this recently got me thinking. Disclaimer: this is not a salt thread and also, please, i don't want to start a belief discussion. And i don't mean to harm anyone who beliefs in something else then the evolution theory, or convince them to belief this. This thread is also not meant to cry out to nerf certain decks/cards. Thx for your understanding. Peace and enjoy reading :-)))
Darwins evolution theory is mainly about "the survival of the fittest" and the other main idea is "creatures will adapt to their surroundings." The evolution also learns us that mutations cause evolution and in this thread i compare decks with the creatures in darwins work.
the new decks are first made creative people who discovered a new combo or mechanic. Several other people will then also start to play the decks, but sometimes with some mutations, that can either come out positive, or negative. Only the strongest version will be played the most (survival of the fittest), so new versions of the deck will be based on this list. Also only the strongest decks will see a place in the meta.
this is just a similarity i noticed recently. Maybe we can simulate what happens in evolution to be able to optimize lists better/faster. Tell me what you think about this, i am interested to hear your opinions.
Well, the evolutionary principle already applies to HS, whether we want it or not.
It's what you describe. What we call 'meta decks' are those that passed the survival of the fittest test.
HOWEVER, as with anything human, the meta is not only shaped by Darwinism, but by Trend as well. Is Trend something detached from Dawrinism, or just a collateral phenomenon?
We have many decks, in both Standard and Wild, that actually have a high wr, so they pass the survival of the fittest. Yet they stay Off-Meta, because they are never involved into the mainstream.
And i'm not just talking of convoluted, hard to play decks.
Now, one could answer the principle of Trend with the very Darwinism: a deck fails to reach mainstream if it cannot keep up with its high wr, if played in large numbers. But is it the whole story?
Survival of the fittest isn't a Darwin line. That came later and people really messed up what natural selection is about thanks to it.
Nature isn't trying to find the 'strongest, best' creature. It simply asks this question "Can you figure out a way to survive?" If yes then you're in. If not, you die out. This is why you can have creatures that are absolutely weaker than others yet still flourish, because they found a niche to survive in. Many animals better than the Sloth are going extinct because they have lost their niche while the Sloth remains steady (well most of them, a few species not so well :/)
In any case, I'm not sure if HS decks really work under such things, because 'survival' isn't just based on niche or strength but popularity. There's many decks that CAN survive in the meta but no one wants to play it so it doesn't see play.
I prefer the adoption curve in regards to HS decks. Decks get created by innovators, then early adopters change it, then the majority find it and follow suit (the dreaded 'netdeckers!!!!!') until everyone is using it.
Well, the evolutionary principle already applies to HS, whether we want it or not.
It's what you describe. What we call 'meta decks' are those that passed the survival of the fittest test.
HOWEVER, as with anything human, the meta is not only shaped by Darwinism, but by Trend as well. Is Trend something detached from Dawrinism, or just a collateral phenomenon?
We have many decks, in both Standard and Wild, that actually have a high wr, so they pass the survival of the fittest. Yet they stay Off-Meta, because they are never involved into the mainstream.
And i'm not just talking of convoluted, hard to play decks.
Now, one could answer the principle of Trend with the very Darwinism: a deck fails to reach mainstream if it cannot keep up with its high wr, if played in large numbers. But is it the whole story?
Survival of the fittest isn't a Darwin line. That came later and people really messed up what natural selection is about thanks to it.
Nature isn't trying to find the 'strongest, best' creature. It simply asks this question "Can you figure out a way to survive?" If yes then you're in. If not, you die out. This is why you can have creatures that are absolutely weaker than others yet still flourish, because they found a niche to survive in. Many animals better than the Sloth are going extinct because they have lost their niche while the Sloth remains steady (well most of them, a few species not so well :/)
In any case, I'm not sure if HS decks really work under such things, because 'survival' isn't just based on niche or strength but popularity. There's many decks that CAN survive in the meta but no one wants to play it so it doesn't see play.
I prefer the adoption curve in regards to HS decks. Decks get created by innovators, then early adopters change it, then the majority find it and follow suit (the dreaded 'netdeckers!!!!!') until everyone is using it.
Ahh okay, thx for correcting me. And for the input
Can’t help but feel like thinking this way is what has taken away the fun of the game. All the cookie cutter netdecks I hear people complaining about might actually BE the reason we think the game is becoming stale. I think in the earlier years of hearthstone this wasn’t as widespread and people just kinda made up their own wacky decks but more and more people started playing the way you say. We need more of those creative players that you talked about xD. (Imo) Idk just my thought. This is a game after all not a fight for survival lol so just have fun!
