I have been watching and reading the threads here and have noticed that people are often salty about 'bad luck' or complain and too much RNG in the game. I have my thoughts regarding this, but for now, I wanted to understand where people think Hearthstone fits in the Luck and Skill matrix.
Games have both Skill and Luck in them, but depending on the type of game, Some have High Luck and High Skill, such as Poker.
Other games have Low Skill and Low Luck.
So where does Hearthstone fall, in your opinion?
The reason this is important determines how people view this game and why people get upset at 'unlucky' events.
If you view Hearthstone as a game closer to Chess, then all the RNG elements will frustrate you.
If you view Hearthstone as Rock Paper Scissors, then you will get frustrated at the lack of choices the game offers.
Basically, where do you THINK Hearthstone fits?
Where do you want Hearthstone to be in this Luck vs Skill matrix?
I personally would like to remove some of the more random or luck based events from the game. I do feel its closer to Poker, hence why its wide audience appeal.
I prefer my games in general to be more skill based. I do enjoy playing High Luck games, but it also needs to have High Skill as well, such as Poker.
Pretty much rock, papper, scissors. There are some amount of skill, but very little compared too other card games. And poker does only have the same amount of luck as Hearthstone when drawing cards. The cards themself does not depend on luck, so it's not even close to that. Even less to chess.
Due to the low skill ceiling (generally), the game feels more luck based rather than skill. The countless games the pros have gives them a slight advantage over the average player, but even then they still lose to unlucky topdecks.
Just saying, there's a lot of skill in rock paper scissors. There is a ton of mind games that go into it and knowing the opponent, what they tend to go with, along with general stereotypes such as men going rock first, etc. I'm genuinely disappointing/triggered that you listed rock paper scissors as low skill and low luck. Thanks for ruining my day.
I suppose Rock, Paper, Scissors is the most comparable.
I've always thought climbing the ladder is about 60% time, 30% luck and 10% skill. Play lots, have the occasional perfect starting hand, have enough knowledge of the game to have the edge in mirror matches.
There is some skill in RPS, but not everyone plays it that way. Playing with a complete stranger is more luck based than skill, because it's harder to read them.
Sure, there are rules and stereotypes that add that element of skill, but HIGH skill. Nah. Compare it to Poker which has a similar element to 'bluffing'. You are potentially bluffing with a decent hand, a crap hand or even a really good hand. Or you could not be bluffing at all. When to bluff, when to go 'all in' and bet it all. These all require various level of knowledge and skill of the game of Poker.
Not sure if you are trolling me, but good on you then. RPS is not a High skill game, but it's not a no skill game either.
Also, I am doing this for knowledge and to use this as a stepping stone for other things I am working on.
Where does the community VIEW Hearthstone and where does the community WANT Hearthstone to be?
Do you see it as a luck fest full of top decks and stupid meme decks? or do you see it as a skill based game with elements of luck?
Where do you want Hearthstone to be? Do you want it more like Chess or more like Rock Paper Scissors?
If the community views Hearthstone 1 way, but wants the game to go in a different direction, that is a problem that we can't solve directly. The next step is to take this to the developers and others involved in designing the game.
Where do the designers see the game? Where do they want it to go?
Also, 'bad luck' is very often observational bias. You tend to only remember the bad luck situations, and not all the times you 'got lucky'.
There is some skill in RPS, but not everyone plays it that way. Playing with a complete stranger is more luck based than skill, because it's harder to read them.
Sure, there are rules and stereotypes that add that element of skill, but HIGH skill. Nah. Compare it to Poker which has a similar element to 'bluffing'. You are potentially bluffing with a decent hand, a crap hand or even a really good hand. Or you could not be bluffing at all. When to bluff, when to go 'all in' and bet it all. These all require various level of knowledge and skill of the game of Poker.
Not sure if you are trolling me, but good on you then. RPS is not a High skill game, but it's not a no skill game either.
Originally I was just going to poke fun at RPS being low skill and stuff, but then I found out that it actually has an 'official' championship and decided to go full into it.
To actually comment on the actual post, I feel like it's similar to poker. It looks real simple, but there is a lot more depth and a lot of luck too.
Lifecoach spoke about a small difference between average and pro players due to luck (after he left the Hearthstone boat). Current Spiteful shit meta is the best example of that. So i vote paper, rock, scissors.
The problem is that the community doesn’t really know what they want. They don’t want aggro matchups and they want more skill, but on the flip side they don’t want 15 minute control vs control matchups.
People need to realize that generally the game offers what they want. If people want more skill, go play a control deck. Try Renolock in wild. Most every game is interesting because decisions matter. There’s little RNG past the given amount of drawing cards in being a card based game. If you don’t like control decks like that, well you can’t have skill and be a simple aggro or tempo deck at the same time. It just feasibly can’t be done.
