Hello everyone, this is my first ever thread on hearthpwn and it has to do with how the balance philosophy of team 5 when it comes to standard ranked play. I play to reach atleast rank 5 every season to reap the chest rewards, but for the 1st time ever since I started playing Hearthstone in 2014 I have lost all interest in playing the game anymore, and by looking at the forums on here I'm not the only one. But most threads that I have seen haven't been able to pinpoint the exact reason why this is happening. The usual reasons the people attribute that to is the continuing Shaman dominance or the boring jade mechanics or overpowered pirates. We have had boring mechanics and overpowered cards before but and although the game could at times get frustrating it has never gotten to be extremely boring - well atleast for me.
The real reason why I feel Hearthstone has suddenly become so tedious is Team 5's insistence that a global win rate of 50% is something good to work towards achieving. While this helps bringing in new players it has left the rest of us to a very stale meta. This is inherently how socialism works - take the winrate from players who have invested time, money and effort into creating new decks and playstyles and reward players who don't. Patron Warrior at it's prime had very good winrates if the player practised and piloted the deck to a high degree. Team 5's socialistic idea of indirectly forcing a global win rate means that no matter how good I play or how well I read the meta or how creative I am with my deckbuilding, all of it is will not help me win significantly more than someone who goes online and just copies the top decks from Tempostorm. A free meta is always evolving and shifting and never remains stagnant with same decks being played over and over again. I hope Team 5 rethink their philosophy when it comes to balance realize why people fell in love with game in the first place. Until then I'll keeping check up on Hearthstone once in a long while and play Shadowverse till this issue is somehow addressed.
You do understand how averages work right? While you may be one of the few on either side of the curve, a vast majority regardless of skill sit in middle of that curve and it is for them that the game gets frustrating and boring. If you play your deck long enough the law of averages will catch up to you. Your anecdotal experience means nothing in the bigger picture.
You do understand how averages work right? While you may be one of the few on either side of the curve, a vast majority regardless of skill sit in middle of that curve and it is for them that the game gets frustrating and boring. If you play your deck long enough the law of averages will catch up to you. Your anecdotal experience means nothing in the bigger picture.
It's exactly the opposite, by having global winrate close to 50% for all decks, you are free to choose whatever deck you want to play without being "penalized" for not picking one of the high winrate decks.
In fact decks with winrate higher then 50% promote a stale and boring meta, it force people to play those decks or direct counter to those decks and nothing else.
A skilled player can get average winrate higher then 50% if he use a 50% global winrate deck easily, but a bad player will get average winrate higher then 50% only if he use a deck with global winrate higher then 50%,then how having all decks close to 50% global winrate is a bad thing?
Picking a 50%+ global winrate deck doesn't make you "skilled", you're simply exploit an imbalance in the game.
For example grim patron warrior had high global winrate in tournaments, so it forced every player that wants to actually win the tournament to bring GPW, but since everybody brought GPW you had to also bring handlock to counter it, so we got boring tournaments that all the participants played the same 3-4 decks.
This is inherently how socialism works - take the winrate from players who have invested time, money and effort into creating new decks and playstyles and reward players who don't.
I really think that is not how socialism works and I really don't think HS works like this.
You do understand how averages work right? While you may be one of the few on either side of the curve, a vast majority regardless of skill sit in middle of that curve and it is for them that the game gets frustrating and boring. If you play your deck long enough the law of averages will catch up to you. Your anecdotal experience means nothing in the bigger picture.
I really have to return the question here: You do understand how averages work, right? Because what you write isn't true. As a matter of fact, you can have half the players have a (consistent!) 100% winrate and the other half 0% winrate, and it would still be 50% on average. The law of averages is for identically distributed random variables, so it is not applicable here(As you might have noticed, people are not identical).
In fact, in a game with 2 players facing each other off and only one wins, having ANYTHING ELSE THAN 50% as a global average is mathematically impossible, completely irrelevant of which kind of distribution you have.
What you're talking about is each deck having a 50% winrate, which is actually necessary to promote an evolving and shifting meta. If one decks(or a few) dominate everything, the entire game becomes a lot simpler and easier, and not in a good way, because it's entirely centered around either playing that deck or countering it. There's simply no reason to play any other deck than the one with the highest winrate, so the thing you're complaining about - people copying decks from the internet because they're superior - is actually the result of HS's policy of not nerfing/buffing enough and letting the decks stay at whatever WR they are, instead of "forcing" the top decks toward 50%, how they should.
Also, congratz on getting socialism into this discussion. It's not like politics isn't already toxic enough.
