When losing, most multiplayer games I've played, give you many occasions to turn the table. It doesn't happen often that the matchup you've just had felt hopeless. When the opponent team is winning, their morale rise but often their confidence gets too high starting to become their Achilles hill. Just one of the many reasons why there is always a hope which isn't about You getting super lucky but rather trying your best so there is actually a chance.
In card games, but mostly HS, sometimes the very first turns decide the outcome of the game, leaving You with a decision to either concede or leaving you with hope to get SUPER LUCKY: hope for some few percentages of drawing card X, your opponent having the worst draw for the next few turns, generate random card (which is just sad). For me the fact that for instance after 3rd turn, you're starting to play a game where you know there is nothing to think about, that your influence over course of the game has basically ended and now you just brainlessly look at some "cool" animations is what is stopping me from playing more than 3 games of HS daily.
Of course, there are many games where it isn't true at all, but still many if not most of the games, really do look like this. Just the lack of comeback (or instant counters?) this games often serves you, after many years of gameplay, makes me feel like it is just not a game for people who are trying to think and win, but just for people who like hovering over shining cards and looking at animations (just like the guy playing murlock deck in on of HS animations) OR repeating simple steps over and over again (and I know many people love doing this).
Nice salt. Did you play MTG(A)? You have a lot of counters there, its proactive, blabla, still usually games there are also decided within the first 5 turns (for example monored aggro). The good thing about HS is, you dont have the mana screw/flood problem, so imo comebacks are more likely.
Try Cultist Simulator. It’s single player but your decisions absolutely matter in order to win. Pretty awesome game and only $12 on Steam. I’d give it a go if you can. I play that and HS and MTG:A, and they all have their merit. HS is really for meme decks as it’s not really a competitive game anymore. MTG:A is more skill based but requires a lot of investment if you want to play competitively and/or have a variety of decks. Cultist Simulator is a breed of its own but if you read reviews they all praise it so give a chance when you have the time.
The worst part of any CCG is when you have the moment of clarity where you realize all the time and money you dumped into it. You realize all you’ve missed out on. The cold embrace of reality consumes you....
What people call “salt” is simply them not living in reality. I see day by day that people simply don’t like the truth about things. And the truth about this game is no exception to the matter. The truth is what op said is fact. Games are decided probably 9.9 times by turn one and that’s pretty sad for any game. And if it’s not that it’s top deck into top deck into top. Or discover Into discover. It’s just stupid. I should not lose to constant top decks by any class. I should not lose to an otk out of nowhere by mech hunter, mech paladin, inner fire priest or any deck. Especially when I’m above 20. Do you think inner fire is good for the game? Or divine spirit? What has it ever brought to this game aside from otk bs? Has the discover mechanic ever brought anything to this game positive? Why am I losing to bloodlust discovered by a rogue deck. Let me say that again. A rogue deck beat me while I was warrior with bloodlust. Does anyone here think that’s fun? Can anyone defend that? Simply because you can’t win a coin flip doesn’t mean you should lose the game. And often times the percentages are way more in your favor but oh gee guess I got unlucky on 5-10 coin flips and lost everyone. Damn such an outplay Simply because you are not lucky doesn’t mean you should lose the game. That’s just stupid. Stop blaming the players and blame the game. Quite sure most people are fed up with the game because it’s become trash. Not because they can’t cope with there “salt” Blizzard is the ones who deserve all the blame. Not people who put their time and money into a game only to get “salty” when they literally cannot win no matter what they do because it’s almost as if it’s not allowed. Or if you don’t have a horseshoe up your ass you will get nowhere in this game anymore. And again that’s not “salt” that’s fact.
