Jump to content
Nish

Hearthstone Random Talk Thread

Recommended Posts

Dawgy    2044

  • Hearthstone is VERY RNG. RNG and skill share an inverse relationship. Yes, it is a card game, but for those that play YGO, consider this comparison; What if cards like Time Wizard and Graceful Dice were actually competitively viable?
 
[spoiler]SnipeHunter-LCJW-EN-C-1E.png[/spoiler]
 
 
I agree that Hearthstone really isn't that good of a TCG, but I feel like the majority of your criticisms except maybe the best 1/1 part are sorta minor in the scheme of things.  RNG yeah that's true, but the resource mechanic is neither here nor there, good games can be made with/without resource mechanics.
 
The debate about whether resource/non resource is better is kinda meaningless because it doesn't matter what the core structure is so much as long as the outcomes of that core structure are healthy.  You can make healthy games with/without it.  
 
The core issue with Hearth is that the ladder based nature of the way most people play really hides the fact that head2head, actual competitive games really aren't decided by technical play that much of the time.  A set of 100 games between good players is going to be almost entirely dictated by the deck building choices, the game is 90% what you drew, 10% how you used what you drew.  Technical play is just solved too easily in an asynchronous game, deck choices and matchups define far, far too much of the competitive scene.
Whether or not a card game has or does not have a resource wasn't the point I was getting at. It was simply a lead in to basically ALL of what you just explained in your last paragraph. I was basically just explaining some reasoning behind why Hearthstone barely takes any technical skill to play, which is a big problem in any card game.

It'd be like if Amiibo fighting was the main competitive format in Super Smash Bros 4 over actual player combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dawgy    2044

Also in regards to hs being 1/1 in tournament play. Conquest has been the predominant format since the start of the year, which makes it so you have to win with all 3 of your decks before winning the match. Also don't really understand your points about matchups specifically in tournaments, as players generally know what classes their opponents are running which is way more info before a match than you get in ygo or mtg. 

I'm not COMPLETELY familiar with how Conquest Hearthstone is played, but the format doesn't really solve the indigenous 1/1 no side decks problem that Hearthstone faces. Side decks are also problematic in the case of cards like Harrison Jones existing, but that's a different talk for a different time.

I'm also fairly certain both players choose their first deck randomly, but idk. Basically in any case, you can't really respond to your opponent's first pick. As Urthor mentioned before, there is hardly any technical play involved in Hearthstone. It's all deck building plus prediction. At the point where your match is already starting, the only factor that can be changed with the information provided to you is your technical play, and your options there aren't very high to begin with. The loser just sort of counterpicks the winner's original deck, proceeds to win, and then the game one loser proceeds to get counterpicked, etc.

While that's not exactly what will happen every time (and while all deck matchups aren't this polar, I could imagine a good many are), against two very skilled player, I could see this being the case; basically, the player that chose the better matchup for game one seems to be the one that is clenched to win the set.

Please correct me if I'm off base with how Conquest format works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Elements    575

nothings going to change. the game is the way it is because thats what blizzard want from it. they dont need to cater to the minority and nor should you ever expect them to.

 

dont get me wrong, id love some changes to the overall game but tbh im not holding any hopes for them lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Paraliel    7986
I'll reply to this when I get home but I don't think you are right at all on some things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»BoraxTheLean    7111
Didn't rly read the posts yet but RNG and skill don't have an inverse relation, that is just super super wrong.

There is a ton of RNG in all TCGs. If HS had less RNG it would be way more unpopular because the "bad" players would just get crushed over and over and over. The legend pool has what 3-5k people every season in each server. There are HUGE skill gaps in the legend pool that separate say the top 200 from the rest and the top 10 from the rest. To give you a small idea of how deep skill disparity goes.

Getting legend is just a casual goal.

I'm not convinced that HS has more RNG than YGO or MTG.

Also whoever posted a picture of snipe hunter can u pls not just not lol.
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»BoraxTheLean    7111
Lack of sideboard-this just influences tournament format and puts the burden there.

