When the best decks in the meta have a 57% win rate. That shows the decks are stronger marginally than other decks but isn’t that win rate still effectively chance? basically this game is not about winning as much as about mitigating mistakes .
so assuming two players of equal skill the games come down to luck.
When the best decks in the meta have a 57% win rate. That shows the decks are stronger marginally than other decks but isn’t that win rate still effectively chance? basically this game is not about winning as much as about mitigating mistakes .
This is how any competitive game works, (that employs any amount of fortune). Take pretty much any game/sport (barring obvious exceptions like Chess) and the focal point of skill is to mitigate errors. Those who play the closest to flawless have the highest chance of winning; but even this can be defeated by a random event of fortune occurring for the opposition.
so assuming two players of equal skill the games come down to luck.
How do you determine whether an outcome was based on a person's skill rather than unfortunate luck? And the odds of matching two people with the same skill is effectively nil, since "skill" is not an integral factor that can be assigned in the way that "age" can, for example.
a deck can have 51% win rate and still be broken becouse some deck have high skill cap protrol warrior was like 70% win rate for good players but onyl 30% win rate for bad players
I once heard that, out of all games, once you're at your "skill cap", 40% of the games you will just win, 40% of the games you will just lose, and 20% of the games are decided by your own skill. I think some League of Legends streamer came up with this idea, but you can apply the same theory here. Maybe adjust the percentages a bit if you'd like.
Basically, all I'm trying to say is there will always be some games that you will simply lose (because you had bad luck or your opponent had great luck) or games that you will flat out win (because vice versa). It's that middle percent that is really satisfying to win, and if you've played long enough, you can usually tell which games were more decided by actual skill. Of course luck still applies a bit in those games as well, but guess what, that's kinda the nature of competitive card games haha.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Twitch name: Anatak15 NA Legend Season 48, 49, 52, 53, 54, 74
a deck can have 51% win rate and still be broken becouse some deck have high skill cap protrol warrior was like 70% win rate for good players but onyl 30% win rate for bad players
Lol, how were these "bad players" defined to get to this number? I just wonder, how was it determined to estimate these 30% among "bad players"? What statistic tool was used to estimate players' skill?
I was a pretty shitty player at that time, no doubt about it and I was climbing like crazy with Patrons. First time ever I achieved rank 5 was with Patrons (and the fact it was first time pretty much confirms I was quite shitty, because I actually TRIED to hit Legend back then).
I love such posts - "Here, have some numbers! See? I know what I am talking about, I give you NUMBERS".
Who cares the numbers are taken straight up from your ass.
Even if same level players play the same deck with same draw, all both know is one of them starts, and the other has the coin. Therefore it's 100% skill, minus CreatedBy shenanigans.
a deck can have 51% win rate and still be broken becouse some deck have high skill cap protrol warrior was like 70% win rate for good players but onyl 30% win rate for bad players
Lol, how were these "bad players" defined to get to this number? I just wonder, how was it determined to estimate these 30% among "bad players"? What statistic tool was used to estimate players' skill?
I was a pretty shitty player at that time, no doubt about it and I was climbing like crazy with Patrons. First time ever I achieved rank 5 was with Patrons (and the fact it was first time pretty much confirms I was quite shitty, because I actually TRIED to hit Legend back then).
I love such posts - "Here, have some numbers! See? I know what I am talking about, I give you NUMBERS".
Who cares the numbers are taken straight up from your ass.
its confirmed by blizzzrd troll... there put the numbers out back then.... so saying its just numbers is so wrong...
a deck can have 51% win rate and still be broken becouse some deck have high skill cap protrol warrior was like 70% win rate for good players but onyl 30% win rate for bad players
Lol, how were these "bad players" defined to get to this number? I just wonder, how was it determined to estimate these 30% among "bad players"? What statistic tool was used to estimate players' skill?
I was a pretty shitty player at that time, no doubt about it and I was climbing like crazy with Patrons. First time ever I achieved rank 5 was with Patrons (and the fact it was first time pretty much confirms I was quite shitty, because I actually TRIED to hit Legend back then).
I love such posts - "Here, have some numbers! See? I know what I am talking about, I give you NUMBERS".
Who cares the numbers are taken straight up from your ass.
I took these numbers as example... I really don't get what necessitated this reply... Generally when exact figures aren't available, you would use approximated figures to illustrate your point.
He was explaining a deck with a low skill cap which has an overall winrate of 50% will have something like a 45% winrate for bad players and a 55% winrate for good players.
A deck with a higher skill cap and a 55% overall win rate will have a 70% winrate for good players, and a 40% winrate for bad players.
