Hearthpwn

Quote from Tze >>

Quote from Blue_Banana_whotookthisname >>

Quote from Hooghout >>

I gave some suggestions elsewhere as I find it hard to converse with a dedicated Brode-fan who claims:

1. The meta is clearly in a state that promotes decks that reward skill.
2. Aggro Shaman....having been one of the highest skill cap decks.

These statements can't be further from the truth. This meta is a meta with the lowest skill cap ever. This meta doesn't reward skill at all. Aggro Shaman highest skill cap? You must be joking!

1. The claims that the meta promotes low skill decks and that it promotes high skill decks do not contradict each other. Numerous examples have been made of viable high skill decks. So you're both right.
2. This is where you're both wrong. Skill cap is a vaque and irrelevant term. Aggro Shaman has both low skill floor and high skill ceiling. A deck having high skill ceiling implies it being skill rewarding regardless of how low the skill floor is.

 I've never intended to claim that both decks don't exist in the current meta, what I've stated is more that it's incorrect only to view the meta in the light that it doesn't cater to skilled players in any way. Clearly there are decks that perform well in the hand of skilled pilots (and perform well across the field), and I'm at a loss if that's not adequately creating a game where skill is completely relevant. Fibonacci finished Rank 5 Legend as Control Warrior this month, as an example of a deck that performs horribly for the average player but clearly performed well in the hands of someone who understands that list inside and out. You know, the list everyone seems to think is dead.

Skill cap is definitely vague though, skill floor and ceiling are probably a little more accurate certainly. And in the case of Aggro Shaman I certainly agree (at least pre-nerfs); you could throw things face and probably steal wins, but it became a monster when you put it in the hands of players that would actually attempt to optimize their chances of winning. And contrary to the argument Hooghout is making, that is extremely relevant to refuting the idea Aggro isn't an archetype capable of rewarding skill and clearly not universally mindless. Which is exactly my point.

Which begs the question, are people more focused on dominant decks only possessing high skill floors? I can get behind the idea there should exist rewarding decks for high skill levels, but it's not objectively incorrect to design rewarding decks for all skill levels. Which is currently the case, and which is one reason this game is one of the biggest card games on the market currently. At the point we start arguing that Hearthstone should have the same design goals as Gwent (which is apparently built for the better player to win far more often), I'd say it's more productive for the people arguing that to go play Gwent.

If I go to a McDonald's I don't expect a well made steak, because McDonald's has never attempted to market to people who want a well made steak. Hearthstone, Magic, Eternal, ESL... they market to every type of player, and promote the idea every type of player can beat a better opponent by design; from their standpoint if all you want is skill to triumph, they're more than happy to have you go elsewhere. I think it's reasonable to demand viable decks that have high skill ceilings, but it's absurd to demand those are the only competitive options.

 

So I think one of the issues is that people frame the Hearthstone competitive scene in the same light as something like CS:GO or Starcraft, where skill is definitely one of the major defining factors. You get better at those games by playing them a lot and training, variance dictates virtually nothing when it comes to that; if you're better at SC2 than the other person, it's very unlikely they'll win by design.

However what happens if we frame the Hearthstone competitive scene similar to MTG or Poker? Variance is a massive impact, one reason why there's so much stress on something like Top8 or Top16 finishes over first place finished in something like MTG. Variance is also inherently problematic in qualifiers (Swiss format helps, but there's no variance-proof system), which always leads to weaker players winning because they ran hot and their opponents may have drawn poorly. Someone piloting a top deck against someone like Firebat may be unfavored, but powerful decks doing powerful things are always going to result in that. What's more important is what we're seeing; top echelon players like Pavel, Amnesiac, Firebat, etc. continuing to qualify for high level events and placing consistently well. At this point the scene is too young to have a very good sample size of that. For comparison, someone winning back-to-back Worlds in MTG is basically unheard of and if you took a sample out of 3 championships (which is all HS has had) you'd see almost no one has been a returning champion. People like Kibler and Finkel only even won Worlds twice, and they're at the top of the pack for MTG players historically. 

