Think of watching a game with no Rng. You know all cards, because people would always use same ones, kinda of like the net decking people also complaining about.
Who could blame them, they be most efficient cards, with no Rng ....why experiment?
It be like watching any sport game, with every team using same players. With games probably determined by card order then skill.
You may argue that the skill players will rise, due to knowing how to use the cards at the right time. But if everyone has same win condition, no skill would win games vs skill, just by luck. So how would that differ?
Think about the HOLY MACRO! moments. Pavel, with his book miracle plays. Complain about him winning, but can anyone really complain about how exciting it made it?
People call it a joke game, because of these moments or plays. But real high level sports use plays like these too.....hence the reason for the term .... Hail Mary. Low percentage plays that will not work 99 percent of the time, but can still win you a losing game. In high level sports have trick plays, that fool people and help you win, even though not all the time or often, but they do work sometimes.
No different from what Pavel did, he threw up a Hail Mary and won with it. He knew he was about to lose and took the low percentage chance and won. Small percentage is better than zero.
Just my thoughts....do you agree or disagree and explain why, if not...Ty and enjoy the game.
All competitive games are determined by luck to an extent, and it's not nearly as big a deal as people make it out to be. Football (or soccer if you like) is majority skill based - the good teams rise to the top - but to pretend luck doesn't play a huge factor sometimes would be ridiculous.
Yes. Sometimes good players will be shafted by poor RNG, it happens, but over time results equal out and the best players gather the best results overall. Even in Hearthstone where there is a decent number of RNG cards, there's players who are consistently at the top of the scene - because they're the best, even if they have an unlucky day here and there.
There may be a lot of RNG but you know what there isn't? RNG Mana. A good number of MTG games are lost before they begin because you draw too much/not enough mana.
RNG adds flavor to the game. There's still plenty of skill to be shown with Professional players making the correct plays. Think of it like a Gladiator match, where suddenly they let loose a tiger. Sure, the tiger may just eat one competitor and the match is over, but it didn't make the match less enjoyable for anyone watching. Only someone lost because they were unlucky. In cards there will always be luck, gambling, and bluffing. It's the players that master these elements that benefit. Sometimes you have a bad luck streak, but played enough times you will probably not benefit from having a majority of completely random effects. Take Evolve shaman for example, yes you win games with Evolve, but it becomes a high risk for losing games solely on RNG moments. Jade Druid does not have these RNG moments, you simply play the cards you get and hope that your card order is efficient enough to win you the game. How boring is it to play Jade Druid? You simply hope for ramp and play UI and benefit, or you try and survive hyper aggro. There are no moments of something completely random happening, same with Razakus Priest. The most random thing happening is a Mind Vision or a Curious Glimmerroot.
TL;DR
RNG makes games interesting. You don't like RNG, go play Chess. Nobody likes Jade Druid style matches.
Sporting championships are decided by such plays all the time. Hell my Toronto maple leafs, won a game the other night, which they were outplayed for most of the game, and pulled out the win with a lucky goal with 2 seconds to play. It happens, and no we would not want to see only the best player win all the time.....who the hell would watch. It be boring to know who would win all the time. Every sporting event i cheer for the underdog. Plus just because a player is being out played in one match or 2.....does not make the other the better or more skill. I believe Pavel has proven himself many times over, before and after that match.
All competitive games are determined by luck to an extent(...)
That is correct, but the problem is that in competitive play, like in a tournament, you cannot even out results to surpass bad RNG. If you lose a match of Bo3 where you got rekt by RNG, which is easy since it's only 3 games, not 1000 games like you can play in Ranked, you lose the spot on the tournament.
RNG is fine if only playing Ranked because you can just regain the lost stars or ranks with time, because you are allow to continuously play until you are satisfied. You can have a gigantic pool of games so your skill can surpass the random elements. Tournaments where you play a very limited amount of games as a sample size, like 3, 5 or 7 at max, it is really easy for RNG to dictate the outcomes, and that is not fair for players, nor is it fun to watch, at least for me,since I am watching to see proper technical play, not to see Yogg decide a game.
Honestly, you should probably find a different game to watch. Hearthstone was never designed to be a competitive game where the technically best players win every tournament and luck is never the deciding factor. The competitive scene was forced by players who apparently expect the designers of the game to change the game to fit it. This isn't chess, or football, or Magic the Gathering. It's a casual online card game by design, designed to favor luck and fun, not technical skill.
