Of course it sucks to lose, and winning feels good. What I think would fix the game is if they gave you the 10 gold reward if you made it to turn 10, despite losing. And played a certain amount of cards, to actually prove you tried to win. Could people abuse this? Sure, but it would help.
I think the ladder experience would be much better, if it would work like a scoreboard.
The idea is this:
No ranks, no stars, just numbers. At the start of a season, everyone goes down to zero. You can achieve plus numbers by playing the game, despite the game's end.
Let's say, the winner gains 80-100 point after a game, and the defeated player 5-15 after a loss. In this way, you didn't feel, like you just wasted your time. Also, if you go full concede at the start of every match, you only put the enemy player above you, so even if you get some points, the winners still gets better.
To avoid the Aggro grind, the points could be given by played cards or played turns.
I'm not a game developer, but this would be a good sytem imo.
Ah, the disgusting US ''everyone is a winner'' mindset, where losers are meant to be rewarded for sucking at something...then again, what would you expect from someone whose ego is so fragile that they need to add people after they lose just so that they can whine about it.
Losers should be punished and winners should be rewarded. Only through loss and punishment will the losers ever strive to learn how to improve. If you want a different approach to the loser/winner system, Pokemon Online TCG makes the winner progress through ranks while the loser stays in one spot until the win a game. They don't lose ranks, they don't win anything, they just stay in one place.
Also, if you're gonna throw random buzzwords such as libtard and leftist at learn what they mean and put them into proper context.
The amount of retardism in the answers to this topic is.... I wanted to say baffling or something, but I've become cynical enough not get baffled anymore.
This was a really nice conversation starter and a super imterestong topic even beyond Hearthstone! (Too bad the OP should have started a new "nerf this"-thread, so these neglects could have carried on to posting their usual "this again, go to salt thread" responses.)
The thing about losing in Hearthstone is so stressfull because very often it is due to a significant luck factor. In other games I have actually enjoyed (to some degree!) the games I've lost because I have felt like I have learned something and seen some ingenious plays by my opponent.
Another thing about Hearthstone is that I feel like the the atmosphere is hostile. The amount of bm and opponents rubbing it in is so huge that I tend to que into matches with a negativity to start with (yes sherlock! this is my view/problem, but I think it has some merits to back that feeling). I haven't played Gwent much, but I think the system they had was marvelous! You could cheer your opponent after a match with a tiny bit of dust if you CHOSE to. That immediately creates a more supporting field, and getting a handshake after a game leaves a better taste in your mouth than just a soulless lost match with a tiny pinch of bm to really make you feel sooooo goooood!
The amount of retardism in the answers to this topic is.... I wanted to say baffling or something, but I've become cynical enough not get baffled anymore.
This was a really nice conversation starter and a super imterestong topic even beyond Hearthstone! (Too bad the OP should have started a new "nerf this"-thread, so these neglects could have carried on to posting their usual "this again, go to salt thread" responses.)
WTF??? Ok, ok, on behalf of all the Hearthpwners who posted in this thread, we are sorry for not being at the the same intellectual level as you, mr. Dirtymo, you superior human being. XD
Ah, the disgusting US ''everyone is a winner'' mindset, where losers are meant to be rewarded for sucking at something...then again, what would you expect from someone whose ego is so fragile that they need to add people after they lose just so that they can whine about it.
Losers should be punished and winners should be rewarded. Only through loss and punishment will the losers ever strive to learn how to improve. If you want a different approach to the loser/winner system, Pokemon Online TCG makes the winner progress through ranks while the loser stays in one spot until the win a game. They don't lose ranks, they don't win anything, they just stay in one place.
Also, if you're gonna throw random buzzwords such as libtard and leftist at learn what they mean and put them into proper context.
This mindset isn't unique to the US, the desire to encourage the less able exists all over the world man. Your attitude is about as unique as well, standard rightwing paranoia and bitterness. Believe it or not society actually functions slightly better when the 'losers' aren't kicked in the balls continually in every aspect of life.
This really has F all to do with hearthstone though, which is head to head game and needs a winner and a loser from a match. It's just a game.
I can sense your fingers tingling to call me libtard or snowflake, but bare with me! In this, short, thread, I will try to explain why loss evasion is a thing and will ask you how to add this to a given computer game.
Most people hate to lose because inherently we are afraid of losing value, things, family members, lovers, keys...the list is endless. What we gained, we hate to lose, because sometimes our efforts are denied and on top of that, what follows in today's "I am winning" societies is sneer.
Just think of the last time you developed a fine board and bam Mechathun destroys your dreams, your number is diminished, 30 mins of close evaluation, card reading, keeping your ae are denied, nill and void.