I think there are massive problems with the qualifying process (I'd rather HCT points were decoupled from ladder ranking), but I don't think it has to do with the game lacking a skill component. Like any other high-variance game though I think there has to be the realization that consistent top finishes are more important than winning 1st place, and that the "no name" people duking it out against pros are most likely still really good at the game and the skill gap isn't wide enough to assure that they have a dominant chance to make it to Top 8/16.

Rank 5 is still the top 2% of players, so it doesn't bother me if those players have a mediocre chance to win against pros in a limited set of games if both are playing good decks. This is because when you frame that in the same view you have of MTG or Poker it's honestly nothing new or particularly alarming.

I'll be curious to see how Gwent goes, and how well that catches on. What people also fail to realize is that if no one plays your game or the competitive scene has 0 support (for all its flaws, HS is amazingly well supported with major tournaments and it's attractive to compete in), your game could be better for competitive players but unsustainable. I think there's room to grow for HS to be better for competitive players, but I don't think it's even remotely close to in trouble considering virtually no one else in the digital card game space has the infrastructure or appeal currently to challenge them.

Quote from Tze >>

So I think one of the issues is that people frame the Hearthstone competitive scene in the same light as something like CS:GO or Starcraft, where skill is definitely one of the major defining factors. You get better at those games by playing them a lot and training, variance dictates virtually nothing when it comes to that; if you're better at SC2 than the other person, it's very unlikely they'll win by design.

However what happens if we frame the Hearthstone competitive scene similar to MTG or Poker? Variance is a massive impact, one reason why there's so much stress on something like Top8 or Top16 finishes over first place finished in something like MTG. Variance is also inherently problematic in qualifiers (Swiss format helps, but there's no variance-proof system), which always leads to weaker players winning because they ran hot and their opponents may have drawn poorly. Someone piloting a top deck against someone like Firebat may be unfavored, but powerful decks doing powerful things are always going to result in that. What's more important is what we're seeing; top echelon players like Pavel, Amnesiac, Firebat, etc. continuing to qualify for high level events and placing consistently well. At this point the scene is too young to have a very good sample size of that. For comparison, someone winning back-to-back Worlds in MTG is basically unheard of and if you took a sample out of 3 championships (which is all HS has had) you'd see almost no one has been a returning champion. People like Kibler and Finkel only even won Worlds twice, and they're at the top of the pack for MTG players historically. 

I think there are massive problems with the qualifying process (I'd rather HCT points were decoupled from ladder ranking), but I don't think it has to do with the game lacking a skill component. Like any other high-variance game though I think there has to be the realization that consistent top finishes are more important than winning 1st place, and that the "no name" people duking it out against pros are most likely still really good at the game and the skill gap isn't wide enough to assure that they have a dominant chance to make it to Top 8/16.

Rank 5 is still the top 2% of players, so it doesn't bother me if those players have a mediocre chance to win against pros in a limited set of games if both are playing good decks. This is because when you frame that in the same view you have of MTG or Poker it's honestly nothing new or particularly alarming.

I'll be curious to see how Gwent goes, and how well that catches on. What people also fail to realize is that if no one plays your game or the competitive scene has 0 support (for all its flaws, HS is amazingly well supported with major tournaments and it's attractive to compete in), your game could be better for competitive players but unsustainable. I think there's room to grow for HS to be better for competitive players, but I don't think it's even remotely close to in trouble considering virtually no one else in the digital card game space has the infrastructure or appeal currently to challenge them.

Quote from Tze >>

So I think one of the issues is that people frame the Hearthstone competitive scene in the same light as something like CS:GO or Starcraft, where skill is definitely one of the major defining factors. You get better at those games by playing them a lot and training, variance dictates virtually nothing when it comes to that; if you're better at SC2 than the other person, it's very unlikely they'll win by design.

However what happens if we frame the Hearthstone competitive scene similar to MTG or Poker? Variance is a massive impact, one reason why there's so much stress on something like Top8 or Top16 finishes over first place finished in something like MTG. Variance is also inherently problematic in qualifiers (Swiss format helps, but there's no variance-proof system), which always leads to weaker players winning because they ran hot and their opponents may have drawn poorly. Someone piloting a top deck against someone like Firebat may be unfavored, but powerful decks doing powerful things are always going to result in that. What's more important is what we're seeing; top echelon players like Pavel, Amnesiac, Firebat, etc. continuing to qualify for high level events and placing consistently well. At this point the scene is too young to have a very good sample size of that. For comparison, someone winning back-to-back Worlds in MTG is basically unheard of and if you took a sample out of 3 championships (which is all HS has had) you'd see almost no one has been a returning champion. People like Kibler and Finkel only even won Worlds twice, and they're at the top of the pack for MTG players historically. 