Survival of the fittest isn't a Darwin line. That came later and people really messed up what natural selection is about thanks to it.
Nature isn't trying to find the 'strongest, best' creature. It simply asks this question "Can you figure out a way to survive?" If yes then you're in. If not, you die out. This is why you can have creatures that are absolutely weaker than others yet still flourish, because they found a niche to survive in. Many animals better than the Sloth are going extinct because they have lost their niche while the Sloth remains steady (well most of them, a few species not so well :/)
In any case, I'm not sure if HS decks really work under such things, because 'survival' isn't just based on niche or strength but popularity. There's many decks that CAN survive in the meta but no one wants to play it so it doesn't see play.
I prefer the adoption curve in regards to HS decks. Decks get created by innovators, then early adopters change it, then the majority find it and follow suit (the dreaded 'netdeckers!!!!!') until everyone is using it.
I think "nature asks" is also a little misleading. Evolution is really just the random forming of feedback loops and patterns in matter within the bounds of universal laws (i.e., the laws of physics). Some patterns are stronger and more resistant to interference, others are weaker, and the stronger ones will generally last longer.
If you want a vastly simplified example of how it works, play around with Conway's Game of Life. I put a link below, and if you find it interesting do some googling to see varying simple and complex patterns you can use as inputs that cause crazy behaviors (the little drop down on the link also has some).
Yes and no. With the very powerful statistic tools available, the strongest version of a deck is usually found very quickly now. There are some exceptions, like how Sense Demons is a very recent addition to Wild warlock decks afaik. When something like that is discovered, it is everywhere REALLY quickly...
Also, it is survival of the "fittest," not "strongest" or "fastest". This means both the best decks and best versions keep changing as long as there are counter options. I think my recent ladder experience is a decent example, and I do not know where Darwin fits:
1: Played deck A for months. 2: Stagnated with deck A as it got countered. 3: Switched to deck B as it's counters were more rare. 4: Flew to rank 5 on a winstrak but then got countered again. 5: Switched back to A and eventually got to rank 4.
Deck A is probably stronger than deck B, but they have very different counters and deck B is great vs deck A so not always...
Survival of the fittest isn't a Darwin line. That came later and people really messed up what natural selection is about thanks to it.
Nature isn't trying to find the 'strongest, best' creature. It simply asks this question "Can you figure out a way to survive?" If yes then you're in. If not, you die out. This is why you can have creatures that are absolutely weaker than others yet still flourish, because they found a niche to survive in. Many animals better than the Sloth are going extinct because they have lost their niche while the Sloth remains steady (well most of them, a few species not so well :/)
In any case, I'm not sure if HS decks really work under such things, because 'survival' isn't just based on niche or strength but popularity. There's many decks that CAN survive in the meta but no one wants to play it so it doesn't see play.
I prefer the adoption curve in regards to HS decks. Decks get created by innovators, then early adopters change it, then the majority find it and follow suit (the dreaded 'netdeckers!!!!!') until everyone is using it.
I think "nature asks" is also a little misleading. Evolution is really just the random forming of feedback loops and patterns in matter within the bounds of universal laws (i.e., the laws of physics). Some patterns are stronger and more resistant to interference, others are weaker, and the stronger ones will generally last longer.
If you want a vastly simplified example of how it works, play around with Conway's Game of Life. I put a link below, and if you find it interesting do some googling to see varying simple and complex patterns you can use as inputs that cause crazy behaviors (the little drop down on the link also has some).
Well 'nature asks' is sort of an 'accidental' result of what happens. HOW it happens is more complex and random, but in the end the effect is somewhat similar: a creature who finds a way to survive given their traits and environment shall continue.
The Game of life is more for seeing how populations grow and shrink. It actually helps explain what I mean by 'nature asks'. It shows how different elements that are otherwise random and unrelated can come together to create an overall working system with standardized results. Similarly, the random nature of Evolution and the chaos of nature combine to form the procedural and crafty world of Natural Selection
The next level of Heartstone deckbuilding should be massive bot simulations. Teaching an AI to play HS at a superhuman level should not be that hard. Then the bot could be fed a bunch of metadecks and tinker with them for millions of games to see what would really come out on top!
I am actually surprised this has not been tried for tournament lineups already.
The next level of Heartstone deckbuilding should be massive bot simulations. Teaching an AI to play HS at a superhuman level should not be that hard. Then the bot could be fed a bunch of metadecks and tinker with them for millions of games to see what would really come out on top!
I am actually surprised this has not been tried for tournament lineups already.