"Mana limits what cards u can play"-can we not talk about why mana systems are necessary because YGO is working with the smallest design space if you haven't noticed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Donnie    2196

It's been said before but HS's RNG problem is the RNG in the cards. In YGO the most RNG is what cards you draw, in HS it's not only what cards you draw, but what those cards will even do.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Forlum    9230
yeah but you could have rng out the wazoo and still a good tournament structure would work alongside or even compliment that

currently i think we have some rng but just a bad tournament structure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Forlum    9230
like i hate how hearthstone is compared to poker

poker works because you get a hundreds of hands to decide a winner, hs you get like 3-5?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»BoraxTheLean    7111

It's been said before but HS's RNG problem is the RNG in the cards. In YGO the most RNG is what cards you draw, in HS it's not only what cards you draw, but what those cards will even do.


I don't know if this is an argument or just a statement under the assumption that a problem exists. sort of useless either way

RNG is both halves of this the cards and the deck ordering. But HS has excellent mulligan system for this and has 30 card decks which further mitigates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»BoraxTheLean    7111

like i hate how hearthstone is compared to poker

poker works because you get a hundreds of hands to decide a winner, hs you get like 3-5?


In terms of tournaments, poker tournaments are insanely high variance. Hundreds of hands is an extremely small sample size. The threshold for a non small sample size in poker is 100-200k hands

Tournaments in general are just very high variance. Which just sucks but usually there are tons of tournaments to play in.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't Pagle and Tinkmaster nerfs show that Blizzard does care about the unfairness aspect of RNG? Sure HS has tons of RNG based cards but maybe they will change them and reduce their impact as the game goes on. I guess it is too early to judge HS by the RNG factor simply because this is a game that can just nerf its cards whereas most TCGs as far as I am concerned can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dawgy    2044

Didn't rly read the posts yet but RNG and skill don't have an inverse relation, that is just super super wrong.

There is a ton of RNG in all TCGs. If HS had less RNG it would be way more unpopular because the "bad" players would just get crushed over and over and over.

Yes, SKILL and RNG DO have an inverse relationship, and your contradictory statement here supports this. The more you have of one, the less you will have of another. This is not debatable.

RNG takes away from the skill aspect of any competitive game. It's the main reason why League of Legends removed %dodge chance (crit chance is a necessary evil unfortunately.) Skill allows control of variables in an environment. RNG takes away that control and lets chaos take the wheel.

Also, basically ^ at what Donnie said. Having RNG in your cards is not healthy for a competitive format. I've already explained why in my posts above.

I don't hate Hearthstone, and I don't expect it to change (I wouldn't be posting in this thread if I didn't enjoy the game at least a little, no?) I just can't be ever expected to take this game seriously competitively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»BoraxTheLean    7111
From what I'm reading you're just saying "Cards have random elements therefore this is bad"

Which really holds little to no weight in a discussion.

And the less "RNG" that exists in a game does not imply that game is more skillful. Regardless, how can you measure the amount of RNG in a game? Can you show me there is more randomness in one TCG than another? That would be a RLY interesting study to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ammit    5130

 

Also in regards to hs being 1/1 in tournament play. Conquest has been the predominant format since the start of the year, which makes it so you have to win with all 3 of your decks before winning the match. Also don't really understand your points about matchups specifically in tournaments, as players generally know what classes their opponents are running which is way more info before a match than you get in ygo or mtg. 

I'm not COMPLETELY familiar with how Conquest Hearthstone is played, but the format doesn't really solve the indigenous 1/1 no side decks problem that Hearthstone faces. Side decks are also problematic in the case of cards like Harrison Jones existing, but that's a different talk for a different time.

I'm also fairly certain both players choose their first deck randomly, but idk. Basically in any case, you can't really respond to your opponent's first pick. As Urthor mentioned before, there is hardly any technical play involved in Hearthstone. It's all deck building plus prediction. At the point where your match is already starting, the only factor that can be changed with the information provided to you is your technical play, and your options there aren't very high to begin with. The loser just sort of counterpicks the winner's original deck, proceeds to win, and then the game one loser proceeds to get counterpicked, etc.

