The meaning of uninteractive is something which lacks interaction.
Interaction are actions you can perform to affect something.
In Hearthstone, all decks can interact with Combo decks, OTK and non-OTK ones.
Interacting with these decks doesn't mean disrupting or destroying their strategy. Or rather, it is not limited to these. Interacting means taking any action to affect them.
The simple fact that they rarely use board presence also means they rarely use board presence. They have a Hero, just like you, and their Hero, unlike yours, it's usually wide open for constant actions. They don't have minions but they have a Hero that can be killed.
It is the simple fact that they still have a Hero regardless of the minions they play, that makes their decks interactive. Any action you take will normally affect their Hero, and considering both players need their Heroes alive to continue playing, whenever you take actions that affect the opponent's Hero, you are by default interacting with them, you are taking actions that affect them, and that universally forces them to react to you.
This is same principle as the stupid "Solitaire" comment thrown at the same decks.
You need to be incredibly stupid to believe that Combo decks play Solitaire in Hearthstone, that the player can play the entire game and disregard your actions completely. If that were possible, every Combo deck would be composed of X cards that made the Combo the deck is based upon, and the entire rest of the deck would be Card Draw Engines. Nothing else would be part of Combo decks because that is mathematically the most effective composition of a Combo deck.
However, because the opponent can always interact with a Combo deck, because the vast majority of actions the opponent takes will affect the Combo player, they are forced to include all kinds of Survival tools in the deck to account for this fact. No Combo player wants to have Area of Effect tools, Removal tools, Healing tools and so on, they are forced to have them in the deck because they cannot just play the game independently of what the opponent is doing, the opponent is always given the option to interact and force the Combo player to react.
My eyes hurt, you are basically saying you are interacting with your oponent when you play stuff to try to kill them and they remove it LUL
"He is not playing solitair because he actually has to remove your minions." Tell me how you interact with mechathun druid or resurrect priest. Obviously there is a SLIGHT interaction
your options are Smorc (or interaction with the enemy hero as you phrased it lol) In case of the mechathun druid, trying to get them into the sticky situation where he has more removal/minions than the oposite, so he is sitting with a wrath or an acolyte. that is some sick interaction my man
My eyes hurt, you are basically saying you are interacting with your oponent when you play stuff to try to kill them and they remove it LUL
"He is not playing solitair because he actually has to remove your minions." Tell me how you interact with mechathun druid or resurrect priest. Obviously there is a SLIGHT interaction
your options are Smorc (or interaction with the enemy hero as you phrased it lol) In case of the mechathun druid, trying to get them into the sticky situation where he has more removal/minions than the oposite, so he is sitting with a wrath or an acolyte. that is some sick interaction my man
It is strange, your eyes hurt, supposedly because you read what I wrote, but how come you didn't actually read it?
It's right there, it tells you what Interaction means. Interaction is an action which affect something. To interact with something is to make an action that affect that something.
Whenever you take an action against a Combo player, that action is going to affect the Combo player, nearly always it will cause the Combo player to react to your action. This is because your action affected the Combo player, which is the definition of interaction.
You took an action that affected your opponent, which means, you interacted with your opponent.
The opposite is also true, obviously. If you take an action, and that action doesn't affect the opponent, that means you didn't interact with the opponent. When there are no existing actions that can affect your opponent, that means he is uninteractible.
Important to note, EXISTING actions, not current possible actions. For something to be uninteracitive, there needs to be no existing actions to affect it, at all, under all possible circumstances. It is possible to be uninteractive under certain circumstances in Hearthstone, but it is impossible to be uninteractive by definition.
You can create scenarios where an opponent is uninteractive is what that means, but you cannot make an uninteractive opponent.
A Pirate Warrior can kill a Midrange Hunter by turn 4 without the Hunter having any possible actions, just imagine his hand starts at 4 Mana. That made the Pirate Warrior uninteractive in that specific scenario. That doesn't make Pirate Warrior uninteractive.
My man, by that logic, hero powering is also interacting with your oponent, as for example you need to do 2 dmg more to kill a warrior, if he hero powers once. By your logic this game is interactive af, right now. But that is just arguing about the term "interactive", I don't think we need to argue about how the word describes a certain condition, but if you find that the game needs to get more interactive.
so my question, do you think the game should change in a direction? Because to me it seems like you are just covering your ears saying everything is perfect as it is. I personally can say i am not having much fun in hearthstone at the moment.
What I find uninteractive is dying on turn 5 to mole razormaw animal companion. I get to play like one card before I die, and if it’s a minion then the hunter just ignores it and I die anyway.
Interactivity in HS is a bit subjective - there isn't any interaction at all, in the typical sense of "interrupting the opponent's action," as is common in IRL games. HS is designed from the ground up for each player to input a complete set of commands during their turn, without any opportunity for the opponent to interrupt that set of commands.