The problem is too many iterations. Yes, your 30 card deck is pretty ridged and can be learned, but you can't really win top level just focusing on YOUR deck. You need to know your opponent's deck and plans.
If we were locked to the exact same set of decks (say, 30 or so) then you can eventually teach an opponent about card reading based on probability and opponent's class and limit the number of possible options to a memorable state. Once opponents start adding in tech cards or odd-ball decks then the permutations turn rapidly insane. Heaven help you once RNG factor kick in such as what a Lich King flings out or knowing when your OPPONENT will want to use Avenging Wrath (knowing when YOU want to use it is standard probability. Knowing when your OPPONENT will want to use it is psychology).
We do handle easily through our learning capabilities and ability to adapt. Machine learning/adapting is very *VERY **VERY** rudimentary. They can't handle new things nearly as well. Machines need to be 'taught' all of the possibilities so that they can pick the correct path. This is why they rock at chess, which is 'solvable' and suck at starcraft (beyond basic unit push strategies).
So yeah, a machine being able to craft and power a deck from scratch like a person is a long, long way away.
Everyone should have to know how to build a deck, not 4-5 streamers for everyone to copy blindly. Oh well.
No one has been able to figure out how to force people to be creative and not follow trends since time immortal, LONG before a net, long before modern gaming, long LONG before.
Fact is, if through some miracle that you could literally force folks to compete with one another with self made decks and NOT be able to copy one another, most of the playerbase would simply vanish. Then HS would be small enough to go the way of Hex, Scrolls, and, it seems, artifact.
The better option is to make it easy for smaller groups to congregate. Thus creative folks can flock together to enjoy the game, similar to how friends with similar mindsets gather to play a game together in interesting ways.
Thus instead of hoping for netdecking to go away or for some system to punish it, we need groups and possibly guilds and better social mechanics.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
this recently got me thinking. Disclaimer: this is not a salt thread and also, please, i don't want to start a belief discussion. And i don't mean to harm anyone who beliefs in something else then the evolution theory, or convince them to belief this. This thread is also not meant to cry out to nerf certain decks/cards. Thx for your understanding. Peace and enjoy reading :-)))
Darwins evolution theory is mainly about "the survival of the fittest" and the other main idea is "creatures will adapt to their surroundings." The evolution also learns us that mutations cause evolution and in this thread i compare decks with the creatures in darwins work.
the new decks are first made creative people who discovered a new combo or mechanic. Several other people will then also start to play the decks, but sometimes with some mutations, that can either come out positive, or negative. Only the strongest version will be played the most (survival of the fittest), so new versions of the deck will be based on this list. Also only the strongest decks will see a place in the meta.
this is just a similarity i noticed recently. Maybe we can simulate what happens in evolution to be able to optimize lists better/faster. Tell me what you think about this, i am interested to hear your opinions.
Wrong thread. This is not a Science Fair.
"Nature finds a way...."
4/3/19 RIP Keith Flint. 😔
Well, the evolutionary principle already applies to HS, whether we want it or not.
It's what you describe. What we call 'meta decks' are those that passed the survival of the fittest test.
HOWEVER, as with anything human, the meta is not only shaped by Darwinism, but by Trend as well. Is Trend something detached from Dawrinism, or just a collateral phenomenon?
We have many decks, in both Standard and Wild, that actually have a high wr, so they pass the survival of the fittest. Yet they stay Off-Meta, because they are never involved into the mainstream.
And i'm not just talking of convoluted, hard to play decks.
Now, one could answer the principle of Trend with the very Darwinism: a deck fails to reach mainstream if it cannot keep up with its high wr, if played in large numbers. But is it the whole story?
Survival of the fittest isn't a Darwin line. That came later and people really messed up what natural selection is about thanks to it.
Nature isn't trying to find the 'strongest, best' creature. It simply asks this question "Can you figure out a way to survive?" If yes then you're in. If not, you die out. This is why you can have creatures that are absolutely weaker than others yet still flourish, because they found a niche to survive in. Many animals better than the Sloth are going extinct because they have lost their niche while the Sloth remains steady (well most of them, a few species not so well :/)
In any case, I'm not sure if HS decks really work under such things, because 'survival' isn't just based on niche or strength but popularity. There's many decks that CAN survive in the meta but no one wants to play it so it doesn't see play.