The worst part of any CCG is when you have the moment of clarity where you realize all the time and money you dumped into it. You realize all you’ve missed out on. The cold embrace of reality consumes you....
ikr i've been playinh shadowrun games lately and overall have had more fun i beat returns and started dragonfall then went back and instaled the shadowrun unlimited mod for shadowrun returns andhave had a blast
The number of times you play a game that is decided before turn 6 is extremely rare. Games like this can happen because we are playing a CCG and some decks are designed to dispatch their opponents quickly, however this requires both a nut hand from one player and a dead and/or hard countered hand from the other. If this is happening to you regularly you either have a deck building issue or a game play issue.
A good example of this is if you watch the HS Masters streams where the game play and deck building are both at a near optimal level, you will see almost zero games that end this quickly (admittedly partly due to the fact that nearly everyone is playing Control Warrior, but even the Tempo Rogue mirror matches are not decided by mid game).
Many people are in fact deluded about how good they are at games (League of Legends probably the worst example of this I have seen) and will blame anything but their own lack of skill or understanding for losing. If you persevere with Hearthstone, question your decisions and critique yourself, you will see you have a lot more control over the outcome of a game than you realise. Players that appear in the top 16 every month don't do so because they are lucky, but because they consistently refine their decks based on their opponents and consistently make correct decisions in game.
There are games that are called 'pure skill' and on the other end of things, 'pure luck (randomness)'. Chess is mostly skill based in which the better player almost always wins. War is a game based mostly on pure luck and you have no control over what happens, meaning the winner is determined by the 'luckiest' player instead.
Hearthstone fits somewhere in the middle of these 2 extremes of pure luck and pure skill. Even so, game like Chess are determined even before you start playing the game. White always goes first. And in Chess, like most other games, there is a first player advantage. Now there is a debate on how much, but the general consensus is going first (White) is a 55% win percentage. This includes draws. If we remove draws, then the the most recent stats show White winning 37% of the time and Black 27% of the time, with the rest being draws.
This first player advantage only matters with highly skilled players. This advantage disappears with beginners as they often make sub optimal moves on a regular basis.
So how does Hearthstone compare? Supposedly, going first is about the same 55% win percentage overall, perhaps even creeping up to 60%. And the game tries to offset this advantage with coin so you have a way to 'catch up'.
There are a few ways that many games provide catch up mechanisms. Chess even has some, though not as obvious, but that has to do with individual pieces rather than getting to remove 5 pieces at once. The Queen for example is so powerful that if not properly defended will run away with the game.
Hearthstone provides board clears and healing, along with Taunt minions. These are all the ways that buys you time, so you can try and come back in the game. Some catch up mechanisms include flooding the board with minions with 1 card.
So, what I am trying to say is that YES, the game has already been determined even before you start your turn. The first player advantage is real. Over time and over thousands of games, the player who goes first will eventually have the advantage. But even in Chess where this is true, that advantage disappears with less than highly skilled players.
I dare to say that most of us on these forums, and the player base in general is not 'highly skilled' in Hearthstone. Competent? Sure. Highly skilled? Nah, don't think so.
When you queue into the ladder, you have no idea of the skill level of your opponent generally. You also don't know if they have all the cards or if they are playing the best version of an already powerful deck (ie missing a legendary). These are all factors that predetermine a game's outcome even before you start playing cards.
You have to decide for yourself, are you ok with this outcome before you even begin? If not, then you cannot play ANY game, card, board or digital game without a first player advantage. The game has already been determined. Except that it has not. While it is true, that over thousands of games determines a trend, it does not dictate a specific games results.
Now keep this in mind, if your skill is higher than your opponents, then going first or second matters very little. So which is it then? Are you more skilled than your opponents and they are simply getting 'lucky' or are you less skilled and want to be matched up with players of your own skill level to offer a more level game experience?
So you're saying that the difference between people at high legend and Rank 5 or below is a luck gap? Sounds like you could work on your mulligan strategy or incorporate early game removal in your decks.
To be fair, games can definitely snowball sometimes, but I think MoonUnit made a good point about how few games at high levels snowball that quickly.
