I was checking my statistics and i realized i have a %51 winrate while going second but a %60 winrate when going first. Why is there such a big gap between them shouldn't they be equal or atleast close to equal?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i play cubelock and lose 5 games in a row then i play odd paladin and get my stars back wash rinse repeat
I mean, Blizzard tried many solutions, and there’s really only so many extra stuff to balance the disadvantage to going second before it becomes insane.
Because of the nature of Hearthstone. The attacker chooses the defenders, not the other way around, so whoever claims the tempo first will have the advantage. Going first gives the first opportunity to claim the tempo.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination.
How could there be a 51% winrate going second but a 60% winrate going first? Both those numbers have to add up to 100%...
That’s not how that works. It means there is a 60% winrate of winning when going first, and a 40% chance of losing when going first. And the chance of losing when going first doesn’t equal the chance of winning going second.
It's all about tempo. The player going first has the advantage because of it. Bren Brode spoke of it once when they were designing the game and said it's a fundemtal problem of card games in general. They tried many many different iterations before deciding the coin was the best method giving the smallest gap in winrates. Your gap is much larger than I remember them stating. The only time I liked going second was back in the windwaker tempo mage days cause I could windwaker then coin out the two 0/2 taunts and proc my windwaker twice. THOSE were the days!
It has to do with the style of deck too. Usually aggro decks will have that higher win rate when going first because (as was mentioned earlier) the attacker chooses the defender, so controls tempo right from the get go. With control decks, sometimes the coin comes in handy, but at the same time, if you start with that +1 mana right from the get go, you don't really need the coin. It can be handy to have that turn 4 Dragon's Fury or similar. I think some of my deck win rates going first are as high as like 70%, dropping to 50-55% when going second haha.
Also, for kinda obvious reasons, my miracle rogue deck usually performs a lot better if it goes second (more cards in mulligan, the best combo activator in the game, spell for Gadgetzan Auctioneer if it goes that long).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Twitch name: Anatak15 NA Legend Season 48, 49, 52, 53, 54, 74
How could there be a 51% winrate going second but a 60% winrate going first? Both those numbers have to add up to 100%...
it doens't need to aadd to 100% he wins 60% of the time going first and loses the other 40% he wins 51% of the time going second and loses 49% of the time.
How could there be a 51% winrate going second but a 60% winrate going first? Both those numbers have to add up to 100%...
it doens't need to aadd to 100% he wins 60% of the time going first and loses the other 40% he wins 51% of the time going second and loses 49% of the time.
Oops...didn't see the part where it is his statistics. My bad. I thought he was referring to overall statistics, which also support going first is better but by a fairly small margin (I think it was 52/48 split).
That is what happens when you design a game around a mana system. Somebody needs to have the chance to do something first, and that something usually creates pressure in some form, whether it takes the form of pressuring face first or claiming the board before the opponent.
Any solution to make the benefit player 2 receives to be no more powerful and no less powerful than player 1 going first is mostly impossible; it will always slightly benefit one player more than the other player in some way.
I will say this, just for some food for thought, but not every deck benefits from going first. Some of my combo/OTK decks where you can't wild growth to ramp up your mana usually have nothing to do on turn 1 and little to do on turn 2.
It's worth mentioning that Shadowverse also uses the same battle mechanics as HS (attackers chooses what to hit). The devs posterino the first vs second stats in monthly balance patches and it's usually very even (they do something when it strays too far from 50%)
In Shadowverse, instead of a coin, the player going second receives an extra evolve point and gets to evolve a turn before their opponent. Evolving a minion generally gives it +2/+2 and rush, which allows players to catch up on board from behind. Obviously nothing as complicated as this can be implemented into hearthstone but it goes to show balancing first vs second is theoretically possible. Perhaps they should start with giving the player on the coin more than just a coin when they're otherwise behind half a crystal every turn and board initiative ...
