To resume, the author is saying that the fact the Hearthlytics team disbanded and Archon looks like is turning away from competitive scene raises a flag about the future of Heartstone as competitive game.
I kind of agree with the author here: I was very found to follow competitive scene on hearthstone, watching tournaments and such, and today I really don't care anymore. I heard another articles saying Hearthstone tournaments is getting less people than before (nothing to worry about yet), and some streamers get way more views than a big tournament. Do you guys think people is slowly moving away from watching Hearthstone tournaments? It is possible to improve the tournament scene? What do you think about this article?
I will be glad to hear the opinion of the people here! Cheers!
In 2016 the game still doesn't have viable Spectator Mode. The game can't be paused even on LAN events whlist crash or disconnect can completely change game outcome. The ladder is current design is stupidiest thing ever. No support for competetive formats in game client. I can continue, but it's enough to demostrate Blizzard is not interested in making competetive HS viable at all.
I think it's telling that this is actually the first time I've heard of Hearthlytics.
As for tournaments: people watch to see their favorite streamers/players perform, not some random dudes they've never heard of. This is the same for any (e-)sport. Take the tournament this weekend. I can't remember the name right now, but the stream title was Trump vs Amaz (if I recall correctly, Trump might've been against someone else). However, that match had already ended by the time I joined, and people in chat were visibly upset that they were now watching lesser known/unknown players, the title promised them two big streamers facing off.
So far, i can't see HS as designed for tournaments. Neither fit for tournaments. It's a casual game. Ladder itself is a product of skills and statistics (= tons of played games) in order to overcome RNG. Game design keeps it that way, plus it's a card game, so it's impossible to avoid RNG.
Tournaments cannot afford statistics, so they are vulnerable to the bad side of RNG, which is that one that is capable of overshadowing ones' skills.
Sure, all participants of a tournament are highly skilled players, but within a tournament you can hardly determine who's best amongst them because of RNG and lack of statistical environment (ie, they don't have hundreds of games). That's why tournaments can hardly be much more than a promotional thing to make the game look more serious than it is.
So far, i can't see HS as designed for tournaments. Neither fit for tournaments. It's a casual game. Ladder itself is a product of skills and statistics (= tons of played games) in order to overcome RNG. Game design keeps it that way, plus it's a card game, so it's impossible to avoid RNG.
Tournaments cannot afford statistics, so they are vulnerable to the bad side of RNG, which is that one that is capable of overshadowing ones' skills.
Sure, all participants of a tournament are highly skilled players, but within a tournament you can hardly determine who's best amongst them because of RNG and lack of statistical environment (ie, they don't have hundreds of games). That's why tournaments can hardly be much more than a promotional thing to make the game look more serious than it is.
Apart from what cards you draw, is there really that much rng in top level decks? For example, Midrange Shaman only has Flame Juggler and Tuskar Totemic, Tempo Warrior only has Rag and Malkorok, and Zoo only has some Jugglers (and maybe Dark Peddler, if you'd count that as rng).
Miralce: nothing Patron: FInley? Aggro Shaman: Totemic Hunters: 1 random dmg and Animal Companion
It feels like RNG (apart from what cards you draw) has only very little impact nowadays. No more getting 4/4s out of Shredders or Boom Bots hitting face for 8.
So far, i can't see HS as designed for tournaments. Neither fit for tournaments. It's a casual game. Ladder itself is a product of skills and statistics (= tons of played games) in order to overcome RNG. Game design keeps it that way, plus it's a card game, so it's impossible to avoid RNG.
Tournaments cannot afford statistics, so they are vulnerable to the bad side of RNG, which is that one that is capable of overshadowing ones' skills.
Sure, all participants of a tournament are highly skilled players, but within a tournament you can hardly determine who's best amongst them because of RNG and lack of statistical environment (ie, they don't have hundreds of games). That's why tournaments can hardly be much more than a promotional thing to make the game look more serious than it is.
Apart from what cards you draw, is there really that much rng in top level decks? For example, Midrange Shaman only has Flame Juggler and Tuskar Totemic, Tempo Warrior only has Rag and Malkorok, and Zoo only has some Jugglers (and maybe Dark Peddler, if you'd count that as rng).
Card draw (quantity and order) is the most significant part of RNG in any card game. Random effects are relevant, but they are more like bonus randomness.
So yes, tons of RNG in any decks, top level included.
So far, i can't see HS as designed for tournaments. Neither fit for tournaments. It's a casual game. Ladder itself is a product of skills and statistics (= tons of played games) in order to overcome RNG. Game design keeps it that way, plus it's a card game, so it's impossible to avoid RNG.