HS has a kind of pseudo-interaction - one player does something on their turn, and the other player potentially reacts to it. But often enough, they don't - lots of decks in HS can be weakly interactive in this sense. Aggro decks might ignore the opponent's board if there are no Taunts; Control decks often simply whiff, and don't have any early game plays, or simply pass in the early- to mid-game and clear everything with AoE, or they heal, or they freeze, etc.; Combo decks often spend a turn or two drawing their combo, rather than responding to the opponent's developing board; Mid-range usually wins with burst damage, and will "go face" in order to set up a next-turn lethal through burst damage from hand, etc . . .
In the olden days, folks used to complain that the most interactive deck in the game, Zoo, was weakly interactive for the opposite reason - all it did was interact with the opponent's board, often clearing it, and going face with whatever it had remaining, thereby depriving the opponent of any opportunity for them to interact with their own board . . .
If "interactivity" is equal to "performing any action against your opponent", then the concept is useless for discussion purposes.
Sheer relativity into nihilism.
We want a meaningful definition of "interactivity", or another analogous keyword that contributes to the understanding of the 'uneasiness' we feel when facing some decks.
If "interactivity" is equal to "performing any action against your opponent", then the concept is useless for discussion purposes.
Sheer relativity into nihilism.
We want a meaningful definition of "interactivity", or another analogous keyword that contributes to the understanding of the 'uneasiness' we feel when facing some decks.
I might be able to help here.
Let's say I had a Bloodlust deck: A shaman deck centered around minions with a win condition of blasting the opponent's face with the buffed up board to win. However, to do this I first need said board and to have a clear target towards my opponent.
My opponent then has the ability to slow that down. They can kill my minions. They can establish a strong taunt wall. They can keep themselves healthy enough to be unreachable. They can pressure me so that I can't focus on establishing my board. Thus there's many ways you can directly keep me from my victory.
This, I think, is what people referred to by 'interactivity': the range of options that I have to stopping you. The dream then is to have both sides feel that way: both trying to balance pushing their win condition with disrupting their opponent. "Do me face, Do me Trade" basically, without the answer you oldies already spat out.
Then there's decks like old freeze mage. With that deck, you had limited options as your minions are typically rendered useless. You can push for aggression, but only if your deck is tuned for that. If not..what do you do? Such ideas mean that your best way of interacting with a freeze mage deck is at the deck selection screen; press the right button there before you hit "play" and you win.
(yes that's slightly exaggerating but it's to mark the overall point)
Now we can nitpick over what decks offer interactivity or not, but in the least, I think the above is the common ground we are reaching for.
This is of course a typical pro team-5 comment (they are wise and if you don't get it you are to blame). Thinning out the conception of interaction to influence is fundamentally not the way interaction is suppose to be: give your opponent the chance to react in a skillful, meaningful way. A matchup against an OTK-deck is by that definition already an 'action affected your opponent.' That is totally missing the point.
It is an argument in line of: there's skill in the game, look every month the same people reach legend, so there must be skill in the game....... well playing a mindless deck better than your opponent is hardly a sign of skill, does it? The skill floor decides wether a deck is requires skill, not its ceiling.
The problem is of course the steepness of RPS: If you have an unfavorable matchup there is no point in playing on, conceding is the only right thing to do. That ladies and gentleman is the real problem. Lack of interaction is just a spin- off effect.
Finally a lack and sense of playing a game of skill is fundamental to any game. As it seems hearthstone is a 'honorable' exception. Glory for the target audience.
My eyes hurt, you are basically saying you are interacting with your oponent when you play stuff to try to kill them and they remove it LUL
"He is not playing solitair because he actually has to remove your minions." Tell me how you interact with mechathun druid or resurrect priest. Obviously there is a SLIGHT interaction
your options are Smorc (or interaction with the enemy hero as you phrased it lol) In case of the mechathun druid, trying to get them into the sticky situation where he has more removal/minions than the oposite, so he is sitting with a wrath or an acolyte. that is some sick interaction my man
It is strange, your eyes hurt, supposedly because you read what I wrote, but how come you didn't actually read it?
It's right there, it tells you what Interaction means. Interaction is an action which affect something. To interact with something is to make an action that affect that something.
Whenever you take an action against a Combo player, that action is going to affect the Combo player, nearly always it will cause the Combo player to react to your action. This is because your action affected the Combo player, which is the definition of interaction.
You took an action that affected your opponent, which means, you interacted with your opponent.
The opposite is also true, obviously. If you take an action, and that action doesn't affect the opponent, that means you didn't interact with the opponent. When there are no existing actions that can affect your opponent, that means he is uninteractible.