Obviously there's medium-bad, and medium-good players within that threshold, and the number of good vs bad players will obviously fluctuate the average. An average winrate will generally be closer to that of "bad players", because there are generally more of them.
Is his point somehow invalid, because he didn't cite an exact number for his example? Do I need a bibliography for my post to quote my random, nameless, metaphoric decks?
.. basically this game is not about winning as much as about mitigating mistakes .
OP, in Hearthstone, mitigating mistakes (or, better yet, not making them) is a huge component of skill. Another important part is capitalizing on a mistake your opponent makes. Give a pro player the same deck as me and have us play 100 games. I guarantee you his win rate is higher than the 57% listed in your notional deck.
As reassuring as it may be to believe that you just lost because you got unlucky, the fact is that much of the time, you lose because you made a mistake, and your opponent made you pay for it. Recognizing that is the first step to boosting that rate.
When the best decks in the meta have a 57% win rate. That shows the decks are stronger marginally than other decks but isn’t that win rate still effectively chance? basically this game is not about winning as much as about mitigating mistakes .
so assuming two players of equal skill the games come down to luck.
It's not chance. It's a metric how well it performs across all users.
This is how any competitive game works, (that employs any amount of fortune). Take pretty much any game/sport (barring obvious exceptions like Chess) and the focal point of skill is to mitigate errors. Those who play the closest to flawless have the highest chance of winning; but even this can be defeated by a random event of fortune occurring for the opposition.
How do you determine whether an outcome was based on a person's skill rather than unfortunate luck?
And the odds of matching two people with the same skill is effectively nil, since "skill" is not an integral factor that can be assigned in the way that "age" can, for example.
a deck can have 51% win rate and still be broken becouse some deck have high skill cap protrol warrior was like 70% win rate for good players but onyl 30% win rate for bad players
I once heard that, out of all games, once you're at your "skill cap", 40% of the games you will just win, 40% of the games you will just lose, and 20% of the games are decided by your own skill. I think some League of Legends streamer came up with this idea, but you can apply the same theory here. Maybe adjust the percentages a bit if you'd like.
Basically, all I'm trying to say is there will always be some games that you will simply lose (because you had bad luck or your opponent had great luck) or games that you will flat out win (because vice versa). It's that middle percent that is really satisfying to win, and if you've played long enough, you can usually tell which games were more decided by actual skill. Of course luck still applies a bit in those games as well, but guess what, that's kinda the nature of competitive card games haha.
Twitch name: Anatak15
NA Legend Season 48, 49, 52, 53, 54, 74
Lol, how were these "bad players" defined to get to this number? I just wonder, how was it determined to estimate these 30% among "bad players"? What statistic tool was used to estimate players' skill?
I was a pretty shitty player at that time, no doubt about it and I was climbing like crazy with Patrons. First time ever I achieved rank 5 was with Patrons (and the fact it was first time pretty much confirms I was quite shitty, because I actually TRIED to hit Legend back then).
I love such posts - "Here, have some numbers! See? I know what I am talking about, I give you NUMBERS".
Who cares the numbers are taken straight up from your ass.
Even if same level players play the same deck with same draw, all both know is one of them starts, and the other has the coin. Therefore it's 100% skill, minus CreatedBy shenanigans.
its confirmed by blizzzrd troll... there put the numbers out back then.... so saying its just numbers is so wrong...
I took these numbers as example... I really don't get what necessitated this reply... Generally when exact figures aren't available, you would use approximated figures to illustrate your point.
He was explaining a deck with a low skill cap which has an overall winrate of 50% will have something like a 45% winrate for bad players and a 55% winrate for good players.
A deck with a higher skill cap and a 55% overall win rate will have a 70% winrate for good players, and a 40% winrate for bad players.
Obviously there's medium-bad, and medium-good players within that threshold, and the number of good vs bad players will obviously fluctuate the average. An average winrate will generally be closer to that of "bad players", because there are generally more of them.
Is his point somehow invalid, because he didn't cite an exact number for his example? Do I need a bibliography for my post to quote my random, nameless, metaphoric decks?
OP, in Hearthstone, mitigating mistakes (or, better yet, not making them) is a huge component of skill. Another important part is capitalizing on a mistake your opponent makes. Give a pro player the same deck as me and have us play 100 games. I guarantee you his win rate is higher than the 57% listed in your notional deck.
As reassuring as it may be to believe that you just lost because you got unlucky, the fact is that much of the time, you lose because you made a mistake, and your opponent made you pay for it. Recognizing that is the first step to boosting that rate.
When you remove skill from the equation, yes the game comes down to luck. What else could it do?
https://youtu.be/Rskga9l39iA