How do you feel? Happy?
Property is a defining aspect of an proprietor society and is associated with success and positive traits. Taking this away, takes away self esteem and sometimes reason. Want prove? Just go to youtube and watch gamer rage videos.
These people are angry, yes, we should deride them, mock them, feel superior? Well, for my part, this is not a desirable reaction. So, I am asking myself and you:
What could be the alternative?
Tell me, how you would design a game that does not punish the loser by taking away hard earned currency of any given type and does not favour the winner solely.
I am curious.
Competition is a healthy aspect of the human nature. It makes us strive to do better. When something is on the line, we fight harder. Winning then in turn also feel better, and we actively hone our skills.
I realize participation trophies and “let’s not keep score” is popular in today’s deteriorating society, but to me it’s BS and even detrimental to our psyche as a species.
So no, please don’t switch out ranking systems in games with “everybody here is a winner” concepts.
Thank you sir for your response, I appreciate your 88 cents.
Maybe, just maybe, we should rethink our premise of loser is entitled to punishment and the winner takes it all, as it has proven to be a fallacy. Too many people fall short, too many are depressed and lonely, too many a soul is destroyed in Kindergarten. Life should change for all of us and not for the chosen few. Struggle is not how great things come to live, it is co-operation, sharing, kindness and the belief in altruism.
your leftist snowflake
Proven to be a fallacy? No, no it hasn’t. Maybe to you, but that’s really pulled out of nowhere.
It's impossible to make a game where you compete against other people and you cannot do worse. Even if everyone is making progress, some people will make progress more slowly. Therefore, if you want everyone to think they are a winner, you need to trick the people who are less successful than average into thinking that they are winning. Of course, if the losers find out that they are being tricked, this dishonest system would stop working.
If op is looking for a noncompetitive endeavor, they can simply chose a single player game. In single player, you compete against yourself and win by completing the game.
There are also games that involve creativity and interactions with other player that do not put players in direct competition. Collaborative tavern brawls where two player try to beat a cpu are an example of this.
It's an inherent design flaw with any competitive game. The best thing to not completely redesign the game would be to implement a rating system where you rate how you felt after your game. And instead of the quests and/or the passive "10 gold per 3 wins" you will get rewards depending on your rating. But of course it would still go completely against the concept of competition in a competitive game, so we might never see this. But on that I'm rather hopeful because they abandoned tournament mode in HS and from what I heard in HotS they "killed" the eSport thing or so.
(And I'm serious: In general any kind of competition should be avoided if possible. Although there could be exceptions if you see fighting against bacteria/viruses with medicine as "competition" for example. But especially with other humans competition is in the long run just a recipe for disaster IMO. I think this video explains it quite well if you're interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_P_JMJ176Q)
Ah, the disgusting US ''everyone is a winner'' mindset, where losers are meant to be rewarded for sucking at something...then again, what would you expect from someone whose ego is so fragile that they need to add people after they lose just so that they can whine about it.
Losers should be punished and winners should be rewarded. Only through loss and punishment will the losers ever strive to learn how to improve. If you want a different approach to the loser/winner system, Pokemon Online TCG makes the winner progress through ranks while the loser stays in one spot until the win a game. They don't lose ranks, they don't win anything, they just stay in one place.
Also, if you're gonna throw random buzzwords such as libtard and leftist at learn what they mean and put them into proper context.
This mindset isn't unique to the US, the desire to encourage the less able exists all over the world man. Your attitude is about as unique as well, standard rightwing paranoia and bitterness. Believe it or not society actually functions slightly better when the 'losers' aren't kicked in the balls continually in every aspect of life.
This really has F all to do with hearthstone though, which is head to head game and needs a winner and a loser from a match. It's just a game.
This has absolutely nothing to do with politics. Why do people try to bring it up as an insult or something?
I'm genuinely sorry that you get kicked in the balls continually in every aspect of life.
It is not a design flaw. Competition itself works on this premise.
I guess that's ture in a way. What I meant is that it's a suboptimal arragement for maintaining a healthy relationship with others which I think is very important. Like he said that nobody likes losing and in a competition you don't really give a fuck about the other party if your intention is to win at all costs and that's the basic premise.
This is the only way you get people or most living beings to perform at their best.