Important to note, EXISTING actions, not current possible actions. For something to be uninteracitive, there needs to be no existing actions to affect it, at all, under all possible circumstances. It is possible to be uninteractive under certain circumstances in Hearthstone, but it is impossible to be uninteractive by definition.
You can create scenarios where an opponent is uninteractive is what that means, but you cannot make an uninteractive opponent.
A Pirate Warrior can kill a Midrange Hunter by turn 4 without the Hunter having any possible actions, just imagine his hand starts at 4 Mana. That made the Pirate Warrior uninteractive in that specific scenario. That doesn't make Pirate Warrior uninteractive.
This is of course a typical pro team-5 comment (they are wise and if you don't get it you are to blame). Thinning out the conception of interaction to influence is fundamentally not the way interaction is suppose to be: give your opponent the chance to react in a skillful, meaningful way. A matchup against an OTK-deck is by that definition already an 'action affected your opponent.' That is totally missing the point.
It is an argument in line of: there's skill in the game, look every month the same people reach legend, so there must be skill in the game....... well playing a mindless deck better than your opponent is hardly a sign of skill, does it? The skill floor decides wether a deck is requires skill, not its ceiling.
The problem is of course the steepness of RPS: If you have an unfavorable matchup there is no point in playing on, conceding is the only right thing to do. That ladies and gentleman is the real problem. Lack of interaction is just a spin-off effect.
Finally a lack and sense of playing a game of skill is fundamental to any game. As it seems hearthstone is a 'honorable' exception. Glory for the target audience.
If "interactivity" is equal to "performing any action against your opponent", then the concept is useless for discussion purposes.
Sheer relativity into nihilism.
We want a meaningful definition of "interactivity", or another analogous keyword that contributes to the understanding of the 'uneasiness' we feel when facing some decks.
I might be able to help here.
Let's say I had a Bloodlust deck: A shaman deck centered around minions with a win condition of blasting the opponent's face with the buffed up board to win. However, to do this I first need said board and to have a clear target towards my opponent.
My opponent then has the ability to slow that down. They can kill my minions. They can establish a strong taunt wall. They can keep themselves healthy enough to be unreachable. They can pressure me so that I can't focus on establishing my board. Thus there's many ways you can directly keep me from my victory.
This, I think, is what people referred to by 'interactivity': the range of options that I have to stopping you. The dream then is to have both sides feel that way: both trying to balance pushing their win condition with disrupting their opponent. "Do me face, Do me Trade" basically, without the answer you oldies already spat out.
Then there's decks like old freeze mage. With that deck, you had limited options as your minions are typically rendered useless. You can push for aggression, but only if your deck is tuned for that. If not..what do you do? Such ideas mean that your best way of interacting with a freeze mage deck is at the deck selection screen; press the right button there before you hit "play" and you win.
(yes that's slightly exaggerating but it's to mark the overall point)
Now we can nitpick over what decks offer interactivity or not, but in the least, I think the above is the common ground we are reaching for.
My man, by that logic, hero powering is also interacting with your oponent, as for example you need to do 2 dmg more to kill a warrior, if he hero powers once. By your logic this game is interactive af, right now. But that is just arguing about the term "interactive", I don't think we need to argue about how the word describes a certain condition, but if you find that the game needs to get more interactive.
so my question, do you think the game should change in a direction? Because to me it seems like you are just covering your ears saying everything is perfect as it is. I personally can say i am not having much fun in hearthstone at the moment.
You mean by the logic of looking at words by their definition?
And yes, Hero Powering is Interacting with the Opponent, if that Hero Power affects the opponent.
You can argue whether decks are more or less interactive, because that is perfectly reasonable. Stating that decks are uninteractive, however, is just illogical. They are not Uninteractive, they simply allow provide less avenues for interaction, which is true. That is how Combo decks work in every single card game. By their definition and game plan, they will always provide less interaction options than normal decks. Their game plan depends on the player being able to combine certain cards and if your combination can easily be disrupted, your deck is completely unplayable.
Now do I think the game should change direction. Not exactly. It seems obvious to me that Blizzard has clearly been favouring Combo playstyle in this Year of expansions, where as last year it was more focused on Control, and Old Gods saw an Aggro focus. I don't mind this. I am certain that this 2019 year will see focus on something else, and that is fine. While I personally enjoy Combo the most, I understand their idea, rotating their focus each year. 2018 was good for people like me, and I am expecting Aggro to be the next focus, which will be very annoying for me, but I think that is fair, they shouldn't focus on the same playstyle all the time, rotating is good so players can take breaks and return if they don't enjoy the focus.
If "interactivity" is equal to "performing any action against your opponent", then the concept is useless for discussion purposes.