And at the end of the day, what isn't fun for you to watch is the reason why Hearthstone became so massively popular.
How it evens out on the tournament level is that the same pros are the skill ones, regardless of rng, and are part taking in the tournaments, with the occasional new player making his debut. But if they are truly as skill full as you think.....they would get more chances over and over and over until they even the score. But hard to see that because we are infants in tournament history. Proof being again high level sports......some make it over and over and over, they usually eventually able to make up for a bad game or bad luck the previous years. Example. Toronto Argos , beat Calgary last year, even though calgary was the far superior team.......they are going against each other again this..... could be same result or they can turn the tables and prove they are the better team.
Sporting championships are decided by such plays all the time. Hell my Toronto maple leafs, won a game the other night, which they were outplayed for most of the game, and pulled out the win with a lucky goal with 2 seconds to play. It happens, and no we would not want to see only the best player win all the time.....who the hell would watch. It be boring to know who would win all the time. Every sporting event i cheer for the underdog. Plus just because a player is being out played in one match or 2.....does not make the other the better or more skill. I believe Pavel has proven himself many times over, before and after that match.
I have a hard time understanding people liking to see people win by luck rather than by playing better. I like to watch sports and competitions to see the proper technical play or even the players just demonstrating the skill they possess. It is interesting to me to see that. I aspire to constantly improve, and seeing what that entails is what interests me, even if I can predict the outcome before the start. You, learning from the best?
As for the Pavel part. I'm not questioning Pavel's technical ability. He is a great player, very good. It's just that in those instances, he should not have won the game, and that would have changed the outcome of the tournament. Regardless of how well he played, fact is those random effects dictated the game. That is not how competition should be decided.
Honestly, you should probably find a different game to watch. Hearthstone was never designed to be a competitive game where the technically best players win every tournament and luck is never the deciding factor. The competitive scene was forced by players who apparently expect the designers of the game to change the game to fit it. This isn't chess, or football, or Magic the Gathering. It's a casual online card game by design, designed to favor luck and fun, not technical skill.
And at the end of the day, what isn't fun for you to watch is the reason why Hearthstone became so massively popular.
No, I am here because the OP was trying to undermine the importance of skill in the game and trying to defend the need for randomness in competitive play. That doesn't mean I shouldn't watch HS. I competed in HS for a long time, and being tired of RNG deciding games, I decided to stop doing it. This is Blizzard's game, they have indeed made the game with Casual play in mind, not with Competitive play. As such, people may try to make it competitive, but it will always suffer by how Blizzard designed the game.
I still play the game, I still have fun, I just don't compete because it is obviously a bad idea to do it. I still enjoy watching sometimes, but I don't do it in the same way I watch other competitions. I don't watch it to learn and improve, I watch it because it can be fun to see randomness sometimes, when you are not the one suffering from it.
Bad idea to compete. The people walking away with the big checks, and sports cars, and paid trips to amazing new destinations......I think would differ. People quit, high paying jobs, or leave university, because they make more money competing. Just as VLPS or Trump.
Problem is, people like yourself, have to rank a sport, .....yeah i said Sport.......esport. whatever the game is. on competitiveness.
Who really determines that. People call golf a sport...... I call it a joke of one..... but that is just not my sport, not because it is not one or competitive. Really any competition can be turned into a sport, if the viewers or their fans determine it is.
So what I saying is that you don't see Hearthstone as competitive or a esport.... but it has the label of esport and is competitive for others, just not you.
I see where OP is coming from but to act a little off topic here, don't compare sports games to this, those sports gaming communities are bull (death threats, boycotts, etc).
Anyhow, in my opinion, it depends which game mode in hearthstone you consider when it comes to rng. Yet, I agree with Diamond on his wording of there should be less rng moments or none at all when it comes to competitive play. But at the same time, it would be a boring tournament to watch if there was no rng.