Tournaments cannot afford statistics, so they are vulnerable to the bad side of RNG, which is that one that is capable of overshadowing ones' skills.
Sure, all participants of a tournament are highly skilled players, but within a tournament you can hardly determine who's best amongst them because of RNG and lack of statistical environment (ie, they don't have hundreds of games). That's why tournaments can hardly be much more than a promotional thing to make the game look more serious than it is.
Apart from what cards you draw, is there really that much rng in top level decks? For example, Midrange Shaman only has Flame Juggler and Tuskar Totemic, Tempo Warrior only has Rag and Malkorok, and Zoo only has some Jugglers (and maybe Dark Peddler, if you'd count that as rng).
Card draw (quantity and order) is the most significant part of RNG in any card game. Random effects are relevant, but they are more like bonus randomness.
So yes, tons of RNG in any decks, top level included.
But if card draw RNG would disqualify Hearthstone as a competitive format, then so should things like poker and Magic, and we know both those card games thrive in the competitive scene.
But if card draw RNG would disqualify Hearthstone as a competitive format, then so should things like poker and Magic, and we know both those card games thrive in the competitive scene.
For me you touched a very important thing.
I guess the competitive scene in Hearthstone is (or will) struggle because most of the viewers came from other E-sports like (for example) CS or LoL, games that have low skill variance and you can see the same pros all the time.
People who enjoy games like poker are minority in heathstone in my opinion. The fact Blizzard push even further to variance an RNG than other card games, makes the players in the top 8 so different each tournament that people can recognize anyone.
The other problem is, even Blizzard never wanting Hearthtone to be a Esport, he became one. I guess is impossible to do a very fun casual game and esport at same time, and the fact Blizzard didnt made possible to pause a game or continue a game who someone dropped (as 4wd stated) makes even more difficult.
But if card draw RNG would disqualify Hearthstone as a competitive format, then so should things like poker and Magic, and we know both those card games thrive in the competitive scene.
For me you touched a very important thing.
I guess the competitive scene in Hearthstone is (or will) struggle because most of the viewers came from other E-sports like (for example) CS or LoL, games that have low skill variance and you can see the same pros all the time.
People who enjoy games like poker are minority in heathstone in my opinion. The fact Blizzard push even further to variance an RNG than other card games, makes the players in the top 8 so different each tournament that people can recognize anyone.
The other problem is, even Blizzard never wanting Hearthtone to be a Esport, he became one. I guess is impossible to do a very fun casual game and esport at same time, and the fact Blizzard didnt made possible to pause a game or continue a game who someone dropped (as 4wd stated) makes even more difficult.
Oh I definitely agree with you. For example in Magic (I think the article mentioned this as well), they not only keep track of wins, but also the number of times you've gotten top 8 at high level tournaments.
Like, winning a tournament once is nice. Getting top-8 four tournaments in a row is way harder.
So far, i can't see HS as designed for tournaments. Neither fit for tournaments. It's a casual game. Ladder itself is a product of skills and statistics (= tons of played games) in order to overcome RNG. Game design keeps it that way, plus it's a card game, so it's impossible to avoid RNG.
Tournaments cannot afford statistics, so they are vulnerable to the bad side of RNG, which is that one that is capable of overshadowing ones' skills.
Sure, all participants of a tournament are highly skilled players, but within a tournament you can hardly determine who's best amongst them because of RNG and lack of statistical environment (ie, they don't have hundreds of games). That's why tournaments can hardly be much more than a promotional thing to make the game look more serious than it is.
Apart from what cards you draw, is there really that much rng in top level decks? For example, Midrange Shaman only has Flame Juggler and Tuskar Totemic, Tempo Warrior only has Rag and Malkorok, and Zoo only has some Jugglers (and maybe Dark Peddler, if you'd count that as rng).
Card draw (quantity and order) is the most significant part of RNG in any card game. Random effects are relevant, but they are more like bonus randomness.
So yes, tons of RNG in any decks, top level included.
But if card draw RNG would disqualify Hearthstone as a competitive format, then so should things like poker and Magic, and we know both those card games thrive in the competitive scene.
Then also HS thrives for that matter (we need numbers to compare tho). I am not saying that HS tournaments are followed by nobody because of RNG. Hearthstone tournaments ARE popular. We're discussing the limits of the format.
Skill and deckbuilding matter ALOT (I wouldn't be playing if there was no deckbuilding). But there is a threshold level of card draw RNG that cannot be overcome, no matter what. This means for a competitive team that effort is the source of their success only up to a certain hard cap. Beyond that point, team resources and efforts don't matter anymore.