Sheer relativity into nihilism.
We want a meaningful definition of "interactivity", or another analogous keyword that contributes to the understanding of the 'uneasiness' we feel when facing some decks.
You should search for words that properly represent your concept, rather than try to force a different meaning to already existing words and concepts.
Do Combo decks allow for less interactions and avenues for them? Yes. Are they uninteractive? No.
This is specially important because the uneasiness felt varies with the person. Each person feels uneasy about different decks because they themselves play different decks. Combo players also feel uneasy about Aggro decks, you lose a lot of games because you draw your deck in a bad order and find yourself unable to perform any action to affect the opponent, but that is not because Aggro decks lack existence of those actions, it's just because the circumstances create that position for the Combo deck, and the same applies for any playstyle you play. Your predator strategy will always leave you with that uneasy feeling. Reality is, you are their prey, and you do feel extremely vulnerable, uneasy.
This is of course a typical pro team-5 comment (they are wise and if you don't get it you are to blame). Thinning out the conception of interaction to influence is fundamentally not the way interaction is suppose to be: give your opponent the chance to react in a skillful, meaningful way. A matchup against an OTK-deck is by that definition already an 'action affected your opponent.' That is totally missing the point.
It is an argument in line of: there's skill in the game, look every month the same people reach legend, so there must be skill in the game....... well playing a mindless deck better than your opponent is hardly a sign of skill, does it? The skill floor decides wether a deck is requires skill, not its ceiling.
The problem is of course the steepness of RPS: If you have an unfavorable matchup there is no point in playing on, conceding is the only right thing to do. That ladies and gentleman is the real problem. Lack of interaction is just a spin-off effect.
Finally a lack and sense of playing a game of skill is fundamental to any game. As it seems hearthstone is a 'honorable' exception. Glory for the target audience.
I'm not pro or against Team 5. I simply understand their design philosophy. I agree with some of their decisions, and heavily disagree with others.
No. In fact, you are trying to give Interaction some meaning that you want it to be. Interaction is not supposed to be disruption. Disruption is a possibility of an interaction, but reality is interaction is not limited to disruption, it involves any action that affects the opponent.
There is no problem with RPS. That model represents how a Strategy Card Game works if you remove RNG aspects and perfect players Technical Play. The real problem is players feel entitled to wins they don't actually deserve or earn. It is far easier to blame the model as opposed to understanding that the opponent was favoured and he played as well or even better than you. Many, very many players are incapable of realising that the opponent is playing well or even better.
(I'm not saying there are no undeserved or unearned wins from the opponents, there are, but the majority are not the case)
The uneasiness of a Combo deck against Aggro cannot fall under "uninteractivity" as felt by the Combo side: they can discuss (or complain) with another concept-word.
interacting != affecting (at least for discussion purposes on HS: anything ultimately interacts with everything in the universe, but that's beyond the point). Indeed the etymology of the two words remarks a subtle but fundamental difference. Inter- implies a strict dual relation, while ad- implies something that is forced upon.
SO, if Mecha'thun and Even Paladin play against their opponents in ways that do not differ simply on the mana curve, then there must be a key concept to measure what's going on.
Please read my post in 1st page, in case you didn't. I tried to make it clear that we should understand (measure) "interactive decks" with various degrees, rather than a b/w picture of it (that would explain nothing and lead to no point).
EDITED for clarity (again. I should stop posting before deciding the final version of my posts...)
The uneasiness of a Combo deck against Aggro cannot fall under "uninteractivity" as felt by the Combo side: they can discuss (or complain) with another concept-word.
interacting != affecting (at least for discussion purposes on HS: anything ultimately interacts with everything in the universe, but that's beyond the point). Indeed the etymology of the two words remarks a subtle but fundamental difference. Inter- implies a dual relation, while ab- implies something that is forced upon.
SO, if Mecha'thun and Even Paladin interact with their opponents in different ways, then there must be a key concept to measure what's going on.
Please read my post in 1st page, in case you didn't. I tried to make it clear that we should understand (measure) "interactive decks" with various degrees, rather than a b/w picture of it (that would explain nothing and lead to no point).
That first paragraph is honestly quite stupid. What is this dumb appropriation of words? If a word is being used for it's meaning and is being applied correctly, then it is the word that should be word. I wasn't aware you were trying to compete for what certain groups can use as words and others cannot. Either a word applies or it doesn't.
Yes, Interacting is different from Affecting. Interacting is performing an action which affects something. You interact by performing an action that affects your opponent.
There are different avenues players can take to interact with their opponents, not all avenues are available to interact with all players. You don't interact with Odd Paladin in the same way you interact with a Mecha'Thun deck, but you can interact with both, you simply interact differently. This should not be surprising because they are different strategies, the ways you can interact with them are, therefore, different.