As for the OP question, the game requires as much skill as the deck you are using. Pick a simple deck like even/odd Paladin, yeah, it’s mainly luck based. Pick a complex deck, it’ll be more skill based. Also, the community is ignoring one other aspect: That is deck building, which also requires skill, but unfortunately can be completely bypassed by netdecking on sites like these.
Correct, deck building is what puts card games in a higher skill bracket than other games, in which you have no input at all.
You can mitigate this skill requirement though with net decking and some people feel this is 'unfair' or removes the skill element from Hearthstone. It removes 1 aspect of it, but not all.
Also, unless you have all the cards (I don't), then even if you net deck, you have to make alternate deck building decisions to supplement the cards you are missing. Realizing WHY a card is in a deck, what synergies it offers and why removing it makes the deck less consistent or good all points to knowledge of the game and skill.
If you don't have Harrison Jones, you can supplement it with Acidic Swamp Ooze. The question is, why was HJ in the deck? Was it because it was an Odd costed card? Does the deck have very little card draw and this helped with that? Was it lacking 5 drops?
There is alot that goes into deck building. I often make my own decks for different reasons. One of the main reasons is to counter the current popular or meta decks. This requires skill.
For example, the meta is full of aggressive decks like Paladin and Rogue. It also has Warlock control decks. So when I make my Priest decks, I put in 1 or 2 tech cards for Warlock and 1 or 2 for Paladin. Specifically I put in more healing cards for aggro and more late game cards for Warlock.
While my luck vs skill question does not cover all aspects of the game, I wanted to cover the overall feeling and game as a whole.
Yes, the game has a high luck variance with its card draw and even some spells (Crackle as an example). But it also has some skill based cards like Wild Pyromancer.
I would like more skill and less luck in my Hearthstone, but not everyone feels that way. If the game is meant to be for a wider audience, the developers are going to keep the high luck variance in the game, so that casual gamers feel like they always have a chance to win.
It's a card game, so in the long run luck is the same for everyone, but in the context of the single game it's highly important. So I choose "high luck".
Now, let's compare it to poker. HS Skill factors:
1) Deckbuilding: it would be the biggest factor, but it doesn't matter at all since netdecking is a thing. This alone would have made HS more skill-oriented than poker of course. 2) Reading opponent's hand and next turn plays: is often pretty easy. The opponent's previous plays and the mana curve give you way more hints about their hand than what you can possibly imagine while playing poker. 3) Planning 3-4 turns ahead: difficult. This is where pro players shine compared to average ones, and the main skill needed to succeed in a single game GIVEN the two players being equally lucky.
The real problem is that you have to play a REALLY huge sample of matches to "mitigate" the luck factor, given that card draw (the root mechanic of every card game, of course) and most importantly the random effects of cards can completely destroy any gameplan. Skill only matters in the (long long) long run.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
English isn't my first language, so please excuse any mistakes.
You are right, you have games within games. You have HS tournaments and over the whole of that tournament, luck will balance out over time, whether bad or good.
A single game can be extremely lucky or unlucky for you. A specific spell can be lucky or unlucky, depending on its variance factors. Even a Spiteful Summoner summoning a 12/12 minion versus something else is important.
One of the ways to mitigate 'draw' luck in a game is to include more card draw in your deck. it is why many card games consider card draw to be very powerful and often the hardest things to balance. If you give one class too many ways to draw, there is no luck involved in the draw factor and essentially that person has access to their whole deck.
But if you make card draw too weak or specific, no one will play those cards.
Going first or second is another luck factor.
What requires more skill is also the mulligan. Sometimes though, your hand is full of all 6 drops and that's an easy mulligan with very little thought. Other times, your hand is full of 3 drops and now you have to make some harder decisions.
Every game has factors of skill and luck in them. They have long term skill and luck and short term skill and luck.
So far, it seems that the community is divided, which I think is why I see so many threads and those that attack each other verbally.
To have a community united requires people to be playing for the same reasons or have the same views.
Very similar to poker if you've ever played poker seriously. In the short term, variance can screw you over and keep you from hitting a certain rank. In the long term, variance will even out and your true winrate and rank will be realized.
But holy fuck, I would much rather lose a big pot while all in to some river bullshit than lose to back to back topdecks of Tarim and Divine Favor.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination.
You are right, you have games within games. You have HS tournaments and over the whole of that tournament, luck will balance out over time, whether bad or good.
A single game can be extremely lucky or unlucky for you. A specific spell can be lucky or unlucky, depending on its variance factors. Even a Spiteful Summoner summoning a 12/12 minion versus something else is important.