I prefer the adoption curve in regards to HS decks. Decks get created by innovators, then early adopters change it, then the majority find it and follow suit (the dreaded 'netdeckers!!!!!') until everyone is using it.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
Wow great insight
Ahh okay, thx for correcting me. And for the input
Can’t help but feel like thinking this way is what has taken away the fun of the game. All the cookie cutter netdecks I hear people complaining about might actually BE the reason we think the game is becoming stale. I think in the earlier years of hearthstone this wasn’t as widespread and people just kinda made up their own wacky decks but more and more people started playing the way you say. We need more of those creative players that you talked about xD. (Imo) Idk just my thought. This is a game after all not a fight for survival lol so just have fun!
I think "nature asks" is also a little misleading. Evolution is really just the random forming of feedback loops and patterns in matter within the bounds of universal laws (i.e., the laws of physics). Some patterns are stronger and more resistant to interference, others are weaker, and the stronger ones will generally last longer.
If you want a vastly simplified example of how it works, play around with Conway's Game of Life. I put a link below, and if you find it interesting do some googling to see varying simple and complex patterns you can use as inputs that cause crazy behaviors (the little drop down on the link also has some).
https://bitstorm.org/gameoflife/
Yes and no. With the very powerful statistic tools available, the strongest version of a deck is usually found very quickly now. There are some exceptions, like how Sense Demons is a very recent addition to Wild warlock decks afaik. When something like that is discovered, it is everywhere REALLY quickly...
Also, it is survival of the "fittest," not "strongest" or "fastest". This means both the best decks and best versions keep changing as long as there are counter options. I think my recent ladder experience is a decent example, and I do not know where Darwin fits:
1: Played deck A for months.
2: Stagnated with deck A as it got countered.
3: Switched to deck B as it's counters were more rare.
4: Flew to rank 5 on a winstrak but then got countered again.
5: Switched back to A and eventually got to rank 4.
Deck A is probably stronger than deck B, but they have very different counters and deck B is great vs deck A so not always...
Editor of the Heartpwn Legendary Crafting Guide:
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/card-discussion/205920-legendary-tier-list-crafting-guide
Well 'nature asks' is sort of an 'accidental' result of what happens. HOW it happens is more complex and random, but in the end the effect is somewhat similar: a creature who finds a way to survive given their traits and environment shall continue.
The Game of life is more for seeing how populations grow and shrink. It actually helps explain what I mean by 'nature asks'. It shows how different elements that are otherwise random and unrelated can come together to create an overall working system with standardized results. Similarly, the random nature of Evolution and the chaos of nature combine to form the procedural and crafty world of Natural Selection
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
The next level of Heartstone deckbuilding should be massive bot simulations. Teaching an AI to play HS at a superhuman level should not be that hard. Then the bot could be fed a bunch of metadecks and tinker with them for millions of games to see what would really come out on top!
I am actually surprised this has not been tried for tournament lineups already.
Editor of the Heartpwn Legendary Crafting Guide:
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/card-discussion/205920-legendary-tier-list-crafting-guide
The problem is too many iterations. Yes, your 30 card deck is pretty ridged and can be learned, but you can't really win top level just focusing on YOUR deck. You need to know your opponent's deck and plans.
If we were locked to the exact same set of decks (say, 30 or so) then you can eventually teach an opponent about card reading based on probability and opponent's class and limit the number of possible options to a memorable state. Once opponents start adding in tech cards or odd-ball decks then the permutations turn rapidly insane. Heaven help you once RNG factor kick in such as what a Lich King flings out or knowing when your OPPONENT will want to use Avenging Wrath (knowing when YOU want to use it is standard probability. Knowing when your OPPONENT will want to use it is psychology).
We do handle easily through our learning capabilities and ability to adapt. Machine learning/adapting is very *VERY **VERY** rudimentary. They can't handle new things nearly as well. Machines need to be 'taught' all of the possibilities so that they can pick the correct path. This is why they rock at chess, which is 'solvable' and suck at starcraft (beyond basic unit push strategies).
So yeah, a machine being able to craft and power a deck from scratch like a person is a long, long way away.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
Everyone should have to know how to build a deck, not 4-5 streamers for everyone to copy blindly. Oh well.
No one has been able to figure out how to force people to be creative and not follow trends since time immortal, LONG before a net, long before modern gaming, long LONG before.
Fact is, if through some miracle that you could literally force folks to compete with one another with self made decks and NOT be able to copy one another, most of the playerbase would simply vanish. Then HS would be small enough to go the way of Hex, Scrolls, and, it seems, artifact.
The better option is to make it easy for smaller groups to congregate. Thus creative folks can flock together to enjoy the game, similar to how friends with similar mindsets gather to play a game together in interesting ways.
Thus instead of hoping for netdecking to go away or for some system to punish it, we need groups and possibly guilds and better social mechanics.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.