As for your first post, you are absolutely correct here:
Actually, "uninteractive" can also mean "whatever i dislike" for some... Since i've read people using the term as an argument against Odd/Even...
People use that word for anything they don't like, when the word itself means something different, and that is the problem.
The Interactive Action I don't see the point, and the Uninteractive decks is flawed by the fact that it doesn't consider the meaning of the word in the first place. There is no more or less uninteractive decks. It is a Black and White situation if you want to talk about Uninteractive because by default, if it is uninteractive, then it lacks any interaction. There exist no actions that can affect it, so there are no degrees of uninteractiveness.
Uninteractive means 0 Actions, you cannot "grade" zeros, there is nothing to grade per say, it is void.
What you can do, and should do, is grade the interactiveness of decks. All decks are interactive, even Combo decks. They are simply less interactive than others.
You can roughly grade them as:
Combo 3
Control 5
Aggro 6
Midrange 10
With 10 being the most interactive. An Uninteractive would be 0, no interactivity. This considers to all aspects of interaction, not simply the ability to disrupt their game plan.
Aggro might seem strange at first, but the lower score comes to the huge limitation created by RNG, the Card Draw order. This is extremely influential against Aggro.
So we kinda agree. When people speak of a "deck being uninteractive" they should mean only the grade 3 or lower (independently of archetype). That is, an approximation of "extremely uninteractive" into "uninteractive". Any other usage (ie "heavily uninteractive" into "uninteractive"), is an exaggeration (or salt). Sadly, language proceeds by approximations, but if we want to understand and discuss, we have to be as precise as possible.
That's why you are completely wrong about b/w. It is just an approximation of yours, and a bad one (ie an exaggeration), because it does not reflect the reality of things, and it leads to a dead end. My intermediate definition about Actions was exactly to explain the complexity of the matter, and clarify the concept of "degrees", as applied to "interactivity", which is lost in common discussion, with the current result of people being lost while abusing words.
And no, i am not appropriating of words, I am trying to lead them into some meaning (ie removing said exaggerations or salt), in order to make things clear. My first paragraph may be badly expressed, but it follows the same logic I applied to my other posts. It is definitely not dumb or stupid.
PS: You repeatedly mentioned what you call 'grade 3' being still interactive on the sake of not being entirely uninteractive (your grade 0). I did not call it dumb or stupid, even if I should have, since it was the corruption of a word and its degrees of meaning. And a ridiculous sophism.
Lastly - if you really want true interactivity in hearthstone there is only one mode in the game that provides it consistantly, ARENA. The better player wins far more often in arena. Mid-range decks taking it in turns to trade minions, slow gameplay, calculated, superior in every way and always will be, till you get bored of mid-range battles. Constructed will aways be full of unineractive decks, fair cards and combos do not see play there, at all.
ARENA is where the best player wins? lol what? No, arena is where the luckiest player wins. I've dabbled in it and constantly get pitted against people who got to draft something like zoo lock or pirate warrior. If you have good drafts you can win. A really good player can get garbage drafts and just lose all of their games. Not only is your definition of "Uninteractive," really bad, but so is your definition of, "best player."
So we agree. When people speak of a "deck being uninteractive" they should mean only the grade 3 or lower (independently of archetype). That is, an approximation of "extremely uninteractive" into "uninteractive". Any other usage ("heavily uninteractive" into "uninteractive"), is an exaggeration (or salt).
And no, i am not appropriating of words, I am trying to lead them into some meaning (ie removing said exaggerations or salt), in order to make things clear. My first paragraph might be badly expressed, but it follows the same logic I applied to my other posts. It is definitely not dumb or stupid.
PS: You repeatedly mentioned what you call 'grade 3' being still interactive on the sake of not being entirely uninteractive. I did not call it dumb or stupid, even if I should have, since it was the corruption of a word and its degrees of meaning. And a ridiculous sophism.
There is no extremely uninteractive, that is the whole point. Zero interaction is Zero interaction. There is no Extremely Zero, only Zero. Either it is interactive or it is not interactive. You cannot say it is very Zero interactive or little Zero Interactive, Zero itself is not modified. Or in an easier mathematical way: You cannot have 10 times more uninteractive because 10 x 0 is still 0.
Combo decks, by definition, are decks that allow lower interaction, when it comes to disruption. They allow the other kinds of interaction the same as other playstyles, they simply allow much lower disruption interaction, otherwise, the playstyle doesn't work, it is unplayable.
This is the most accurate way to express what you mean. Combo decks, decks with low level of disruption interaction.
By "extremely uninteractive" I mean your grade 3.