My claim is that card game tournaments can reach some popularity (HS did), but they can hardly go much further than current levels mainly because of inherent RNG, which holds down team efforts and spectators expectations.
To get eyeballs, you need stars, you need narratives. Success in HS is mainly statistical, and the best players are usually not that telegenic.
Coverage of the tourneys doesn't help because it's place-oriented (top 8) rather than player-oriented. They could sell Amnesiac or Ostkaka as stars, but fail because you might not see them in a single match.
My claim is that card game tournaments can reach some popularity (HS did), but they can hardly go much further than current levels mainly because of inherent RNG, which holds down team efforts and spectators expectations.
Magic has been growing for the past 23 years, and is still growing every year. Magic also has teams, as does professional poker. I could even make an argument about how poker has even more randomness than Hearthstone. However, I think that randomness attracts spectators, rather than hold down their expectations. You watch these Poker tournaments for crazy 1% chance wins, like someone getting specifically a queen of diamonds on the very last card. Same as in Magic. Some of the most popular Magic videos on YouTube are the ones of crazy topdeck wins.
The biggest RNG in Hearthstone isn't the draws though. It's the bracket system. Magic has adopted Swiss eons ago for good reasons. If there's still too much RNG, run a few more rounds of Swiss.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
People who refuses to play aggro out of principle are even worse than people who play exclusively aggro.
One should seek to become a complete player and play all archetypes, including ones that he despises for whatever irrational reasons.
Randomness attracts casual spectators as casual is the game itself.
Poker is certainly more random than HS because there is no deckbuilding: randomness IS a source of entertainment. You certainly have a point there.
HS will grow in popularity as a casual game. Thereby increasing the pool of potential spectators for tournaments.
Randomness is a source of entertainment when it is mixed up with some sort of control. As if you could control randomness. It's almost a metaphysical thing, but it works. All true.
Yet, many other players and enthusiasts couldn't care less about tournaments exactly because of the same reason: control is bound to randomness, not the other way around.
I am one of them, I like the game but I have no interest in tournaments. And I am pretty sure I am not the only one.
Randomness attracts casual spectators as casual is the game itself.
Poker is certainly more random than HS because there is no deckbuilding: randomness IS a source of entertainment. You certainly have a point there.
HS will grow in popularity as a casual game. Thereby increasing the pool of potential spectators for tournaments.
Randomness is a source of entertainment when it is mixed up with some sort of control. As if you could control randomness. It's almost a metaphysical thing, but it works. All true.
Yet, many other players and enthusiasts couldn't care less about tournaments exactly because of the same reason: control is bound to randomness, not the other way around.
I am one of them, I like the game but I have no interest in tournaments. And I am pretty sure I am not the only one.
I can see that. Until very recently I was very interested in tournaments, and now I'm nor caring at all for tournaments and taking the game even more casual. Is not a bad thing, is more like accepting the game like is offered.
Randomness attracts casual spectators as casual is the game itself.
Poker is certainly more random than HS because there is no deckbuilding: randomness IS a source of entertainment. You certainly have a point there.
HS will grow in popularity as a casual game. Thereby increasing the pool of potential spectators for tournaments.
Randomness is a source of entertainment when it is mixed up with some sort of control. As if you could control randomness. It's almost a metaphysical thing, but it works. All true.
Yet, many other players and enthusiasts couldn't care less about tournaments exactly because of the same reason: control is bound to randomness, not the other way around.
I am one of them, I like the game but I have no interest in tournaments. And I am pretty sure I am not the only one.
I can see that. Until very recently I was very interested in tournaments, and now I'm nor caring at all for tournaments and taking the game even more casual. Is not a bad thing, is more like accepting the game like is offered.
That's not quite what he's saying though. Tournaments are random because they simply can't play enough games. However, ladder is almost completely non-random as you're probably playing hundreds of games each season. He's saying that the game is perfectly fine as a competitive/non-casual game as far as ladder goes, but that it simply isn't conducive to small and short tournaments involving a few games with a few players.
Personally, I'd love to see more tournaments adapt some kind of season-long mechanic. I know it's less exciting, but it's certainly more indicative of skill. Maybe use it as a qualifier and then allow the RNG-ish "playoffs" to be between players who distinguished themselves in the regular season, so to speak. A few tournaments do it this way, but not enough IMO. Unfortunately, I believe that would suffer from people not watching the regular season/qualifiers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello people,
I saw this article on Splyce and I want to discuss it:
https://splyce.gg/topics/post/468
To resume, the author is saying that the fact the Hearthlytics team disbanded and Archon looks like is turning away from competitive scene raises a flag about the future of Heartstone as competitive game.