Think of it as a Spanish Bull Riding event. You have the number 1 ranked bull rider in Spain playing in a 8 manned tournament (not sure if these exists; hopefully someone familiar with the sport can confirm this). The rank 1 rider loses in the final from falling off at the last second whilst the number 4 ranked rider doesn't fall at all. This doesn't mean the final was boring. There was rng involved (sort of) which went against the ranked 1 rider. Maybe the bull went faster than expected and the rider couldn't hold on enough. Maybe the rider injured his hand midway. Either of these could have caused his defeat, yet it doesn't mean the rank 4 is better than the rank 1.
This scenario is comparable to Hearthstone, just like with the Pavel situation. The match was still exciting and people got to see what they paid to see in the bull riding tournament. There might be people better than Pavel, but that doesn't mean that Pavel is guaranteed a loss to that player.
1. You can affect the outcome through gameplay decisions and/or deckbuilding, or in other words the RNG promotes skilled play as opposed to just being random for the sake of random. Shadow Visions is a good example, since you can control the RNG by limiting the number of unique spells in your deck, and you can decide when to cast it based on the number of unique spells left in your deck (for example to guarantee getting an Un'Goro pack), and finally the Discover mechanic gives you an opportunity to further display skill by picking the best card for the situation. A bad example would be Crackle, since there is very little you as a player can do to affect its outcome.
2. The range of the RNG is not too great. Luck is an important factor in card games, it creates unpredictable and interesting problems for the player to solve (again, through gameplay and/or deckbuilding), but only if those problems are actually beatable. If extraordinarily bad RNG puts you in an unwinnable situation, that's not interesting because the problem is unsolvable, at that point you are no longer playing a game but merely rolling dice instead. If a Rogue plays a turn 1 Prince Keleseth + Shadowstep, the game is in most cases decided there on the spot regardless of what the other player does, which would be an example of this type of bad RNG. On the other hand would be a card like Ysera, where which generated card you get always matters, but will rarely be the single decided factor on the outcome of that game.
Complaining about RNG in Hearthstone won't convince anyone that it's a bad thing -- it only makes them think you're too dimwitted to find a game that suits you better
That is the stupidest nonargument you could make. Of course you can complain about and criticize Hearthstone and in this case the RNG factor of it. It is about HOW you do it, not THAT you do it. If you say: "Me no like this. Me quit this shit. Stupid HS!" you would be stupid to expect anything but to be laughed at. If you actually argue WHY you dont like specific RNG-elements we could start talking and debating.
But you only say: You are dumb because you complain and think anyone gives a damn about your opinion! Too me that sounds exactely like "me no like you. me want you to quit. stupid gamer." does that sound familiar?
No, what's stupid is assuming this is a logical debate when it really, truly isn't, and expecting a company to abandon a successful strategy based on the bitching of a vocal minority.
You act as if there is a right and wrong answer here, when it's really a matter of opinion. Some people LIKE the random aspect of Hearthstone, and others do not. Reducing the randomness would not make Hearthstone an objectively better game, just a different one. Yes, you personally might think it's better, but your definition of "better" is not the same as everyone else's.
It's not up for debate, because there can never be any agreement on the basic premises. You value consistency and predetermined strategy, while I value surprises and emergent gameplay. Could I ever convince you that RNG is good? No? Then what makes you think you can convince me it's bad?
1. You can affect the outcome through gameplay decisions and/or deckbuilding, or in other words the RNG promotes skilled play as opposed to just being random for the sake of random. Shadow Visions is a good example, since you can control the RNG by limiting the number of unique spells in your deck, and you can decide when to cast it based on the number of unique spells left in your deck (for example to guarantee getting an Un'Goro pack), and finally the Discover mechanic gives you an opportunity to further display skill by picking the best card for the situation. A bad example would be Crackle, since there is very little you as a player can do to affect its outcome.
2. The range of the RNG is not too great. Luck is an important factor in card games, it creates unpredictable and interesting problems for the player to solve (again, through gameplay and/or deckbuilding), but only if those problems are actually beatable. If extraordinarily bad RNG puts you in an unwinnable situation, that's not interesting because the problem is unsolvable, at that point you are no longer playing a game but merely rolling dice instead. If a Rogue plays a turn 1 Prince Keleseth + Shadowstep, the game is in most cases decided there on the spot regardless of what the other player does, which would be an example of this type of bad RNG. On the other hand would be a card like Ysera, where which generated card you get always matters, but will rarely be the single decided factor on the outcome of that game.
