|
On November 12 2014 17:14 BillGates wrote:
Some small amount of RNG can enhance the game, but to claim that RNG improves skill and makes the game a lot more enjoyable is absurd.
Hearthstone is already 50% luck, 30% card build, 20% skill. Adding a ton more RNG and luck into the game will skew it even more from skill and even card build and into luck territory.
They should be focusing on removing RNG and not adding tons more.
It's literally a card game.
I've long since stop engaging in this argument because there is no logical reason to play a card game just to complain about variance. There is no card game that doesn't have some amount of RNG.
Hell, you can play boring ass Solforge which is way more complicated and strategic than HS and yet people still whine because they are bad.
People complain about RNG in Magic because they are bad.
And with all these bad players you'd think they'd play something other than a CARD game but my theory is simply they want to play the card games because then they can protect their frail egos and justify their lack of success.
|
Something that I haven't read anywhere and wasn't mentioned in this video either (when he talked about how to get goblin and gnome cards): What kind of booster are arena runs gonna give? Old, new, random?
|
On November 12 2014 19:06 FeiLing wrote:
Something that I haven't read anywhere and wasn't mentioned in this video either (when he talked about how to get goblin and gnome cards): What kind of booster are arena runs gonna give? Old, new, random?
Only new, and there are already a lot of people complaining about it.
|
On November 12 2014 17:58 TLCJR4LIFE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2014 17:14 BillGates wrote:
Some small amount of RNG can enhance the game, but to claim that RNG improves skill and makes the game a lot more enjoyable is absurd.
Hearthstone is already 50% luck, 30% card build, 20% skill. Adding a ton more RNG and luck into the game will skew it even more from skill and even card build and into luck territory.
They should be focusing on removing RNG and not adding tons more. It's literally a card game. I've long since stop engaging in this argument because there is no logical reason to play a card game just to complain about variance. There is no card game that doesn't have some amount of RNG. Hell, you can play boring ass Solforge which is way more complicated and strategic than HS and yet people still whine because they are bad. People complain about RNG in Magic because they are bad. And with all these bad players you'd think they'd play something other than a CARD game but my theory is simply they want to play the card games because then they can protect their frail egos and justify their lack of success.
I'm not complaining, I'm pointing out the obvious here. I'm the one telling a room full of blind people that there is an elephant in the room. I'm merely stating obvious and known facts.
I don't even play the game very much at all, in fact I usually play about 20 games per month, used to play more, but now those 20-30 games allow me to place 16-19 rank, get the card back, have some short fun and then if I want competitive and challenging and skill based game I play Dota 2 or SC2.
The fact that Hearthstone is a luck based game and that adding more randomness adds more randomness and not skill, should not be preventing of people talking and pointing out this self evident truth.
I'm talking to every person out there who thinks Hearthstone requires huge skill to play or you need huge skill to reach legendary, NO. You need huge free time, playing 8 hours a day Hearthstone to reach Legendary.
I've reached level 4 when the game was still in beta, it just takes time, not skill. I could have reached legendary, but it would have required me to play more than the 3 hours I was putting in it every day. It wasn't about skill, it was about how much time I spent grinding for levels.
You obviously need to have 55% win rate to progress, but because its a random game you win 50% of the time as a standard. If you add in highly tailored builds that excel at one thing you can achieve 55% or more win rate and consistently climb the ladder.
ZOO decks come to mind as easy way to climb the ladder, they excel at rushing down your opponents, if they don't draw extremely lucky and/or aren't tailored at countering ZOO decks, they will lose to zoo decks.
Another example is that "PRO" players can lose easily to average players. Like if you give the same deck to one average player and one "PRO", chances are the pro will win 55% to 60% of the time, but in games that are really skill based like SC2, average player has about 1% chance of beating a pro player.
|
I don't mind adding randomness to the game at all but having that much focus on it in an expansion is just frustrating.
Does randomness really need that much focus? Just add some cards and let it be but not like the expansion.
|
I do like his argument that without variance, the gameplay becomes very formulaic; certainly this has been the case both pre and post Naxxramas. The question is how you introduce variance without RNG, with the relatively small card pool and in the infancy of the game.
Personally I'm excited by the new cards, and I hope it makes for interesting games both as a spectator and a player. I'll never be competitive player but I hope those that are, can still distinguish themselves from the rest.
|
On November 12 2014 21:42 BillGates wrote:
I'm not complaining.......