Nobody uses "uninteractive" by seriously meaning "grade 0". They typically mean 3+. You can call it an exaggeration (it is actually an approximation, within the domain of reality, unless they meant 5+ by the same word), but you cannot completely reverse a grade 3 and call it "interactive" by the abuse of opposites (and the removal of intermediate degrees).
Your grade 0 is beyond this discussion, and possibly beyond reality itself.
I think we agree on most things (in particular about abusing words).
The unsettled point is whether "uninteractive" should or should not be used to indicate grade ~3. You attribute "uninteractive" to mean exclusively grade 0. But we both agree grade 0 does not exist in the game (or in reality).
My point is that since grade ~3 is towards the lower pole, and a lazy approximation of "almost entirely uninteractive" (grade 3) into "uninteractive" (ideally grade 0) is still useful for discussion purposes, without falling into the abuse of words. Crucially, as long as people do not abuse it to indicate grade 5+ (which happens more often than what'd be good, but trying to balance it using "interactive" to indicate grade 3 does not help the confusion).
A different point would be using another keyword. Why not. But "interactive" seems quite established so far.
What I think is pointless is having a keyword meaning something closely related to what we need to express our issue, but being unable to use it because with no adjectives it would not indicate its grade 0.
"It's cold". Now cold means various things, not necessarily 0°K. It could also mean 0°C, and it would be useful to roughly understand temperature in a place, while being an approximation. What's wrong, because it is misleading, is if people use "it's cold" when it is 15°C. That's an exaggeration, (a selfish one, since one could just say "I'm cold" and be still understood). But we can't deny the usefulness of "cold" or "hot".
______
As for the real issue, I think "uninteractive" decks or grade 3 are perfectly fine in the game, but crucially, at the condition that they are consistently relegated to a small population in the meta, implying they have a wide spectrum of bad matchups. They are ok as "tech deck" in case the meta goes incredibly greedy. But that should be it, otherwise it's just frustrating for the average player (at least, with current game mechanics).
I am not sure of current numbers of Mecha'thun or Miracle Druid and similar decks, but I think they need to be kept under investigation, especially when they will fall into Wild-only: any more broken survival tool in their arsenal may lead into entirely broken meta.
Interactivity in HS is a bit subjective[...] HS is designed from the ground up for each player to input a complete set of commands during their turn, without any opportunity for the opponent to interrupt that set of commands.[...]
[...]
HS has a kind of pseudo-interaction - one player does something on their turn, and the other player potentially reacts to it[....]
Most accurate point on the thread. Barring time limits, the sun and moon could each take their turn while in the sky, and the game would go on without issue or anything of value lost. It a fundamental point about the game we can't really do anything about without completely overhauling the game
Interactivity in HS is a bit subjective[...] HS is designed from the ground up for each player to input a complete set of commands during their turn, without any opportunity for the opponent to interrupt that set of commands.[...]
[...]
HS has a kind of pseudo-interaction - one player does something on their turn, and the other player potentially reacts to it[....]
Most accurate point on the thread. Barring time limits, the sun and moon could each take their turn while in the sky, and the game would go on without issue or anything of value lost. It a fundamental point about the game we can't really do anything about without completely overhauling the game
Baku ate the Moon. But don't blame her - she thought it was a cookie.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My eyes hurt, you are basically saying you are interacting with your oponent when you play stuff to try to kill them and they remove it LUL
"He is not playing solitair because he actually has to remove your minions."
Tell me how you interact with mechathun druid or resurrect priest. Obviously there is a SLIGHT interaction
your options are
Smorc (or interaction with the enemy hero as you phrased it lol)
In case of the mechathun druid, trying to get them into the sticky situation where he has more removal/minions than the oposite, so he is sitting with a wrath or an acolyte. that is some sick interaction my man
My man, by that logic, hero powering is also interacting with your oponent, as for example you need to do 2 dmg more to kill a warrior, if he hero powers once. By your logic this game is interactive af, right now. But that is just arguing about the term "interactive", I don't think we need to argue about how the word describes a certain condition, but if you find that the game needs to get more interactive.
so my question, do you think the game should change in a direction? Because to me it seems like you are just covering your ears saying everything is perfect as it is. I personally can say i am not having much fun in hearthstone at the moment.
What I find uninteractive is dying on turn 5 to mole razormaw animal companion. I get to play like one card before I die, and if it’s a minion then the hunter just ignores it and I die anyway.
Interactivity in HS is a bit subjective - there isn't any interaction at all, in the typical sense of "interrupting the opponent's action," as is common in IRL games. HS is designed from the ground up for each player to input a complete set of commands during their turn, without any opportunity for the opponent to interrupt that set of commands.