Kids, learn to play the game. This game has many flaws, yes, but no comeback mechanism and game decide on turn 1 are def NOT one of them.... if you like to comeback or play till turn 45, try Control Warrior with 4+ board clear and 10 Omega Devastator , lol
One of the interesting ways hearthstone contrasts with Chess is that, it is impossible to lose a game of chess and blame it on anyone but yourself. In Hearthstone, this is easy, and this post is proof. Both the person making the post and the guy in the middle saying "salt is the truth" have both fallen for Hearthstone's (and really most game's) greatest trick: diverting of blame. RNG and collection are such easy scapegoats, as is simplicity of system. If you're feeling games are decided this often, you're either playing poorly, or getting trapped by the meta. Probably both.
One of the interesting ways hearthstone contrasts with Chess is that, it is impossible to lose a game of chess and blame it on anyone but yourself. In Hearthstone, this is easy, and this post is proof. Both the person making the post and the guy in the middle saying "salt is the truth" have both fallen for Hearthstone's (and really most game's) greatest trick: diverting of blame. RNG and collection are such easy scapegoats, as is simplicity of system. If you're feeling games are decided this often, you're either playing poorly, or getting trapped by the meta. Probably both.
pretty stupid analogy.
show me a chess match where the better player loses because of random generated effects. i'll wait.
One of the interesting ways hearthstone contrasts with Chess is that, it is impossible to lose a game of chess and blame it on anyone but yourself. In Hearthstone, this is easy, and this post is proof. Both the person making the post and the guy in the middle saying "salt is the truth" have both fallen for Hearthstone's (and really most game's) greatest trick: diverting of blame. RNG and collection are such easy scapegoats, as is simplicity of system. If you're feeling games are decided this often, you're either playing poorly, or getting trapped by the meta. Probably both.
pretty stupid analogy.
show me a chess match where the better player loses because of random generated effects. i'll wait.
One of the interesting ways hearthstone contrasts with Chess is that, it is impossible to lose a game of chess and blame it on anyone but yourself. In Hearthstone, this is easy, and this post is proof. Both the person making the post and the guy in the middle saying "salt is the truth" have both fallen for Hearthstone's (and really most game's) greatest trick: diverting of blame. RNG and collection are such easy scapegoats, as is simplicity of system. If you're feeling games are decided this often, you're either playing poorly, or getting trapped by the meta. Probably both.
pretty stupid analogy.
show me a chess match where the better player loses because of random generated effects. i'll wait.
I stopped reading as soon as he compared an actual strategy game with HS.
One of the interesting ways hearthstone contrasts with Chess is that, it is impossible to lose a game of chess and blame it on anyone but yourself. In Hearthstone, this is easy, and this post is proof. Both the person making the post and the guy in the middle saying "salt is the truth" have both fallen for Hearthstone's (and really most game's) greatest trick: diverting of blame. RNG and collection are such easy scapegoats, as is simplicity of system. If you're feeling games are decided this often, you're either playing poorly, or getting trapped by the meta. Probably both.
pretty stupid analogy.
show me a chess match where the better player loses because of random generated effects. i'll wait.
No he is spot on, you have simply misunderstood. He's not saying that Hearthstone doesn't have random elements or that Chess does. Everyone knows that Chess is an absolutely solvable game, therefore luck does not factor in; however what he is saying (and rightly so) is that people will throw a game of Hearthstone and not even consider that it might have been their own fault simply because they have the option to blame their loss on bad RNG, or the fact that they are missing a specific epic/legendary from their deck etc. The point is you CAN'T do this in Chess, because your pieces are equal and there is no RNG, but because Hearthstone has variance, it leads to hoards of low skilled players thinking they are unlucky, when they are in fact just playing poorly.
What you have to realise about card games (or any game with RNG elements) is that you aren't supposed to win 100% of the time even if you are the best player in the world. The best player will likely have the highest win rate of everyone over a large number of games, but it is impossible to win every single time against a reasonably competent player. The fact that you will inevitably lose some games when you reach the 5-1 bracket, because RNG exists and everyone at those ranks has at least a vague idea of what they are doing, is a big reason that this game massively favours those who are not easily tilted. You WILL lose games on your way to legend, and the higher you climb the more frequently you will lose. If that isn't proof enough that the game isn't totally reliant on luck, I don't know what is.