I think there are massive problems with the qualifying process (I'd rather HCT points were decoupled from ladder ranking), but I don't think it has to do with the game lacking a skill component. Like any other high-variance game though I think there has to be the realization that consistent top finishes are more important than winning 1st place, and that the "no name" people duking it out against pros are most likely still really good at the game and the skill gap isn't wide enough to assure that they have a dominant chance to make it to Top 8/16.

Rank 5 is still the top 2% of players, so it doesn't bother me if those players have a mediocre chance to win against pros in a limited set of games if both are playing good decks. This is because when you frame that in the same view you have of MTG or Poker it's honestly nothing new or particularly alarming.

I'll be curious to see how Gwent goes, and how well that catches on. What people also fail to realize is that if no one plays your game or the competitive scene has 0 support (for all its flaws, HS is amazingly well supported with major tournaments and it's attractive to compete in), your game could be better for competitive players but unsustainable. I think there's room to grow for HS to be better for competitive players, but I don't think it's even remotely close to in trouble considering virtually no one else in the digital card game space has the infrastructure or appeal currently to challenge them.

In any competitive game with rpg elements there's going to be a pretty rigid meta. And in addition to that, Hearthstone's tournament format certainly does not do deck variety many favors. 

From an esport perspective, it always has to be remembered that a lot of the decisions around it are for making it a good viewer experience. So that "limits" them on making it a more "pure" judge of skill in tournaments. (For instance, being able to make changes to decks between matches imo would be an interesting addition but obviously would be waaaay too slow.)

I'd also say lumping together all the pro players in assuming they have the same opinions about certain decks is quite inaccurate (just because that's true of everything) 

Quote from GrillaGamingYT >>

Quote from Tze >>

 

 I feel like Gwent is rising in popularity by a big margin.  And mostly, the high skill players are mostly using most used decks in Hearthstone. So I don't see a problem with people being in rank 5.

Quote from batanete >>

Quote from Tze >>

 

 You make some pretty good points, but there's one aspect people fail to grasp: the higher you go up in the competitive hearthstone rankings(not the actual physical ladder rankings, but rather then skill based ones between pro players) the less doesplayer skill actually matter for your results.

While rank 10 players regularly fail at even doing common sense plays such as not going face with pirate warrior's rusty hook on turn one when the other guy has 1 hp minions on board and frequently lose games due to their mistakes, you don't get to see this sort of stuff at higher levels of play. Obviously you will see people doing cute things such as not playing paladin or shaman hero power on turn 2 against anyfin paladin to avoid getting doomsayered into vigil, but how much do these things actually affect your win rate?

I mean sure, there's way more factors to think about. Occasionally you will see the odd guy bringing in a weird line up with 4 aggressive(or 4 anti aggressive) decks and just counter the shit out of the current tournament meta, which you could claim was due to said player making a good read on the meta and doing his homework(which is obviously also related to skill and hardwork, as competitive gaming should be). There are also a couple of individual decks that leave the player with more room for improvement over the competition. You could also claim that certain individual decks leave the player with more room to distance themselves from the competition(at least until blizzard is done nerfing them or removing them from the game).

But the truth is, Hearthstone as an e-sport has never been bad because the game in uncompetitive at it's core. It has simply never been the design focus of blizzard to make HS a good e-sport, nor do the majority of the community view it as such as a result. The average HS'er treats HS as a game for the memes. That's why you see decks like freeze mage, patron warrior, miracle rogue or handlock being either nerfed or removed from the game while things like jade druid, secret paladin and dragon warrior are apparently OK. That's why people log into twitch chat during blizzcon to comment on Pavel's lucky babbling book and don't even bother to care about the excellent plays he made throughout the tournament. Do you know why? Because they barely even impacted the games he played at all, unless you go into an extremely in depth analysis of them.