I kind of agree with the author here: I was very found to follow competitive scene on hearthstone, watching tournaments and such, and today I really don't care anymore. I heard another articles saying Hearthstone tournaments is getting less people than before (nothing to worry about yet), and some streamers get way more views than a big tournament. Do you guys think people is slowly moving away from watching Hearthstone tournaments? It is possible to improve the tournament scene? What do you think about this article?
I will be glad to hear the opinion of the people here! Cheers!
In 2016 the game still doesn't have viable Spectator Mode. The game can't be paused even on LAN events whlist crash or disconnect can completely change game outcome. The ladder is current design is stupidiest thing ever. No support for competetive formats in game client. I can continue, but it's enough to demostrate Blizzard is not interested in making competetive HS viable at all.
Hall of Fame (ignore list): aleathas, Baylith, cendol, DiamondDM13, Dominieq, doomr, glitterprincess, hamtarofr, Heck, Jwigg33, Kaladin, Krewger, Legend_Entomber, libertyprime, Maukiepaukie, PandarenHero, randjob, s2mikey, SchruteBucks, The_Giratina, TheWamts, ticandtac, tictactucroc, tsudecimo, WaffleMonstr
I think it's telling that this is actually the first time I've heard of Hearthlytics.
As for tournaments: people watch to see their favorite streamers/players perform, not some random dudes they've never heard of. This is the same for any (e-)sport. Take the tournament this weekend. I can't remember the name right now, but the stream title was Trump vs Amaz (if I recall correctly, Trump might've been against someone else). However, that match had already ended by the time I joined, and people in chat were visibly upset that they were now watching lesser known/unknown players, the title promised them two big streamers facing off.
So far, i can't see HS as designed for tournaments. Neither fit for tournaments. It's a casual game. Ladder itself is a product of skills and statistics (= tons of played games) in order to overcome RNG. Game design keeps it that way, plus it's a card game, so it's impossible to avoid RNG.
Tournaments cannot afford statistics, so they are vulnerable to the bad side of RNG, which is that one that is capable of overshadowing ones' skills.
Sure, all participants of a tournament are highly skilled players, but within a tournament you can hardly determine who's best amongst them because of RNG and lack of statistical environment (ie, they don't have hundreds of games). That's why tournaments can hardly be much more than a promotional thing to make the game look more serious than it is.
No.
Other decks RNG:
Miralce: nothing
Patron: FInley?
Aggro Shaman: Totemic
Hunters: 1 random dmg and Animal Companion
It feels like RNG (apart from what cards you draw) has only very little impact nowadays. No more getting 4/4s out of Shredders or Boom Bots hitting face for 8.
Then also HS thrives for that matter (we need numbers to compare tho). I am not saying that HS tournaments are followed by nobody because of RNG. Hearthstone tournaments ARE popular. We're discussing the limits of the format.
Skill and deckbuilding matter ALOT (I wouldn't be playing if there was no deckbuilding).
But there is a threshold level of card draw RNG that cannot be overcome, no matter what. This means for a competitive team that effort is the source of their success only up to a certain hard cap. Beyond that point, team resources and efforts don't matter anymore.
My claim is that card game tournaments can reach some popularity (HS did), but they can hardly go much further than current levels mainly because of inherent RNG, which holds down team efforts and spectators expectations.
To get eyeballs, you need stars, you need narratives. Success in HS is mainly statistical, and the best players are usually not that telegenic.
Coverage of the tourneys doesn't help because it's place-oriented (top 8) rather than player-oriented. They could sell Amnesiac or Ostkaka as stars, but fail because you might not see them in a single match.
Just my $0.02.
The biggest RNG in Hearthstone isn't the draws though. It's the bracket system. Magic has adopted Swiss eons ago for good reasons. If there's still too much RNG, run a few more rounds of Swiss.
People who refuses to play aggro out of principle are even worse than people who play exclusively aggro.
One should seek to become a complete player and play all archetypes, including ones that he despises for whatever irrational reasons.
Randomness attracts casual spectators as casual is the game itself.
Poker is certainly more random than HS because there is no deckbuilding: randomness IS a source of entertainment. You certainly have a point there.
HS will grow in popularity as a casual game. Thereby increasing the pool of potential spectators for tournaments.
Randomness is a source of entertainment when it is mixed up with some sort of control. As if you could control randomness. It's almost a metaphysical thing, but it works. All true.
Yet, many other players and enthusiasts couldn't care less about tournaments exactly because of the same reason: control is bound to randomness, not the other way around.
I am one of them, I like the game but I have no interest in tournaments. And I am pretty sure I am not the only one.