Debateable. What do you mean with "best"? Competition can lead to many "good" things, but I'd say the same could easily be reached with cooperation that doesn't have much if any negative side effects. Here are typical reasons why competition might interfere with doing your best: 1. You might get anxious since you could lose and that might make you perform worse. 2. You cannot share things that might help one another to make everyone perform better. 3. Trying to be the best might distract from the actual task at hand. It might be different from person to person, but I can assure you that I would perform much worse if under such constant pressure. I guess I might be in the minority, but simply concluding that competition brings out "the best" in most living beings seems unlikely just because it's only a general idea that may work or not. "The best" taken literally would obiously be achieved by studying the life form and then arranging everything perfectly.
Then again, since I haven't yet landed on a great alternative that would remove these incentives without allowing people to abuse it, for now, I can see why it is the system used.
What do you think of my idea of a "rating system". If many players don't like short games they could just give those games a negative rating.
And if not how about this: Again no more passive "10 gold per 3 wins", but instead you get points like experience in a separate "reward meter". For leveling up your classes it's not so important how much you win, but rather how much you actually play. That way it wouldn't make a difference how long a game is.
I can sense your fingers tingling to call me libtard or snowflake, but bare with me! In this, short, thread, I will try to explain why loss evasion is a thing and will ask you how to add this to a given computer game.
Most people hate to lose because inherently we are afraid of losing value, things, family members, lovers, keys...the list is endless. What we gained, we hate to lose, because sometimes our efforts are denied and on top of that, what follows in today's "I am winning" societies is sneer.
Just think of the last time you developed a fine board and bam Mechathun destroys your dreams, your number is diminished, 30 mins of close evaluation, card reading, keeping your ae are denied, nill and void.
How do you feel? Happy?
Property is a defining aspect of an proprietor society and is associated with success and positive traits. Taking this away, takes away self esteem and sometimes reason. Want prove? Just go to youtube and watch gamer rage videos.
These people are angry, yes, we should deride them, mock them, feel superior? Well, for my part, this is not a desirable reaction. So, I am asking myself and you:
What could be the alternative?
Tell me, how you would design a game that does not punish the loser by taking away hard earned currency of any given type and does not favour the winner solely.
Maybe give some in change, I mean, you play a game for... 5-10, or even 30 min... you do the best, even you LOOSE. And what you get? NOTHING. The problem is not loose, else, dont get NOTHING only a waste of time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Is anyone really reading past this point? Seems like an obvious troll to me.
Of course it sucks to lose, and winning feels good. What I think would fix the game is if they gave you the 10 gold reward if you made it to turn 10, despite losing. And played a certain amount of cards, to actually prove you tried to win. Could people abuse this? Sure, but it would help.
I think the ladder experience would be much better, if it would work like a scoreboard.
The idea is this:
No ranks, no stars, just numbers. At the start of a season, everyone goes down to zero. You can achieve plus numbers by playing the game, despite the game's end.
Let's say, the winner gains 80-100 point after a game, and the defeated player 5-15 after a loss. In this way, you didn't feel, like you just wasted your time. Also, if you go full concede at the start of every match, you only put the enemy player above you, so even if you get some points, the winners still gets better.
To avoid the Aggro grind, the points could be given by played cards or played turns.
I'm not a game developer, but this would be a good sytem imo.
Obey C'Thun, Praise The Darkness, Pet Hakkar, the Soulflayer, Love Yogg-Saron, Hope's End
Ah, the disgusting US ''everyone is a winner'' mindset, where losers are meant to be rewarded for sucking at something...then again, what would you expect from someone whose ego is so fragile that they need to add people after they lose just so that they can whine about it.
Losers should be punished and winners should be rewarded. Only through loss and punishment will the losers ever strive to learn how to improve. If you want a different approach to the loser/winner system, Pokemon Online TCG makes the winner progress through ranks while the loser stays in one spot until the win a game. They don't lose ranks, they don't win anything, they just stay in one place.
Also, if you're gonna throw random buzzwords such as libtard and leftist at learn what they mean and put them into proper context.
The amount of retardism in the answers to this topic is.... I wanted to say baffling or something, but I've become cynical enough not get baffled anymore.
This was a really nice conversation starter and a super imterestong topic even beyond Hearthstone! (Too bad the OP should have started a new "nerf this"-thread, so these neglects could have carried on to posting their usual "this again, go to salt thread" responses.)
The thing about losing in Hearthstone is so stressfull because very often it is due to a significant luck factor. In other games I have actually enjoyed (to some degree!) the games I've lost because I have felt like I have learned something and seen some ingenious plays by my opponent.
Another thing about Hearthstone is that I feel like the the atmosphere is hostile. The amount of bm and opponents rubbing it in is so huge that I tend to que into matches with a negativity to start with (yes sherlock! this is my view/problem, but I think it has some merits to back that feeling). I haven't played Gwent much, but I think the system they had was marvelous! You could cheer your opponent after a match with a tiny bit of dust if you CHOSE to. That immediately creates a more supporting field, and getting a handshake after a game leaves a better taste in your mouth than just a soulless lost match with a tiny pinch of bm to really make you feel sooooo goooood!