In most cases is correct. That is why you need cards like Yogg. Yogg is the best example of a card that for most purposes, can turn the game in your favor. Take Barnes for example, this card is essential to Big Priest, it wouldn't be a deck to consider without it. It's an essential card in all of the shenanigans of big minion decks. It's RNG can win you the game, and may lose you the game. Cards like Shadow Visions or Eternal Servitude, these are not real RNG cards. They are basically pick 1 of 3, which is not really random since you have almost complete control over the outcome. True RNG is basically pray to the gods that something happens in your favor so that you can make a comeback. If you put one of these cards in your deck, it's like the previous guy said, it's a hailmary type card that will tip games in your favor that you normally lose against. It's what makes Hearthstone fun or even frustrating, and not predictable (boring).
1. You can affect the outcome through gameplay decisions and/or deckbuilding, or in other words the RNG promotes skilled play as opposed to just being random for the sake of random. Shadow Visions is a good example, since you can control the RNG by limiting the number of unique spells in your deck, and you can decide when to cast it based on the number of unique spells left in your deck (for example to guarantee getting an Un'Goro pack), and finally the Discover mechanic gives you an opportunity to further display skill by picking the best card for the situation. A bad example would be Crackle, since there is very little you as a player can do to affect its outcome.
2. The range of the RNG is not too great. Luck is an important factor in card games, it creates unpredictable and interesting problems for the player to solve (again, through gameplay and/or deckbuilding), but only if those problems are actually beatable. If extraordinarily bad RNG puts you in an unwinnable situation, that's not interesting because the problem is unsolvable, at that point you are no longer playing a game but merely rolling dice instead. If a Rogue plays a turn 1 Prince Keleseth + Shadowstep, the game is in most cases decided there on the spot regardless of what the other player does, which would be an example of this type of bad RNG. On the other hand would be a card like Ysera, where which generated card you get always matters, but will rarely be the single decided factor on the outcome of that game.
In most cases is correct. That is why you need cards like Yogg. Yogg is the best example of a card that for most purposes, can turn the game in your favor. Take Barnes for example, this card is essential to Big Priest, it wouldn't be a deck to consider without it. It's an essential card in all of the shenanigans of big minion decks. It's RNG can win you the game, and may lose you the game. Cards like Shadow Visions or Eternal Servitude, these are not real RNG cards. They are basically pick 1 of 3, which is not really random since you have almost complete control over the outcome. True RNG is basically pray to the gods that something happens in your favor so that you can make a comeback. If you put one of these cards in your deck, it's like the previous guy said, it's a hailmary type card that will tip games in your favor that you normally lose against. It's what makes Hearthstone fun or even frustrating, and not predictable (boring).
Yogg has even RNG most of the time, and I regret dismantling it after I saw 20 Yoggs in the American championship last year.
People watching are not in the mind of those playing, they don't see the frustration of those that get fucked by randomness, all they see is the crazy outcomes.
And that is as it should be. Honestly, the butthurt feelings of the competitors do not matter at all, because they are a tiny, expendable minority. It's the viewers who matter. Without the viewers, there would be no esport.
If a so-called competitor can't cope with the fact that there is luck involved in the game, then that person needs to pick a different game. There will always be more competitors. Indeed, seeing new underdogs rise through the ranks is one of the things the viewers like to see.
And finally, I'll go ahead and mention that, random as the game can be, we do see the same people on top all the time, so it's not as luck-based as you may want to pretend. The people who have the mental fortitude to stick with it are more likely to succeed in the long run. Those who can't handle a bad break here and there don't stand a chance.
In that way, RNG is the best part of the competitive scene because in the end, it ensures that only the truly dedicated are rewarded.
I'd also suggest that Blizzard doesn't really care about Hearthstone as a competitive game and it wasn't designed as one, given the limited attention they give to it compared to their other e-sport properties. They had this with WoW Arena too, where the game itself wasn't really designed for an intense competitive PVP environment but people wanted it anyway so hey, we got arena, which just does not work as an e-sport.
Overwatch on the other hand has clearly been built for it. Everything about Hearthstone screams casual fun, and RNG is always going to be a part of that, if people want a truly competitive card game they're better off looking elsewhere.