Same old. For those claiming that HS rewards people being lucky instead of skilled you should watch Allies latest stream where she played Maly Druid. She made a very obvious mistake but only realized it after a few moments while everyone on chat was already screaming "WHY! NOOO!" Afterwards she entered tilt mode, avoided further matches for a while only to return for a final match (vs. Control Warrior, which she won).
The point is, NO card game comes without at least a small RNG element. Be it mulligan phase, draw order or simply the fact that archetypes are supposed to be weak vs. other specific archetypes. Sometimes you're favored and sometimes you're on the receiving end. But if you cannot deal with losing the majority of your games vs. Aggro while playing e.g. Deathrattle Hunter - even if played perfectly - then you're the one to blame. This holds true for any ranked level and even more so after you climb to the higher brackets where people are less likely to make poor decisions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
When losing, most multiplayer games I've played, give you many occasions to turn the table. It doesn't happen often that the matchup you've just had felt hopeless. When the opponent team is winning, their morale rise but often their confidence gets too high starting to become their Achilles hill. Just one of the many reasons why there is always a hope which isn't about You getting super lucky but rather trying your best so there is actually a chance.
In card games, but mostly HS, sometimes the very first turns decide the outcome of the game, leaving You with a decision to either concede or leaving you with hope to get SUPER LUCKY: hope for some few percentages of drawing card X, your opponent having the worst draw for the next few turns, generate random card (which is just sad). For me the fact that for instance after 3rd turn, you're starting to play a game where you know there is nothing to think about, that your influence over course of the game has basically ended and now you just brainlessly look at some "cool" animations is what is stopping me from playing more than 3 games of HS daily.
Of course, there are many games where it isn't true at all, but still many if not most of the games, really do look like this. Just the lack of comeback (or instant counters?) this games often serves you, after many years of gameplay, makes me feel like it is just not a game for people who are trying to think and win, but just for people who like hovering over shining cards and looking at animations (just like the guy playing murlock deck in on of HS animations) OR repeating simple steps over and over again (and I know many people love doing this).
Nice salt. Did you play MTG(A)? You have a lot of counters there, its proactive, blabla, still usually games there are also decided within the first 5 turns (for example monored aggro). The good thing about HS is, you dont have the mana screw/flood problem, so imo comebacks are more likely.
Try Cultist Simulator. It’s single player but your decisions absolutely matter in order to win. Pretty awesome game and only $12 on Steam. I’d give it a go if you can. I play that and HS and MTG:A, and they all have their merit. HS is really for meme decks as it’s not really a competitive game anymore. MTG:A is more skill based but requires a lot of investment if you want to play competitively and/or have a variety of decks. Cultist Simulator is a breed of its own but if you read reviews they all praise it so give a chance when you have the time.
The worst part of any CCG is when you have the moment of clarity where you realize all the time and money you dumped into it. You realize all you’ve missed out on. The cold embrace of reality consumes you....
What people call “salt” is simply them not living in reality. I see day by day that people simply don’t like the truth about things. And the truth about this game is no exception to the matter. The truth is what op said is fact. Games are decided probably 9.9 times by turn one and that’s pretty sad for any game. And if it’s not that it’s top deck into top deck into top. Or discover Into discover. It’s just stupid. I should not lose to constant top decks by any class. I should not lose to an otk out of nowhere by mech hunter, mech paladin, inner fire priest or any deck. Especially when I’m above 20. Do you think inner fire is good for the game? Or divine spirit? What has it ever brought to this game aside from otk bs? Has the discover mechanic ever brought anything to this game positive? Why am I losing to bloodlust discovered by a rogue deck. Let me say that again. A rogue deck beat me while I was warrior with bloodlust. Does anyone here think that’s fun? Can anyone defend that? Simply because you can’t win a coin flip doesn’t mean you should lose the game. And often times the percentages are way more in your favor but oh gee guess I got unlucky on 5-10 coin flips and lost everyone. Damn such an outplay Simply because you are not lucky doesn’t mean you should lose the game. That’s just stupid. Stop blaming the players and blame the game. Quite sure most people are fed up with the game because it’s become trash. Not because they can’t cope with there “salt” Blizzard is the ones who deserve all the blame. Not people who put their time and money into a game only to get “salty” when they literally cannot win no matter what they do because it’s almost as if it’s not allowed. Or if you don’t have a horseshoe up your ass you will get nowhere in this game anymore. And again that’s not “salt” that’s fact.
