I'm pretty sure I'm not the first, and this is Not salt as it goes both ways -
Starting player - 3 cards mull. Draw a random card as 4th.
2nd player - 4 cards mull, AND coin. Feels a hell lot easier.
Why doesn't first player get 4 card mull without drawing first? Opp getting a coin is like giving a free turn to 2nd player. Or am I looking at this wrong?
I would say that going first and having the opportunity to put down higher cost mana cards first (if the game is going with tempo) gives you the advantage of being much more pro active and aggresive. We all know that games very rarely follow tempo but 'in the beginning' where a lot of cards just came with vanilla stats and no text it was much more balanced.
Well, there are many decks, which prefer going second. The most known one is probably Quest Druid. Coin gives you a huge advantage. On the other side decks like Pirate Warrior (Wild) or Tempo Demon Hunter likes starting 1st more. In conclusion, in some matchups coin+card seems a bit like a too big of a compensation, while in others it's justified by the loss of tempo. It's kinda' inevitable, as someone has to be 1st, so I think it's fair to give a compensation to the opponent.
You do realize usually people actually want to go first and that statistics show that in most cases (excluding decks like Rogue or Druid, where it is beneficial due to specific reasons), going first is better and numbers prove it? So basically you want to buff an option, which is already the better one.
I would say that going first and having the opportunity to put down higher cost mana cards first (if the game is going with tempo) gives you the advantage of being much more pro active and aggresive. We all know that games very rarely follow tempo but 'in the beginning' where a lot of cards just came with vanilla stats and no text it was much more balanced.
I would say that going first and having the opportunity to put down higher cost mana cards first (if the game is going with tempo) gives you the advantage of being much more pro active and aggresive. We all know that games very rarely follow tempo but 'in the beginning' where a lot of cards just came with vanilla stats and no text it was much more balanced.
I would say that going first and having the opportunity to put down higher cost mana cards first (if the game is going with tempo) gives you the advantage of being much more pro active and aggresive. We all know that games very rarely follow tempo but 'in the beginning' where a lot of cards just came with vanilla stats and no text it was much more balanced.
With the coin you can do that going second.
Only once
As he states, you can go one mana higher first ONE time as the second player, the other 9 turns untill you reach 10 the first player has the tempo advantage. If you look at the data on hsreplay.net on most decks. Just checked on the mulligan guide for the most played Demon Hunter deck and there the winrate for the different cards are on avarage between 12-15 % higher if you go first than second. So even with the benefits going second get the first player is heavily favored. The advantage of going first would be even larger without the extra card and coin the second player gets.
Another example picked from my deck tracker. With the Highlander Hunter deck I am currently using my winrate going first is 71 % and going second is 52 %..
I'm pretty sure I'm not the first, and this is Not salt as it goes both ways -
Starting player - 3 cards mull. Draw a random card as 4th.
2nd player - 4 cards mull, AND coin. Feels a hell lot easier.
Why doesn't first player get 4 card mull without drawing first? Opp getting a coin is like giving a free turn to 2nd player. Or am I looking at this wrong?
I would say that going first and having the opportunity to put down higher cost mana cards first (if the game is going with tempo) gives you the advantage of being much more pro active and aggresive. We all know that games very rarely follow tempo but 'in the beginning' where a lot of cards just came with vanilla stats and no text it was much more balanced.
Well, there are many decks, which prefer going second. The most known one is probably Quest Druid. Coin gives you a huge advantage. On the other side decks like Pirate Warrior (Wild) or Tempo Demon Hunter likes starting 1st more. In conclusion, in some matchups coin+card seems a bit like a too big of a compensation, while in others it's justified by the loss of tempo. It's kinda' inevitable, as someone has to be 1st, so I think it's fair to give a compensation to the opponent.
You do realize usually people actually want to go first and that statistics show that in most cases (excluding decks like Rogue or Druid, where it is beneficial due to specific reasons), going first is better and numbers prove it? So basically you want to buff an option, which is already the better one.
Going first is better in most classes
Most decks have better winrate going first. It is the most fair it can be
Silver Hand Recruit
With the coin you can do that going second.
Only once
As he states, you can go one mana higher first ONE time as the second player, the other 9 turns untill you reach 10 the first player has the tempo advantage. If you look at the data on hsreplay.net on most decks. Just checked on the mulligan guide for the most played Demon Hunter deck and there the winrate for the different cards are on avarage between 12-15 % higher if you go first than second. So even with the benefits going second get the first player is heavily favored. The advantage of going first would be even larger without the extra card and coin the second player gets.
Another example picked from my deck tracker. With the Highlander Hunter deck I am currently using my winrate going first is 71 % and going second is 52 %..