If you don't think it's bad, here's someone posting and discussing their coin stats as a top legend rogue player over a fairly large sample size. Spoilers: their winrate is down by 10% on coin just like the OP
I was checking my statistics and i realized i have a %51 winrate while going second but a %60 winrate when going first. Why is there such a big gap between them shouldn't they be equal or atleast close to equal?
i play cubelock and lose 5 games in a row then i play odd paladin and get my stars back wash rinse repeat
I mean, Blizzard tried many solutions, and there’s really only so many extra stuff to balance the disadvantage to going second before it becomes insane.
How could there be a 51% winrate going second but a 60% winrate going first? Both those numbers have to add up to 100%...
Because of the nature of Hearthstone. The attacker chooses the defenders, not the other way around, so whoever claims the tempo first will have the advantage. Going first gives the first opportunity to claim the tempo.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
That’s not how that works. It means there is a 60% winrate of winning when going first, and a 40% chance of losing when going first. And the chance of losing when going first doesn’t equal the chance of winning going second.
It's all about tempo. The player going first has the advantage because of it. Bren Brode spoke of it once when they were designing the game and said it's a fundemtal problem of card games in general. They tried many many different iterations before deciding the coin was the best method giving the smallest gap in winrates. Your gap is much larger than I remember them stating. The only time I liked going second was back in the windwaker tempo mage days cause I could windwaker then coin out the two 0/2 taunts and proc my windwaker twice. THOSE were the days!
It has to do with the style of deck too. Usually aggro decks will have that higher win rate when going first because (as was mentioned earlier) the attacker chooses the defender, so controls tempo right from the get go. With control decks, sometimes the coin comes in handy, but at the same time, if you start with that +1 mana right from the get go, you don't really need the coin. It can be handy to have that turn 4 Dragon's Fury or similar. I think some of my deck win rates going first are as high as like 70%, dropping to 50-55% when going second haha.
Also, for kinda obvious reasons, my miracle rogue deck usually performs a lot better if it goes second (more cards in mulligan, the best combo activator in the game, spell for Gadgetzan Auctioneer if it goes that long).
Twitch name: Anatak15
NA Legend Season 48, 49, 52, 53, 54, 74
it doens't need to aadd to 100% he wins 60% of the time going first and loses the other 40% he wins 51% of the time going second and loses 49% of the time.
Oops...didn't see the part where it is his statistics. My bad. I thought he was referring to overall statistics, which also support going first is better but by a fairly small margin (I think it was 52/48 split).
That is what happens when you design a game around a mana system. Somebody needs to have the chance to do something first, and that something usually creates pressure in some form, whether it takes the form of pressuring face first or claiming the board before the opponent.
Any solution to make the benefit player 2 receives to be no more powerful and no less powerful than player 1 going first is mostly impossible; it will always slightly benefit one player more than the other player in some way.
I will say this, just for some food for thought, but not every deck benefits from going first. Some of my combo/OTK decks where you can't wild growth to ramp up your mana usually have nothing to do on turn 1 and little to do on turn 2.
It's worth mentioning that Shadowverse also uses the same battle mechanics as HS (attackers chooses what to hit). The devs posterino the first vs second stats in monthly balance patches and it's usually very even (they do something when it strays too far from 50%)
In Shadowverse, instead of a coin, the player going second receives an extra evolve point and gets to evolve a turn before their opponent. Evolving a minion generally gives it +2/+2 and rush, which allows players to catch up on board from behind. Obviously nothing as complicated as this can be implemented into hearthstone but it goes to show balancing first vs second is theoretically possible. Perhaps they should start with giving the player on the coin more than just a coin when they're otherwise behind half a crystal every turn and board initiative ...
If you don't think it's bad, here's someone posting and discussing their coin stats as a top legend rogue player over a fairly large sample size. Spoilers: their winrate is down by 10% on coin just like the OP
Legend with : S65 Freeze Mage, S57 Maly Gonk Druid, S57 "Okay" Shaman, S53 Boom-zooka Hunter, S53 Maly Tog Druid, S52 Wild Tog Druid ft.Blingtron, S50 Quest Rogue, S49 Dead Man's Warrior, S41 Wild Clown Fiesta Druid, S41 Hadronox Jade Druid, S40 Wild OTK Dragon Druid, S35 SMOrc Shaman, S33 Jade Druid, S22 Control Priest, S19 Control Priest