I am amazed how often the subject of a card game being random come back. Repeat after me: it's a card game, it's a card game!!!! Step one, you shuffle, so right there, you will ALWAYS add random to the game. But luckily, like in poker, good players are simply better at calculating the odds and limiting/lowering the losses while maximizing the wins. (in Hearthstone, it would be limiting/lowering the bad plays based on the odds). With any card games, never look at one single game if you don't like random. Look at how you can slightly offset random by making the best play everytime, and go for the long run. If every players in the world could play 500 games tomorrow, great players would still make it to legend, while most would still not be able to go past rank 5 because they make more bad choices/play than the pros.
entire argument is invalid, many card games dont rely on so many rng effects and they are far more watched than hearthstone and have been around far longer.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So as the title says.
Think of watching a game with no Rng. You know all cards, because people would always use same ones, kinda of like the net decking people also complaining about.
Who could blame them, they be most efficient cards, with no Rng ....why experiment?
It be like watching any sport game, with every team using same players. With games probably determined by card order then skill.
You may argue that the skill players will rise, due to knowing how to use the cards at the right time. But if everyone has same win condition, no skill would win games vs skill, just by luck. So how would that differ?
Think about the HOLY MACRO! moments. Pavel, with his book miracle plays. Complain about him winning, but can anyone really complain about how exciting it made it?
People call it a joke game, because of these moments or plays. But real high level sports use plays like these too.....hence the reason for the term .... Hail Mary. Low percentage plays that will not work 99 percent of the time, but can still win you a losing game. In high level sports have trick plays, that fool people and help you win, even though not all the time or often, but they do work sometimes.
No different from what Pavel did, he threw up a Hail Mary and won with it. He knew he was about to lose and took the low percentage chance and won. Small percentage is better than zero.
Just my thoughts....do you agree or disagree and explain why, if not...Ty and enjoy the game.
All competitive games are determined by luck to an extent, and it's not nearly as big a deal as people make it out to be. Football (or soccer if you like) is majority skill based - the good teams rise to the top - but to pretend luck doesn't play a huge factor sometimes would be ridiculous.
Yes. Sometimes good players will be shafted by poor RNG, it happens, but over time results equal out and the best players gather the best results overall. Even in Hearthstone where there is a decent number of RNG cards, there's players who are consistently at the top of the scene - because they're the best, even if they have an unlucky day here and there.
There may be a lot of RNG but you know what there isn't? RNG Mana. A good number of MTG games are lost before they begin because you draw too much/not enough mana.
RNG adds flavor to the game. There's still plenty of skill to be shown with Professional players making the correct plays. Think of it like a Gladiator match, where suddenly they let loose a tiger. Sure, the tiger may just eat one competitor and the match is over, but it didn't make the match less enjoyable for anyone watching. Only someone lost because they were unlucky. In cards there will always be luck, gambling, and bluffing. It's the players that master these elements that benefit. Sometimes you have a bad luck streak, but played enough times you will probably not benefit from having a majority of completely random effects. Take Evolve shaman for example, yes you win games with Evolve, but it becomes a high risk for losing games solely on RNG moments. Jade Druid does not have these RNG moments, you simply play the cards you get and hope that your card order is efficient enough to win you the game. How boring is it to play Jade Druid? You simply hope for ramp and play UI and benefit, or you try and survive hyper aggro. There are no moments of something completely random happening, same with Razakus Priest. The most random thing happening is a Mind Vision or a Curious Glimmerroot.
TL;DR
RNG makes games interesting. You don't like RNG, go play Chess. Nobody likes Jade Druid style matches.
Sporting championships are decided by such plays all the time. Hell my Toronto maple leafs, won a game the other night, which they were outplayed for most of the game, and pulled out the win with a lucky goal with 2 seconds to play. It happens, and no we would not want to see only the best player win all the time.....who the hell would watch. It be boring to know who would win all the time. Every sporting event i cheer for the underdog. Plus just because a player is being out played in one match or 2.....does not make the other the better or more skill. I believe Pavel has proven himself many times over, before and after that match.
Spot on!
Also: Luck can be battled by numbers. If you increase the amount of luck draws then you also decrease the result of the luck.