HS has a kind of pseudo-interaction - one player does something on their turn, and the other player potentially reacts to it. But often enough, they don't - lots of decks in HS can be weakly interactive in this sense. Aggro decks might ignore the opponent's board if there are no Taunts; Control decks often simply whiff, and don't have any early game plays, or simply pass in the early- to mid-game and clear everything with AoE, or they heal, or they freeze, etc.; Combo decks often spend a turn or two drawing their combo, rather than responding to the opponent's developing board; Mid-range usually wins with burst damage, and will "go face" in order to set up a next-turn lethal through burst damage from hand, etc . . .
In the olden days, folks used to complain that the most interactive deck in the game, Zoo, was weakly interactive for the opposite reason - all it did was interact with the opponent's board, often clearing it, and going face with whatever it had remaining, thereby depriving the opponent of any opportunity for them to interact with their own board . . .
"Let the hunt begin!" "Bring it on!" -Player interaction.
If "interactivity" is equal to "performing any action against your opponent", then the concept is useless for discussion purposes.
Sheer relativity into nihilism.
We want a meaningful definition of "interactivity", or another analogous keyword that contributes to the understanding of the 'uneasiness' we feel when facing some decks.
I might be able to help here.
Let's say I had a Bloodlust deck: A shaman deck centered around minions with a win condition of blasting the opponent's face with the buffed up board to win. However, to do this I first need said board and to have a clear target towards my opponent.
My opponent then has the ability to slow that down. They can kill my minions. They can establish a strong taunt wall. They can keep themselves healthy enough to be unreachable. They can pressure me so that I can't focus on establishing my board. Thus there's many ways you can directly keep me from my victory.
This, I think, is what people referred to by 'interactivity': the range of options that I have to stopping you. The dream then is to have both sides feel that way: both trying to balance pushing their win condition with disrupting their opponent. "Do me face, Do me Trade" basically, without the answer you oldies already spat out.
Then there's decks like old freeze mage. With that deck, you had limited options as your minions are typically rendered useless. You can push for aggression, but only if your deck is tuned for that. If not..what do you do? Such ideas mean that your best way of interacting with a freeze mage deck is at the deck selection screen; press the right button there before you hit "play" and you win.
(yes that's slightly exaggerating but it's to mark the overall point)
Now we can nitpick over what decks offer interactivity or not, but in the least, I think the above is the common ground we are reaching for.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
I agree. I actually tried to give an even more precise definition of interactive and uninteractive (in the first page).
I was referring to those who say anything is interactive, in a way. And that's useless sophism.
This is of course a typical pro team-5 comment (they are wise and if you don't get it you are to blame). Thinning out the conception of interaction to influence is fundamentally not the way interaction is suppose to be: give your opponent the chance to react in a skillful, meaningful way. A matchup against an OTK-deck is by that definition already an 'action affected your opponent.' That is totally missing the point.
It is an argument in line of: there's skill in the game, look every month the same people reach legend, so there must be skill in the game....... well playing a mindless deck better than your opponent is hardly a sign of skill, does it? The skill floor decides wether a deck is requires skill, not its ceiling.
The problem is of course the steepness of RPS: If you have an unfavorable matchup there is no point in playing on, conceding is the only right thing to do. That ladies and gentleman is the real problem. Lack of interaction is just a spin- off effect.
Finally a lack and sense of playing a game of skill is fundamental to any game. As it seems hearthstone is a 'honorable' exception. Glory for the target audience.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
This is of course a typical pro team-5 comment (they are wise and if you don't get it you are to blame). Thinning out the conception of interaction to influence is fundamentally not the way interaction is suppose to be: give your opponent the chance to react in a skillful, meaningful way. A matchup against an OTK-deck is by that definition already an 'action affected your opponent.' That is totally missing the point.
It is an argument in line of: there's skill in the game, look every month the same people reach legend, so there must be skill in the game....... well playing a mindless deck better than your opponent is hardly a sign of skill, does it? The skill floor decides wether a deck is requires skill, not its ceiling.
The problem is of course the steepness of RPS: If you have an unfavorable matchup there is no point in playing on, conceding is the only right thing to do. That ladies and gentleman is the real problem. Lack of interaction is just a spin-off effect.
Finally a lack and sense of playing a game of skill is fundamental to any game. As it seems hearthstone is a 'honorable' exception. Glory for the target audience.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Well, if anybody uses different and variable degrees of hyperbole, non-colloquial discussion is pointless.
Doomhammer also worked well.
The uneasiness of a Combo deck against Aggro cannot fall under "uninteractivity" as felt by the Combo side: they can discuss (or complain) with another concept-word.
interacting != affecting (at least for discussion purposes on HS: anything ultimately interacts with everything in the universe, but that's beyond the point). Indeed the etymology of the two words remarks a subtle but fundamental difference. Inter- implies a strict dual relation, while ad- implies something that is forced upon.