When beginning a post with these 3 words, it's generally not a good idea to follow up with 8 paragraphs worth of complaints.
They weren't even good or reasonable complaints. You just made up a bunch of stats, stated that you barely play the game because it's not competitive or challenging, and that people need to play 8 hrs a day to make legendary status because there is no skill involved.
|
Brode's rationale only works for ladder, not tournaments. Sure it takes skill to make probabilistically correct decisions, but you only get rewarded over a large sample. In a tournament where you only get to make the decision once, the resulting outcome is quite meaningless.
|
I'm fine with introducing some randomness to enhance variance, as long as it just enhances and not completely defines everything. A 6/8 that deals 2 damage to a random enemy at the end of your turn introduces some variance. A 8/8 that can't attack but hits a random enemy at the end of your turn for what is nearly a Pyroblast is either awesome or aweful. Especially since it is at the end of your turn, so you cannot even play around possible outcomes, you just can set it up in a way where you have a 50% chance to hit what you want to hit or 100% chance to hit face. Those are your best options to play with the randomness that is Ragnaros. Claiming it benefits the better player is mostly rubbish, as the better player actually needs something to work with. A real coin flip does not benefit the better player, as there is nothing you can do to adapt to whatever side the coin lands on.
|
On November 13 2014 01:35 Glacierz wrote:
Brode's rationale only works for ladder, not tournaments. Sure it takes skill to make probabilistically correct decisions, but you only get rewarded over a large sample. In a tournament where you only get to make the decision once, the resulting outcome is quite meaningless.
Any single tournament is always going to be relatively meaningless in a card game. Its not like winning the world series of poker means you're the best poker player in the world, or like whoever wins the Magic the Gathering world championship is automatically the world's best Magic player. Results over time can separate the better players, but any one match or tournament isn't going to be indicative.
|
On November 12 2014 21:42 BillGates wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2014 17:58 TLCJR4LIFE wrote:On November 12 2014 17:14 BillGates wrote:
Some small amount of RNG can enhance the game, but to claim that RNG improves skill and makes the game a lot more enjoyable is absurd.
Hearthstone is already 50% luck, 30% card build, 20% skill. Adding a ton more RNG and luck into the game will skew it even more from skill and even card build and into luck territory.
They should be focusing on removing RNG and not adding tons more. It's literally a card game. I've long since stop engaging in this argument because there is no logical reason to play a card game just to complain about variance. There is no card game that doesn't have some amount of RNG. Hell, you can play boring ass Solforge which is way more complicated and strategic than HS and yet people still whine because they are bad. People complain about RNG in Magic because they are bad. And with all these bad players you'd think they'd play something other than a CARD game but my theory is simply they want to play the card games because then they can protect their frail egos and justify their lack of success. I'm not complaining, I'm pointing out the obvious here. I'm the one telling a room full of blind people that there is an elephant in the room. I'm merely stating obvious and known facts. I don't even play the game very much at all, in fact I usually play about 20 games per month, used to play more, but now those 20-30 games allow me to place 16-19 rank, get the card back, have some short fun and then if I want competitive and challenging and skill based game I play Dota 2 or SC2. The fact that Hearthstone is a luck based game and that adding more randomness adds more randomness and not skill, should not be preventing of people talking and pointing out this self evident truth. I'm talking to every person out there who thinks Hearthstone requires huge skill to play or you need huge skill to reach legendary, NO. You need huge free time, playing 8 hours a day Hearthstone to reach Legendary. I've reached level 4 when the game was still in beta, it just takes time, not skill. I could have reached legendary, but it would have required me to play more than the 3 hours I was putting in it every day. It wasn't about skill, it was about how much time I spent grinding for levels. You obviously need to have 55% win rate to progress, but because its a random game you win 50% of the time as a standard. If you add in highly tailored builds that excel at one thing you can achieve 55% or more win rate and consistently climb the ladder. ZOO decks come to mind as easy way to climb the ladder, they excel at rushing down your opponents, if they don't draw extremely lucky and/or aren't tailored at countering ZOO decks, they will lose to zoo decks. Another example is that "PRO" players can lose easily to average players. Like if you give the same deck to one average player and one "PRO", chances are the pro will win 55% to 60% of the time, but in games that are really skill based like SC2, average player has about 1% chance of beating a pro player.