While that's not exactly what will happen every time (and while all deck matchups aren't this polar, I could imagine a good many are), against two very skilled player, I could see this being the case; basically, the player that chose the better matchup for game one seems to be the one that is clenched to win the set.

Please correct me if I'm off base with how Conquest format works.

 

what you described is last hero standing. in conquest the winner's deck is eliminated and the winning player has to switch decks, the loser can stay the same or switch. the whole point of conquest is that a deck can't just sweep a match, and that you need to be actually competent with multiple decks. there's been quite a few times where one person wins the first 2 matches and then loses the next 3 because his remaining deck was had bad mus versus his opponents 3 decks. It's literally impossible to counterpick the winners deck. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Paraliel    7986
Also by the way, Athene is the last person to listen to on anything.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»BoraxTheLean    7111
Oh lol I hadn't read the "there is hardly technical play in HS"

That is so far from the truth it is incredibly comical.

I thought you guys knew better than to listen to urthor when he says such things.
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dawgy    2044

From what I'm reading you're just saying "Cards have random elements therefore this is bad"

Which really holds little to no weight in a discussion.

And the less "RNG" that exists in a game does not imply that game is more skillful. Regardless, how can you measure the amount of RNG in a game? Can you show me there is more randomness in one TCG than another? That would be a RLY interesting study to read.

Hearthstone vs. MTG or YGO. I've already provided evidence supporting my claims. You can't just say "you're wrong" without disputing my claims with evidence of your own. And yes, cards that have random elements to them ARE NOT HEALTHY FOR A COMPETITIVE GAME, because the 'right play' with the resources you have in hand is determined by how effectively you RNG with these cards when you use them.

So actually, as far as I'm concerned, RNG does hold a lot of weight in this discussion, and it's something that can't be ignored.


Oh lol I hadn't read the "there is hardly technical play in HS"

That is so far from the truth it is incredibly comical.

I thought you guys knew better than to listen to urthor when he says such things.

Compared to any other TCG I've played, Hearthstone does require the least technical skill. Until you provide evidence to dispute our claims, you have done or said nothing to prove us wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»BoraxTheLean    7111
ok I'll read your posts again I missed ur evidence or backing up of claims

From what I've seen you're just saying "this is bad because it is bad."

And re technical play you're just not in a position to make such claims based on what you've said you've done re ladder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»BoraxTheLean    7111
Yeah I see no evidence.

You've just decided it takes no technical play decisions and then formed your arguments from there.

I'm of the opinion that this is not true because of my experience playing with other highly ranked legend players, seeing them make mistakes all the time. And my being a highly ranked legend player and I make mistakes all the time, every game on average.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»BoraxTheLean    7111
MTG is the best TCG and has elements of RNG in its cards (as well as LANDS in decks and diminishing mulligans).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
prevalence    470

 

As much as I hate this guy, I agree with him 100% whole-heartedly on this matter.

When I first transitioned from YGO to Hearthstone, this game actually pissed me off for a number of reasons.

 

Do I think Hearthstone should be considered a competitive game at the moment? Fuck no.

Do I think with some changes, it could BECOME a competitive game? Maybe.

 

Here are my reasons why:

  • Hearthstone is VERY RNG. RNG and skill share an inverse relationship. Yes, it is a card game, but for those that play YGO, consider this comparison; What if cards like Time Wizard and Graceful Dice were actually competitively viable? In Hearthstone, they pretty much are. In a competitive TCG, the only RNG should be with WHICH cards you draw, not with WHAT THEY DO when they hit the field. You make up for RNG of the draw through the way you construct your deck. Cards like Knife Juggler, Animal Companion, Sylvanas Windrunner, and Ragnaros the Firelord are not guaranteed to do what you need them to do when you are executing a play; when RNG dictates the effectiveness of the cards you are currently holding in hand, what dictates a skillful play?

I don't think "RNG and skill share an inverse relationship" is a true statement.