ikr i've been playinh shadowrun games lately and overall have had more fun i beat returns and started dragonfall then went back and instaled the shadowrun unlimited mod for shadowrun returns andhave had a blast
The number of times you play a game that is decided before turn 6 is extremely rare. Games like this can happen because we are playing a CCG and some decks are designed to dispatch their opponents quickly, however this requires both a nut hand from one player and a dead and/or hard countered hand from the other. If this is happening to you regularly you either have a deck building issue or a game play issue.
A good example of this is if you watch the HS Masters streams where the game play and deck building are both at a near optimal level, you will see almost zero games that end this quickly (admittedly partly due to the fact that nearly everyone is playing Control Warrior, but even the Tempo Rogue mirror matches are not decided by mid game).
Many people are in fact deluded about how good they are at games (League of Legends probably the worst example of this I have seen) and will blame anything but their own lack of skill or understanding for losing. If you persevere with Hearthstone, question your decisions and critique yourself, you will see you have a lot more control over the outcome of a game than you realise. Players that appear in the top 16 every month don't do so because they are lucky, but because they consistently refine their decks based on their opponents and consistently make correct decisions in game.
Worst is when opponent takes forever to take his turn and especially if its a obvious play he then makes...
Controll Warrior mirror is cancer
There are games that are called 'pure skill' and on the other end of things, 'pure luck (randomness)'. Chess is mostly skill based in which the better player almost always wins. War is a game based mostly on pure luck and you have no control over what happens, meaning the winner is determined by the 'luckiest' player instead.
Hearthstone fits somewhere in the middle of these 2 extremes of pure luck and pure skill. Even so, game like Chess are determined even before you start playing the game. White always goes first. And in Chess, like most other games, there is a first player advantage. Now there is a debate on how much, but the general consensus is going first (White) is a 55% win percentage. This includes draws. If we remove draws, then the the most recent stats show White winning 37% of the time and Black 27% of the time, with the rest being draws.
This first player advantage only matters with highly skilled players. This advantage disappears with beginners as they often make sub optimal moves on a regular basis.
So how does Hearthstone compare? Supposedly, going first is about the same 55% win percentage overall, perhaps even creeping up to 60%. And the game tries to offset this advantage with coin so you have a way to 'catch up'.
There are a few ways that many games provide catch up mechanisms. Chess even has some, though not as obvious, but that has to do with individual pieces rather than getting to remove 5 pieces at once. The Queen for example is so powerful that if not properly defended will run away with the game.
Hearthstone provides board clears and healing, along with Taunt minions. These are all the ways that buys you time, so you can try and come back in the game. Some catch up mechanisms include flooding the board with minions with 1 card.
So, what I am trying to say is that YES, the game has already been determined even before you start your turn. The first player advantage is real. Over time and over thousands of games, the player who goes first will eventually have the advantage. But even in Chess where this is true, that advantage disappears with less than highly skilled players.
I dare to say that most of us on these forums, and the player base in general is not 'highly skilled' in Hearthstone. Competent? Sure. Highly skilled? Nah, don't think so.
When you queue into the ladder, you have no idea of the skill level of your opponent generally. You also don't know if they have all the cards or if they are playing the best version of an already powerful deck (ie missing a legendary). These are all factors that predetermine a game's outcome even before you start playing cards.