This is generally the way it works. Though I'd argue that a tournament is too small of a sample size to really eliminate variance.
On ladder, though? Yeah. You start talking about 100+ games, and a good player can easily add an extra 10-15 points to their win % via deck-building and in-game decisions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have been watching and reading the threads here and have noticed that people are often salty about 'bad luck' or complain and too much RNG in the game. I have my thoughts regarding this, but for now, I wanted to understand where people think Hearthstone fits in the Luck and Skill matrix.
Games have both Skill and Luck in them, but depending on the type of game, Some have High Luck and High Skill, such as Poker.
Other games have Low Skill and Low Luck.
So where does Hearthstone fall, in your opinion?
The reason this is important determines how people view this game and why people get upset at 'unlucky' events.
If you view Hearthstone as a game closer to Chess, then all the RNG elements will frustrate you.
If you view Hearthstone as Rock Paper Scissors, then you will get frustrated at the lack of choices the game offers.
Basically, where do you THINK Hearthstone fits?
Where do you want Hearthstone to be in this Luck vs Skill matrix?
I personally would like to remove some of the more random or luck based events from the game. I do feel its closer to Poker, hence why its wide audience appeal.
I prefer my games in general to be more skill based. I do enjoy playing High Luck games, but it also needs to have High Skill as well, such as Poker.
Your thoughts?
Pretty much rock, papper, scissors. There are some amount of skill, but very little compared too other card games. And poker does only have the same amount of luck as Hearthstone when drawing cards. The cards themself does not depend on luck, so it's not even close to that. Even less to chess.
Due to the low skill ceiling (generally), the game feels more luck based rather than skill. The countless games the pros have gives them a slight advantage over the average player, but even then they still lose to unlucky topdecks.
Alyss
Just saying, there's a lot of skill in rock paper scissors. There is a ton of mind games that go into it and knowing the opponent, what they tend to go with, along with general stereotypes such as men going rock first, etc. I'm genuinely disappointing/triggered that you listed rock paper scissors as low skill and low luck. Thanks for ruining my day.
I don't have something witty about this deck, I just like it because Malygos is fun.
I suppose Rock, Paper, Scissors is the most comparable.
I've always thought climbing the ladder is about 60% time, 30% luck and 10% skill. Play lots, have the occasional perfect starting hand, have enough knowledge of the game to have the edge in mirror matches.
There is some skill in RPS, but not everyone plays it that way. Playing with a complete stranger is more luck based than skill, because it's harder to read them.
Sure, there are rules and stereotypes that add that element of skill, but HIGH skill. Nah. Compare it to Poker which has a similar element to 'bluffing'. You are potentially bluffing with a decent hand, a crap hand or even a really good hand. Or you could not be bluffing at all. When to bluff, when to go 'all in' and bet it all. These all require various level of knowledge and skill of the game of Poker.
Not sure if you are trolling me, but good on you then. RPS is not a High skill game, but it's not a no skill game either.
Also, I am doing this for knowledge and to use this as a stepping stone for other things I am working on.
Where does the community VIEW Hearthstone and where does the community WANT Hearthstone to be?
Do you see it as a luck fest full of top decks and stupid meme decks? or do you see it as a skill based game with elements of luck?
Where do you want Hearthstone to be? Do you want it more like Chess or more like Rock Paper Scissors?
If the community views Hearthstone 1 way, but wants the game to go in a different direction, that is a problem that we can't solve directly. The next step is to take this to the developers and others involved in designing the game.
Where do the designers see the game? Where do they want it to go?
Also, 'bad luck' is very often observational bias. You tend to only remember the bad luck situations, and not all the times you 'got lucky'.
i would prefer to go with a more 'medium' option, but i realise it would clutter the poll so fair enough
High skill (for deckbuilding and handreading), high luck (card draw and random effects).
What i don't like since the most recent expansions is the fact that highroll can somewhat be made consistent by some classes (eg selective recruit).
And consistency of highroll makes rng broken, not balanced by its own nature, and hugely increases the feeling of 'unfairiness'.
I don't have something witty about this deck, I just like it because Malygos is fun.
Lifecoach spoke about a small difference between average and pro players due to luck (after he left the Hearthstone boat). Current Spiteful shit meta is the best example of that. So i vote paper, rock, scissors.
The problem is that the community doesn’t really know what they want. They don’t want aggro matchups and they want more skill, but on the flip side they don’t want 15 minute control vs control matchups.
