Well, I'm glad the initial string of rude comments were followed by more thoughtful ones that understand what I was getting at. Unfortunately, I need to vent first.
There seems to be some incorrect assumptions about my original point, so let me clear the air: I am FULLY aware of the auto-mulligan system. I am also aware that an auto-mulligan system is not remotely similar to a user-driven mulligan system. The only rule that the auto-mulligan system takes into account is whether or not you have 0-cost cards in the first hand you are dealt (hey, I actually did my homework before writing something!). By giving that option to the player, you allow them to mulligan if they have 1 pillar/tower, and 6 Fractals in their opening hand, to use one easy example of many. Mulligan doesn't just address the lack of quantum; it addresses all clumps or unlucky draws within your initial hand....unless you automate the process with an overly simplified rule. The notion that this very brief and often easy decision is somehow counterproductive boggles my mind when thinking of how much time is wasted as a result of bad opening draws. Now, if you would like to discuss these differences, I am all ears. But, if you just want to chastise me when, in reality, it is you that should be researching this more, I'll pass.
Ok, now that my annoyance has been vented, there were a lot of other thoughtful comments that I appreciate. In order of appearance:
Fast-paced Advocacy:
Fast-paced action is well and good. It's also not in any way exclusive from balance. For the record, I am not looking for an MtG port, which is why I went through great lengths to avoid comparing the two games in my original post. What EVERY CCG does need, though, is balance, and it's the most challenging part of building a CCG. Unfortunately, the way this game is designed, the "fast-paced" action is really closer to grinding than actual gameplay. The reason I am proposing these changes is so that the spirit of the game (if fast-paced matches are the goal of the developers) can coexist with competitive matches. For the most part, you are dropping cards down and, when you know that the match is decided (which often happens well in advance of actually losing) you resign from the game. The number of matches that come down to critical moves in the waning moments of a contest are a very low percentage, and that is indicative of a larger problem in the game. But, since you would like to compare the game with Magic, let's recall what the first editions of Magic were like compared to the game now. They clearly learned from mistakes early on, especially with game-breaking cards, refined their game, and turned it into the masterpiece it is today. The lesson for us? It's ok to change things.
The Tactic Vs Strategy discussion:
This is a great distinction. Again, I would like to clearly state that I am not advocating this game be more like Magic. However, the strategy aspect of this game is clearly behind the potential I see in it, whereas the tactics (or lack thereof) does play a role in the predetermined results of games.
However, tactics is still second to the notion of hay-makers vs jabs. If the power of cards could be refined so that the placement of one was not so decisive in many scenarios, that would allow a greater flexibility in building decks, along with more potential for competitive matches (note: this doesn't necessarily mean slower matches). In some scenarios, changing the rules of the game may be more appropriate. For example, the limit of 6 per card. By allowing this many cards, you allow people to chain the use of them (e.g., Sundial, Phase Shield, Reverse Time) exacerbating the effects of those cards. By decreasing the limit, this helps increase the value of timing in playing those cards. Another example is the accumulation of quantum taking place at the end of a turn in combination with the effects of Black Hole. By changing it so that quantum is accumulated at the beginning of a turn, you would prevent a complete shutdown of that persons ability to play a card. I'm not necessarily proposing these changes; merely providing an example of some approaches to resolving these problems, which do not necessarily involve highly complex decisions within the course of the game.
In the end, the only thing I am stressing is the increase in competitive matches.