How it evens out on the tournament level is that the same pros are the skill ones, regardless of rng, and are part taking in the tournaments, with the occasional new player making his debut. But if they are truly as skill full as you think.....they would get more chances over and over and over until they even the score. But hard to see that because we are infants in tournament history. Proof being again high level sports......some make it over and over and over, they usually eventually able to make up for a bad game or bad luck the previous years. Example. Toronto Argos , beat Calgary last year, even though calgary was the far superior team.......they are going against each other again this..... could be same result or they can turn the tables and prove they are the better team.
I see where OP is coming from but to act a little off topic here, don't compare sports games to this, those sports gaming communities are bull (death threats, boycotts, etc).
Anyhow, in my opinion, it depends which game mode in hearthstone you consider when it comes to rng. Yet, I agree with Diamond on his wording of there should be less rng moments or none at all when it comes to competitive play. But at the same time, it would be a boring tournament to watch if there was no rng.
Think of it as a Spanish Bull Riding event. You have the number 1 ranked bull rider in Spain playing in a 8 manned tournament (not sure if these exists; hopefully someone familiar with the sport can confirm this). The rank 1 rider loses in the final from falling off at the last second whilst the number 4 ranked rider doesn't fall at all. This doesn't mean the final was boring. There was rng involved (sort of) which went against the ranked 1 rider. Maybe the bull went faster than expected and the rider couldn't hold on enough. Maybe the rider injured his hand midway. Either of these could have caused his defeat, yet it doesn't mean the rank 4 is better than the rank 1.
This scenario is comparable to Hearthstone, just like with the Pavel situation. The match was still exciting and people got to see what they paid to see in the bull riding tournament. There might be people better than Pavel, but that doesn't mean that Pavel is guaranteed a loss to that player.
Anyhow, we will see how this topic goes,
My sig pretty much sums it up.
Hearthstone is what it is. Like it or lump it.
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
Good RNG has at least these 2 properties:
1. You can affect the outcome through gameplay decisions and/or deckbuilding, or in other words the RNG promotes skilled play as opposed to just being random for the sake of random. Shadow Visions is a good example, since you can control the RNG by limiting the number of unique spells in your deck, and you can decide when to cast it based on the number of unique spells left in your deck (for example to guarantee getting an Un'Goro pack), and finally the Discover mechanic gives you an opportunity to further display skill by picking the best card for the situation. A bad example would be Crackle, since there is very little you as a player can do to affect its outcome.
2. The range of the RNG is not too great. Luck is an important factor in card games, it creates unpredictable and interesting problems for the player to solve (again, through gameplay and/or deckbuilding), but only if those problems are actually beatable. If extraordinarily bad RNG puts you in an unwinnable situation, that's not interesting because the problem is unsolvable, at that point you are no longer playing a game but merely rolling dice instead. If a Rogue plays a turn 1 Prince Keleseth + Shadowstep, the game is in most cases decided there on the spot regardless of what the other player does, which would be an example of this type of bad RNG. On the other hand would be a card like Ysera, where which generated card you get always matters, but will rarely be the single decided factor on the outcome of that game.
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
I'd also suggest that Blizzard doesn't really care about Hearthstone as a competitive game and it wasn't designed as one, given the limited attention they give to it compared to their other e-sport properties. They had this with WoW Arena too, where the game itself wasn't really designed for an intense competitive PVP environment but people wanted it anyway so hey, we got arena, which just does not work as an e-sport.
Overwatch on the other hand has clearly been built for it. Everything about Hearthstone screams casual fun, and RNG is always going to be a part of that, if people want a truly competitive card game they're better off looking elsewhere.
I dont watch competitive HS and feel like that was the right choice ^)
I am amazed how often the subject of a card game being random come back. Repeat after me: it's a card game, it's a card game!!!! Step one, you shuffle, so right there, you will ALWAYS add random to the game. But luckily, like in poker, good players are simply better at calculating the odds and limiting/lowering the losses while maximizing the wins. (in Hearthstone, it would be limiting/lowering the bad plays based on the odds). With any card games, never look at one single game if you don't like random. Look at how you can slightly offset random by making the best play everytime, and go for the long run. If every players in the world could play 500 games tomorrow, great players would still make it to legend, while most would still not be able to go past rank 5 because they make more bad choices/play than the pros.
entire argument is invalid, many card games dont rely on so many rng effects and they are far more watched than hearthstone and have been around far longer.