  • All games are 1/1, and there is no side decking. Certain decks in Hearthstone have AMAZING matchups versus other decks, to the point where the matchup is basically unwinnable. So if you RNG matchup into a shitty matchup, you lose. You can't even side deck to build around your deck's weaknesses. You just lose. And if side decks were a thing, certain cards would need to seriously be rebalanced for side deck play, but that's an entirely different argument. The competitive tournaments I've seen have entrants enter with three preconstructed decks, and each player just sort of has at it until the other player loses with each deck. This helps the issue I described above, but does not solve the issue I was talking about above. Yes I know there is a 'meta' that you CAN build your deck with in mind, but you have no way of knowing what your opponent could possibly be running until you're already in the match. And it's 1/1, so if you lose, you really can't do anything with the knowledge you got from your game 1.

I mean I think this is you just further conflating "high variance" and "low-skill" [which is not necessarily true] rather than making an actual point.

  • In YGO, you are not curbed by a resource as to what cards you may activate in any given turn. You can activate as many monster, spell, or trap card effects in a turn as you like, provided the clauses allow for it. You may special summon as many times as you want in a turn as well. In Magic, while you are curbed by a resource as to what cards you may play, your deck size is twice as large, and games generally go on for three times as long as your typical Hearthstone game. What exactly does this mean for Hearthstone? The amount of options you are allowed for a play in any given turn (or match) is simply... elementary compared to YGO or MTG. The correct play is often very linear, with only a few possible alternative options in a given turn. Compare your basic turn with that of YGO during the Elemental Dragon format, or of MTG's Blue White control decks. You often have more information to work with in YGO and MTG, so the correct play is often camouflaged amidst the myriad of options you have.

I think it's false to say that there are strictly less options every turn in Hearthstone than MtG. edit: It's definitely false for most of the YGO formats I remember playing.

  • While this isn't particularly a balancing concern, in Hearthstone, the barrier for entry is retardedly high. That isn't to say that isn't the same for MTG and YGO (when not playing online), but those aren't... online. In Hearthstone, you can't trade for cards. You can't reliably predict what you're going to pull from packs either; your best hope is to just Disenchant what you don't need and use the dust to create what you do need. The result? You often have to SINK a LOT of REAL money into cards if you hope to ever have enough dust to create a viable deck. Why is this bad? With trading in MTG and YGO, you can often get a return on investment through your cards by trading with other players who might be willing to pay you cash for your cards. YGO has the ARG stuff. MTG has its stuff (not too familiar, but I know the options are definitely fucking there.) In Hearthstone, it's kind of just... bleh. Going back to what Athene mentioned, a lot of the tournaments are only available to the popular online streamers. To the ones that aren't? Well, because of EVERYTHING else I mentioned above, that even if you're a fucking GOD at the game, your odds of winning the tournament aren't so incredibly fucking high that your skill would be rewarded enough to make the investment worth it as they would be in... say... YGO or MTG... because of RNG.

 

Am I Legend in Hearthstone? No. I haven't invested the time into Ranked Play to achieve that. But as Athene said, it's not really something I'm striving for given the current mechanics of Hearthstone.

 

With some changes to the way the deck structure, mana resources, life totals, and overall pacing of Hearthstone worked, I'm sure it could become a competitively viable game. But that would require it to become completely different from what most consider to be Hearthstone.

 

Wholly irrelevant to whether or not the game is skill-based.

 

 

 



Whether or not a card game has or does not have a resource wasn't the point I was getting at. It was simply a lead in to basically ALL of what you just explained in your last paragraph. I was basically just explaining some reasoning behind why Hearthstone barely takes any technical skill to play, which is a big problem in any card game.

It'd be like if Amiibo fighting was the main competitive format in Super Smash Bros 4 over actual player combat.

 

It's almost certainly the case that people misplay more than you seem to think. There is sufficient technical skill required to play Hearthstone that a non-trivial amount of games are decided by play decisions and not draws.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
prevalence    470

 

 

Yes, SKILL and RNG DO have an inverse relationship, and your contradictory statement here supports this. The more you have of one, the less you will have of another. This is not debatable.

 

Not every game is Chess and flipping coins. There isn't a linear relationship between skill and RNG.

Tic-tac-toe. Zero variance. How much skill?

Poker. Incredibly high variance. Would you play Negreanu heads-up?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×