People need to realize that generally the game offers what they want. If people want more skill, go play a control deck. Try Renolock in wild. Most every game is interesting because decisions matter. There’s little RNG past the given amount of drawing cards in being a card based game. If you don’t like control decks like that, well you can’t have skill and be a simple aggro or tempo deck at the same time. It just feasibly can’t be done.
As for the OP question, the game requires as much skill as the deck you are using. Pick a simple deck like even/odd Paladin, yeah, it’s mainly luck based. Pick a complex deck, it’ll be more skill based. Also, the community is ignoring one other aspect: That is deck building, which also requires skill, but unfortunately can be completely bypassed by netdecking on sites like these.
Correct, deck building is what puts card games in a higher skill bracket than other games, in which you have no input at all.
You can mitigate this skill requirement though with net decking and some people feel this is 'unfair' or removes the skill element from Hearthstone. It removes 1 aspect of it, but not all.
Also, unless you have all the cards (I don't), then even if you net deck, you have to make alternate deck building decisions to supplement the cards you are missing. Realizing WHY a card is in a deck, what synergies it offers and why removing it makes the deck less consistent or good all points to knowledge of the game and skill.
If you don't have Harrison Jones, you can supplement it with Acidic Swamp Ooze. The question is, why was HJ in the deck? Was it because it was an Odd costed card? Does the deck have very little card draw and this helped with that? Was it lacking 5 drops?
There is alot that goes into deck building. I often make my own decks for different reasons. One of the main reasons is to counter the current popular or meta decks. This requires skill.
For example, the meta is full of aggressive decks like Paladin and Rogue. It also has Warlock control decks. So when I make my Priest decks, I put in 1 or 2 tech cards for Warlock and 1 or 2 for Paladin. Specifically I put in more healing cards for aggro and more late game cards for Warlock.
While my luck vs skill question does not cover all aspects of the game, I wanted to cover the overall feeling and game as a whole.
Yes, the game has a high luck variance with its card draw and even some spells (Crackle as an example). But it also has some skill based cards like Wild Pyromancer.
I would like more skill and less luck in my Hearthstone, but not everyone feels that way. If the game is meant to be for a wider audience, the developers are going to keep the high luck variance in the game, so that casual gamers feel like they always have a chance to win.
It's a card game, so in the long run luck is the same for everyone, but in the context of the single game it's highly important. So I choose "high luck".
Now, let's compare it to poker.
HS Skill factors:
1) Deckbuilding: it would be the biggest factor, but it doesn't matter at all since netdecking is a thing. This alone would have made HS more skill-oriented than poker of course.
2) Reading opponent's hand and next turn plays: is often pretty easy. The opponent's previous plays and the mana curve give you way more hints about their hand than what you can possibly imagine while playing poker.
3) Planning 3-4 turns ahead: difficult. This is where pro players shine compared to average ones, and the main skill needed to succeed in a single game GIVEN the two players being equally lucky.
The real problem is that you have to play a REALLY huge sample of matches to "mitigate" the luck factor, given that card draw (the root mechanic of every card game, of course) and most importantly the random effects of cards can completely destroy any gameplan. Skill only matters in the (long long) long run.
English isn't my first language, so please excuse any mistakes.
You are right, you have games within games. You have HS tournaments and over the whole of that tournament, luck will balance out over time, whether bad or good.
A single game can be extremely lucky or unlucky for you. A specific spell can be lucky or unlucky, depending on its variance factors. Even a Spiteful Summoner summoning a 12/12 minion versus something else is important.
One of the ways to mitigate 'draw' luck in a game is to include more card draw in your deck. it is why many card games consider card draw to be very powerful and often the hardest things to balance. If you give one class too many ways to draw, there is no luck involved in the draw factor and essentially that person has access to their whole deck.
But if you make card draw too weak or specific, no one will play those cards.
Going first or second is another luck factor.
What requires more skill is also the mulligan. Sometimes though, your hand is full of all 6 drops and that's an easy mulligan with very little thought. Other times, your hand is full of 3 drops and now you have to make some harder decisions.
Every game has factors of skill and luck in them. They have long term skill and luck and short term skill and luck.
So far, it seems that the community is divided, which I think is why I see so many threads and those that attack each other verbally.
To have a community united requires people to be playing for the same reasons or have the same views.
Rock paper scissors....would prefer it to be like chess.
Very similar to poker if you've ever played poker seriously. In the short term, variance can screw you over and keep you from hitting a certain rank. In the long term, variance will even out and your true winrate and rank will be realized.
But holy fuck, I would much rather lose a big pot while all in to some river bullshit than lose to back to back topdecks of Tarim and Divine Favor.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
If you answered "no" to the second question but are still playing, maybe you should rethink your life choices.
The game is not going to change, so unless you can learn to accept it, you're never going to be happy.
"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