, as essentially the rules of the game are such, and each rule-set creates the environment unique to that game. But all restrictions are not created equally, and I can certainly imagine situations where a proposed restriction could be undesirable.
"A manual mulligan would indeed be wonderful to make games less predetermined, but we've accepted it's not going to come for good reasons."
I still don't see what those good reasons are. I understand the concern about lag/synch issues, but I feel the response is far too slanted by a vocal group of veteran players. But, hell, just put it in the PVE version, that'd be a great start. Other than that, though, no one has provided reasons against it, only other suggestions that are in a similar vein, and could likely be implemented along with the mulligan mechanic.
Sorry to keep harping on it, lol, but I'm always open to a change in perception, I just need good reasons for it. The value that a mulligan would have in Elements is clear. People may disagree just how valuable it is, but the fact that it increases the number of playable matches is concrete evidence that supports its inclusion. I could understand it not being a top priority atm, but to say it isn't even on the list? As it stands, I find that to be an established, closed-minded view that is hindering the potential of the game. I wouldn't knock the developer too harshly for making that decision; it's his game, he will live or die by it, and it's a wonderful creation regardless. But, I will respectfully point out the reasons why it is a bad decision.