Really Prof.? And you do? My larger point for this thread is that the idea that aspiring to a 50% global winrate is what makes a good game is inherently socialistic and while on the surface seems great but takes away what made the game fun in the first place. How this works in Hearthstone is through the hidden MMR system. If you have above 50% you lined up with someone with higher MMR and below 50% with lower MMR. People with the higher MMR these days are most likely going to be shaman or pirate warrior so basically if you win over 50% you get automatically lined up against more of those decks. That is not how it works in real life, things are more random than that. See I'm not saying that I should necessarily be winning more, I have had a lot of fun in games that I have lost. But it isn't fun when you know you're losing because that is how the match making was designed to be. It's just not fun! If you want to know more about this go to the overwatch forums and see how bad the forced 50% is perceived over there.
Really Prof.? And you do? My larger point for this thread is that the idea that aspiring to a 50% global winrate is what makes a good game is inherently socialistic and while on the surface seems great but takes away what made the game fun in the first place. How this works in Hearthstone is through the hidden MMR system. If you have above 50% you lined up with someone with higher MMR and below 50% with lower MMR. People with the higher MMR these days are most likely going to be shaman or pirate warrior so basically if you win over 50% you get automatically lined up against more of those decks. That is not how it works in real life, things are more random than that. See I'm not saying that I should necessarily be winning more, I have had a lot of fun in games that I have lost. But it isn't fun when you know you're losing because that is how the match making was designed to be. It's just not fun! If you want to know more about this go to the overwatch forums and see how bad the forced 50% is perceived over there.
Lol are you serious? By that logic, every single sport is socialist, because it tries to group people into similar skill brackets and if you win too much, you go into the next bracket. That's just how fair sport works. What you obviously really want is being able to noobstomp instead of facing against opponents of equal skill.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello everyone, this is my first ever thread on hearthpwn and it has to do with how the balance philosophy of team 5 when it comes to standard ranked play. I play to reach atleast rank 5 every season to reap the chest rewards, but for the 1st time ever since I started playing Hearthstone in 2014 I have lost all interest in playing the game anymore, and by looking at the forums on here I'm not the only one. But most threads that I have seen haven't been able to pinpoint the exact reason why this is happening. The usual reasons the people attribute that to is the continuing Shaman dominance or the boring jade mechanics or overpowered pirates. We have had boring mechanics and overpowered cards before but and although the game could at times get frustrating it has never gotten to be extremely boring - well atleast for me.
The real reason why I feel Hearthstone has suddenly become so tedious is Team 5's insistence that a global win rate of 50% is something good to work towards achieving. While this helps bringing in new players it has left the rest of us to a very stale meta. This is inherently how socialism works - take the winrate from players who have invested time, money and effort into creating new decks and playstyles and reward players who don't. Patron Warrior at it's prime had very good winrates if the player practised and piloted the deck to a high degree. Team 5's socialistic idea of indirectly forcing a global win rate means that no matter how good I play or how well I read the meta or how creative I am with my deckbuilding, all of it is will not help me win significantly more than someone who goes online and just copies the top decks from Tempostorm. A free meta is always evolving and shifting and never remains stagnant with same decks being played over and over again. I hope Team 5 rethink their philosophy when it comes to balance realize why people fell in love with game in the first place. Until then I'll keeping check up on Hearthstone once in a long while and play Shadowverse till this issue is somehow addressed.
You do understand how averages work right? While you may be one of the few on either side of the curve, a vast majority regardless of skill sit in middle of that curve and it is for them that the game gets frustrating and boring. If you play your deck long enough the law of averages will catch up to you. Your anecdotal experience means nothing in the bigger picture.
This title deserves a premium place in the Museum of Clickbait.
Custom cards :
CLASSES : Alchemist (CCC#5 | Phase V) | Chef (CCC#4)
EXPANSIONS : Year of the Scorpion (Year Comp)
You dont know shit of how socialism work... go back to highschool in a serious country...
Where shall I start...
Really Prof.? And you do? My larger point for this thread is that the idea that aspiring to a 50% global winrate is what makes a good game is inherently socialistic and while on the surface seems great but takes away what made the game fun in the first place. How this works in Hearthstone is through the hidden MMR system. If you have above 50% you lined up with someone with higher MMR and below 50% with lower MMR. People with the higher MMR these days are most likely going to be shaman or pirate warrior so basically if you win over 50% you get automatically lined up against more of those decks. That is not how it works in real life, things are more random than that. See I'm not saying that I should necessarily be winning more, I have had a lot of fun in games that I have lost. But it isn't fun when you know you're losing because that is how the match making was designed to be. It's just not fun! If you want to know more about this go to the overwatch forums and see how bad the forced 50% is perceived over there.