1: If you don't play the game Blizzard doesn't care about you, nor does the community. Stop posting.
2: 8 hours a day is a joke. You can get to Legend in one or two days. If you need 8 hours a day it's because you are bad.
3: 3 hours a day is more than enough to reach Legend. I reach ranked 6 last season playing less than 20 hours. Im currently at rank 13 and about on hour 4.
4: No....YOU win 50 percent of the time. Because you are a bad player with no respect for the game or your opponents. I have never reached legendary and my winrate is still above 60 percent. Top legend players are over 75 percent
5: Yes there is variance, what is your point. It is a card game. The premise of your idiotic, useless post was that they should be taking out the randomness to apparently appeal to bad players that don't even play the game when "randomness" is an inherent quirk in the genre.
I could go on the DoTa forums and complain that the game requires too much coordination and not enough individual play, but I don't because I'm not an idiot.
Edit: Another hour. Ranked to 9 with 100 percent win rate. Much 50 percent
|
On November 13 2014 04:23 awesomoecalypse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2014 01:35 Glacierz wrote:
Brode's rationale only works for ladder, not tournaments. Sure it takes skill to make probabilistically correct decisions, but you only get rewarded over a large sample. In a tournament where you only get to make the decision once, the resulting outcome is quite meaningless. Any single tournament is always going to be relatively meaningless in a card game. Its not like winning the world series of poker means you're the best poker player in the world, or like whoever wins the Magic the Gathering world championship is automatically the world's best Magic player. Results over time can separate the better players, but any one match or tournament isn't going to be indicative.
Tournament play is usually whoever was the best that particular day.
Luck factors in too but mostly the former. We all know how good Kolento is but at BlizzCon he threw....but in the long run he will win because of his decision making instead of a few misplays here and there
|
On November 13 2014 05:48 TLCJR4LIFE wrote:
2: 8 hours a day is a joke. You can get to Legend in one or two days. If you need 8 hours a day it's because you are bad.
14 hours from rank 15 to legend, but only if
a) you're Xixo
b) play against rank 25 players as rank 1 player
|
GabeWalls made Legend in 2 days and he wasn't even a HS player. He came from Magic.
|
On November 13 2014 07:22 TLCJR4LIFE wrote:
He came from Magic.
Hahaha. How is that even an argument.
|
What argument?
There was no argument. You said you had to be Xixo.
There are players who did that with limited experience simply because they were dedicated, studious and importantly, TALENTED.
|
On November 13 2014 07:32 TLCJR4LIFE wrote:
What argument?
There was no argument. You said you had to be Xixo.
There are players who did that with limited experience simply because they were dedicated, studious and importantly, TALENTED.
"Get legend in 2 days" doesn't tell us anything.
When did he play? (early beta?)
In what metagame did he play?
What deck did he play?
Starting rank?
Did he have all the cards?
How many hours did he play during that time?
2 days is up to 48 hours. Xixo played 14 hours.
For example:
In december last year, Reynad made legend in 4 days on a F2P account with an aggro warrior deck. That includes the time playing arena to get some cards. I do not know how many hours he played total.
|
25 to legend in 2 days isn't impossible even today. Some people are just that good at reading the meta which is what you need to ladder fast. You also need to be good with the decks you are playing of course. It takes some serious skill and some decent luck tho.
It is more reasonable to look at trump getting to legend with the f2p decks, which usually took like 200+ games. That is a lot of time investment for an average player. Even dropping your win rate by 1% would probably mean another 200 games to get to legend.
Anyways gwall probably played a good 30 hours or something when he got legend. He literally got the game and spent money building the druid deck at the time and got legend in those 2 days. It was before naxx and before miracle rogue. Thats all there was I think.
|
The "amount of days" to make legendary seems a pretty vague stat, the "amount of hours in game" probably would be best, or alternatively the "amount of total matches played" would be a good one.
But yeah, there are much better players than me at this game, but I have done the rank 6 to legendary in one session, way back in February or March... I think it was 4 or 5 hours to do that in the 14th day of the month or something, I wouldn't have lost many games at all that session to have done that. But if you play a fairly fast deck and avoid going on tilt, there's no reason why you'd need to play... 8 hours a day to get legendary.
|
On November 12 2014 10:58 Reason wrote:
What about spectator mode? Seems to me like you can spectate the opponent and msg your friend on skype what they have.........
Take it a step further and you can spectate your own game -.- ??
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