Thanks for the refreshing topic!
WTF??? Ok, ok, on behalf of all the Hearthpwners who posted in this thread, we are sorry for not being at the the same intellectual level as you, mr. Dirtymo, you superior human being. XD
I think you should buy some card packs.
This mindset isn't unique to the US, the desire to encourage the less able exists all over the world man. Your attitude is about as unique as well, standard rightwing paranoia and bitterness. Believe it or not society actually functions slightly better when the 'losers' aren't kicked in the balls continually in every aspect of life.
This really has F all to do with hearthstone though, which is head to head game and needs a winner and a loser from a match. It's just a game.
Play casual, bam! Built in solution for you already buddy.
You just had to write about losing your lover...
Competition is a healthy aspect of the human nature. It makes us strive to do better. When something is on the line, we fight harder. Winning then in turn also feel better, and we actively hone our skills.
I realize participation trophies and “let’s not keep score” is popular in today’s deteriorating society, but to me it’s BS and even detrimental to our psyche as a species.
So no, please don’t switch out ranking systems in games with “everybody here is a winner” concepts.
Proven to be a fallacy? No, no it hasn’t. Maybe to you, but that’s really pulled out of nowhere.
If you chose the wrong numbers for the lottery - should you get the reward?
Cute, ineffective, but cute.
Ofcourse not, but you arent paying the exact same amount of money you could have won either as punishment. So I would say this is a bad example.
It's impossible to make a game where you compete against other people and you cannot do worse. Even if everyone is making progress, some people will make progress more slowly. Therefore, if you want everyone to think they are a winner, you need to trick the people who are less successful than average into thinking that they are winning. Of course, if the losers find out that they are being tricked, this dishonest system would stop working.
If op is looking for a noncompetitive endeavor, they can simply chose a single player game. In single player, you compete against yourself and win by completing the game.
There are also games that involve creativity and interactions with other player that do not put players in direct competition. Collaborative tavern brawls where two player try to beat a cpu are an example of this.
It's an inherent design flaw with any competitive game. The best thing to not completely redesign the game would be to implement a rating system where you rate how you felt after your game. And instead of the quests and/or the passive "10 gold per 3 wins" you will get rewards depending on your rating. But of course it would still go completely against the concept of competition in a competitive game, so we might never see this. But on that I'm rather hopeful because they abandoned tournament mode in HS and from what I heard in HotS they "killed" the eSport thing or so.
(And I'm serious: In general any kind of competition should be avoided if possible. Although there could be exceptions if you see fighting against bacteria/viruses with medicine as "competition" for example. But especially with other humans competition is in the long run just a recipe for disaster IMO. I think this video explains it quite well if you're interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_P_JMJ176Q)
This has absolutely nothing to do with politics. Why do people try to bring it up as an insult or something?
I'm genuinely sorry that you get kicked in the balls continually in every aspect of life.
I guess that's ture in a way. What I meant is that it's a suboptimal arragement for maintaining a healthy relationship with others which I think is very important. Like he said that nobody likes losing and in a competition you don't really give a fuck about the other party if your intention is to win at all costs and that's the basic premise.
Debateable. What do you mean with "best"? Competition can lead to many "good" things, but I'd say the same could easily be reached with cooperation that doesn't have much if any negative side effects. Here are typical reasons why competition might interfere with doing your best: 1. You might get anxious since you could lose and that might make you perform worse. 2. You cannot share things that might help one another to make everyone perform better. 3. Trying to be the best might distract from the actual task at hand. It might be different from person to person, but I can assure you that I would perform much worse if under such constant pressure. I guess I might be in the minority, but simply concluding that competition brings out "the best" in most living beings seems unlikely just because it's only a general idea that may work or not. "The best" taken literally would obiously be achieved by studying the life form and then arranging everything perfectly.
What do you think of my idea of a "rating system". If many players don't like short games they could just give those games a negative rating.
And if not how about this: Again no more passive "10 gold per 3 wins", but instead you get points like experience in a separate "reward meter". For leveling up your classes it's not so important how much you win, but rather how much you actually play. That way it wouldn't make a difference how long a game is.
I think what you're looking for is Communism.
Maybe give some in change, I mean, you play a game for... 5-10, or even 30 min... you do the best, even you LOOSE. And what you get? NOTHING. The problem is not loose, else, dont get NOTHING only a waste of time.