SO, if Mecha'thun and Even Paladin play against their opponents in ways that do not differ simply on the mana curve, then there must be a key concept to measure what's going on.
Please read my post in 1st page, in case you didn't. I tried to make it clear that we should understand (measure) "interactive decks" with various degrees, rather than a b/w picture of it (that would explain nothing and lead to no point).
EDITED for clarity (again. I should stop posting before deciding the final version of my posts...)
So we kinda agree. When people speak of a "deck being uninteractive" they should mean only the grade 3 or lower (independently of archetype). That is, an approximation of "extremely uninteractive" into "uninteractive". Any other usage (ie "heavily uninteractive" into "uninteractive"), is an exaggeration (or salt). Sadly, language proceeds by approximations, but if we want to understand and discuss, we have to be as precise as possible.
That's why you are completely wrong about b/w. It is just an approximation of yours, and a bad one (ie an exaggeration), because it does not reflect the reality of things, and it leads to a dead end. My intermediate definition about Actions was exactly to explain the complexity of the matter, and clarify the concept of "degrees", as applied to "interactivity", which is lost in common discussion, with the current result of people being lost while abusing words.
And no, i am not appropriating of words, I am trying to lead them into some meaning (ie removing said exaggerations or salt), in order to make things clear. My first paragraph may be badly expressed, but it follows the same logic I applied to my other posts. It is definitely not dumb or stupid.
PS: You repeatedly mentioned what you call 'grade 3' being still interactive on the sake of not being entirely uninteractive (your grade 0). I did not call it dumb or stupid, even if I should have, since it was the corruption of a word and its degrees of meaning. And a ridiculous sophism.
ARENA is where the best player wins? lol what? No, arena is where the luckiest player wins. I've dabbled in it and constantly get pitted against people who got to draft something like zoo lock or pirate warrior. If you have good drafts you can win. A really good player can get garbage drafts and just lose all of their games. Not only is your definition of "Uninteractive," really bad, but so is your definition of, "best player."
"Uninteractive" refer to your deck's win condition
Clearing boards over and over doesn't matter. What matters is that the card the deck uses to win can be interacted with before they do their jobs.
By "extremely uninteractive" I mean your grade 3.
Nobody uses "uninteractive" by seriously meaning "grade 0". They typically mean 3+. You can call it an exaggeration (it is actually an approximation, within the domain of reality, unless they meant 5+ by the same word), but you cannot completely reverse a grade 3 and call it "interactive" by the abuse of opposites (and the removal of intermediate degrees).
Your grade 0 is beyond this discussion, and possibly beyond reality itself.
I think we agree on most things (in particular about abusing words).
The unsettled point is whether "uninteractive" should or should not be used to indicate grade ~3. You attribute "uninteractive" to mean exclusively grade 0. But we both agree grade 0 does not exist in the game (or in reality).
My point is that since grade ~3 is towards the lower pole, and a lazy approximation of "almost entirely uninteractive" (grade 3) into "uninteractive" (ideally grade 0) is still useful for discussion purposes, without falling into the abuse of words. Crucially, as long as people do not abuse it to indicate grade 5+ (which happens more often than what'd be good, but trying to balance it using "interactive" to indicate grade 3 does not help the confusion).
A different point would be using another keyword. Why not. But "interactive" seems quite established so far.
What I think is pointless is having a keyword meaning something closely related to what we need to express our issue, but being unable to use it because with no adjectives it would not indicate its grade 0.
"It's cold". Now cold means various things, not necessarily 0°K. It could also mean 0°C, and it would be useful to roughly understand temperature in a place, while being an approximation. What's wrong, because it is misleading, is if people use "it's cold" when it is 15°C. That's an exaggeration, (a selfish one, since one could just say "I'm cold" and be still understood). But we can't deny the usefulness of "cold" or "hot".
______
As for the real issue, I think "uninteractive" decks or grade 3 are perfectly fine in the game, but crucially, at the condition that they are consistently relegated to a small population in the meta, implying they have a wide spectrum of bad matchups. They are ok as "tech deck" in case the meta goes incredibly greedy. But that should be it, otherwise it's just frustrating for the average player (at least, with current game mechanics).
I am not sure of current numbers of Mecha'thun or Miracle Druid and similar decks, but I think they need to be kept under investigation, especially when they will fall into Wild-only: any more broken survival tool in their arsenal may lead into entirely broken meta.
Most accurate point on the thread. Barring time limits, the sun and moon could each take their turn while in the sky, and the game would go on without issue or anything of value lost. It a fundamental point about the game we can't really do anything about without completely overhauling the game
Baku ate the Moon. But don't blame her - she thought it was a cookie.