You have to decide for yourself, are you ok with this outcome before you even begin? If not, then you cannot play ANY game, card, board or digital game without a first player advantage. The game has already been determined. Except that it has not. While it is true, that over thousands of games determines a trend, it does not dictate a specific games results.
Now keep this in mind, if your skill is higher than your opponents, then going first or second matters very little. So which is it then? Are you more skilled than your opponents and they are simply getting 'lucky' or are you less skilled and want to be matched up with players of your own skill level to offer a more level game experience?
So you're saying that the difference between people at high legend and Rank 5 or below is a luck gap? Sounds like you could work on your mulligan strategy or incorporate early game removal in your decks.
To be fair, games can definitely snowball sometimes, but I think MoonUnit made a good point about how few games at high levels snowball that quickly.
Kids, learn to play the game. This game has many flaws, yes, but no comeback mechanism and game decide on turn 1 are def NOT one of them.... if you like to comeback or play till turn 45, try Control Warrior with 4+ board clear and 10 Omega Devastator , lol
One of the interesting ways hearthstone contrasts with Chess is that, it is impossible to lose a game of chess and blame it on anyone but yourself. In Hearthstone, this is easy, and this post is proof. Both the person making the post and the guy in the middle saying "salt is the truth" have both fallen for Hearthstone's (and really most game's) greatest trick: diverting of blame. RNG and collection are such easy scapegoats, as is simplicity of system. If you're feeling games are decided this often, you're either playing poorly, or getting trapped by the meta. Probably both.
Rope every turn lmao
pretty stupid analogy.
show me a chess match where the better player loses because of random generated effects. i'll wait.
Boom!
https://qz.com/250667/chess-players-are-dying-in-the-middle-of-competitive-matches/
Heh!
I stopped reading as soon as he compared an actual strategy game with HS.
Fun > Meta
I couldn't resist - I love a challenge ;-)
No he is spot on, you have simply misunderstood. He's not saying that Hearthstone doesn't have random elements or that Chess does. Everyone knows that Chess is an absolutely solvable game, therefore luck does not factor in; however what he is saying (and rightly so) is that people will throw a game of Hearthstone and not even consider that it might have been their own fault simply because they have the option to blame their loss on bad RNG, or the fact that they are missing a specific epic/legendary from their deck etc. The point is you CAN'T do this in Chess, because your pieces are equal and there is no RNG, but because Hearthstone has variance, it leads to hoards of low skilled players thinking they are unlucky, when they are in fact just playing poorly.
What you have to realise about card games (or any game with RNG elements) is that you aren't supposed to win 100% of the time even if you are the best player in the world. The best player will likely have the highest win rate of everyone over a large number of games, but it is impossible to win every single time against a reasonably competent player. The fact that you will inevitably lose some games when you reach the 5-1 bracket, because RNG exists and everyone at those ranks has at least a vague idea of what they are doing, is a big reason that this game massively favours those who are not easily tilted. You WILL lose games on your way to legend, and the higher you climb the more frequently you will lose. If that isn't proof enough that the game isn't totally reliant on luck, I don't know what is.
Same old. For those claiming that HS rewards people being lucky instead of skilled you should watch Allies latest stream where she played Maly Druid. She made a very obvious mistake but only realized it after a few moments while everyone on chat was already screaming "WHY! NOOO!" Afterwards she entered tilt mode, avoided further matches for a while only to return for a final match (vs. Control Warrior, which she won).
The point is, NO card game comes without at least a small RNG element. Be it mulligan phase, draw order or simply the fact that archetypes are supposed to be weak vs. other specific archetypes. Sometimes you're favored and sometimes you're on the receiving end. But if you cannot deal with losing the majority of your games vs. Aggro while playing e.g. Deathrattle Hunter - even if played perfectly - then you're the one to blame. This holds true for any ranked level and even more so after you climb to the higher brackets where people are less likely to make poor decisions.