The real problem with this feature is that it would feel bad for the player who's being auto-skipped. Sure, they might be moving up the ladder but they are not actually playing the game, and most people (I hope) are playing Hearthstone because they well, like to play the game. Ranking up doesn't feel like an achivement if you've not actually played any games.
Say you're a Priest player, and you're being skipped by the majority of players in 8/9 classes except Warlock. Then you will be unfavoured in most of of your games - unless you of course ban Warlock, in which case you will mostly play mirror match-ups along with the occasional deck that for some reason didn't skip Priest. You're laddering rapidly, but you're not playing a lot of games doing so, and the ones you do play all feel the same because they're mostly mirrors. If everyone then starts playing Priest in order to rank up fast, the number of mirror match-ups will increase - unless you're of course skipping Priest, which would mean that you're back to play against mostly Warlock... and so the circle continues.
Do you see my point? A skipping feature like the one you suggest would make it more difficult for players to actually play the game, and it would limit the amount of different decks you're playing against, making the game feel stale. If a player doesn't use the skipping feature because they enjoy the challenge of playing even the unfavoured match-ups, they will almost never get a favoured match-up (e.g. Warlock never playing against Priest), which will also feel bad. Matchmaking times would also be longer, because you might get matched and "win" against several players before getting an actual match. It makes no sense to implement a feaure like this, and the players that want to immediately concede games (a minority, if my own ladder experiences are anything to go by) can just do that.
Exactly this. And it would be terrible if Hearthstone implemented feature like auto-concede because their objective is to promote inter-activeness between players and enjoyable gameplay. Auto-concede goes exactly opposite of this philosophy because Blizzard would allow one playerto saying "nope, I dont want to play with you." Its ok if a player does this at their own account by auto-conceding, but if Hearthstone team systematically implements an auto-concede system, its a lazy approach to competitive gaming because rather than balancing the gameplay to make it more enjoyable, their approach would be "Just quit if you dont like your competition. We made it easier for you to do so". Brings absolutely no benefit to the consumer.
if Hearthstone team systematically implements an auto-concede system, its a lazy approach to competitive gaming because rather than balancing the gameplay to make it more enjoyable, their approach would be "Just quit if you dont like your competition. We made it easier for you to do so". Brings absolutely no benefit to the consumer.
True, but everything seems to be going in the opposite direction now. Some matchups are so polarized (despite not being OP or broken) that trying to win them is almost pointless. Even if they are statistically winnable, playing them feels like a chore and it's not fun at all.
I have a question for you, because I'd like to know your opinion on this (seriously, it's not salt post). What would you say about the feature in HS, that would allow you to "skip" some matchups?
Let's say that you queue as Control Priest and you don't want to waste your time on "dead matchups" like Control Warlock or No Minion Mage (both are winnable, sure, but it's not very likely and matchup against them is also very annoying). So, you could setup your game client to "skip" all matchups you don't like (system of course would not be able to recognize a specific deck that your opponent is playing, so filtering would have to be class based).
And by "skipping" I obviously mean losing and applying to you all the consequences of lost match (taking away your stars, ranks, etc.), but in a way that you don't even see this (maybe except for a notification somewhere in the corner of the screen)! You just play the game and enjoy matchups you like, the rest is not your problem. You could also have some free wins gained from people who "skipped" you as their bad matchup.
In my opinion it would be a lot less frustrating for everyone to play that way.
There is a rather large and inherent flaw in this proposal. Namely, such a system would have to be able to cater for a very wide and ever-changing range of decks that you would like to "skip". And at what granularity would such a check be confirmable / rejected? For example, what specific cards have to be included in Face Hunter for it to know that it is a Face Hunter deck? And so, players would know that they just have to exclude one or two of those cards to game the system and get around it.
So that then logically leads us to the concept of being able to "Ban / skip" games against a specific class. However - aside from the fact that suggestion has been brought up and shot down in a blaze of flames (pun intended) - this then becomes detrimental to the game as a whole. It may not be "desirable", but you are denying decks that are good against yours from playing you. Which might sound good at first, but then consider the fact that decks you are good against will also ban / skip matches against your deck. Suddenly you will find yourself without any games to play whatsoever, because no opposing decks will want to play each other and will skip matches against them.
This is just a huge demonstration of scrub mentality. You even said it yourself: "these matchups are winnable but unfavoured so I don't want to even try". It sounds like an attempt to increase your winrate by cherrypicking games -pretty sure all Dhalsim players in street fighter would love to only fight Zangief, but that's not how competition and skill works.
Namely, such a system would have to be able to cater for a very wide and ever-changing range of decks that you would like to "skip". And at what granularity would such a check be confirmable / rejected? For example, what specific cards have to be included in Face Hunter for it to know that it is a Face Hunter deck? And so, players would know that they just have to exclude one or two of those cards to game the system and get around it.
No, as I said before, filtering would be based on class, not decks or cards.
So that then logically leads us to the concept of being able to "Ban / skip" games against a specific class.
Exactly.
However - aside from the fact that suggestion has been brought up and shot down in a blaze of flames (pun intended) - this then becomes detrimental to the game as a whole. It may not be "desirable", but you are denying decks that are good against yours from playing you. Which might sound good at first, but then consider the fact that decks you are good against will also ban / skip matches against your deck. Suddenly you will find yourself without any games to play whatsoever, because no opposing decks will want to play each other and will skip matches against them.
I believe you made absolutely wrong assumption here. What you described would be a problem if it happened on a massive scale. Yet even now, the vast majority of players don't instantly give up any matchups, even the most hopeless ones (like 70/30), right? So why introduction of this feature would increase the scale of insta conceding? In my opinion, for most players nothing would change, and for a few percent, it would be an improvement of their game experience, that's all.
You've had several people not just say its a bad idea but explain why and you don't seem to be all that bothered. I won't do the same because as I said, I'm not convinced you're willing to have your mind changed anyway.
But it is an awful idea, for several reasons. I've never heard of this or experienced it in any other game so it's not just a bad idea with regards to hearthstone, it's a bad idea overall. Without wanting to be hyperbolic, I can imagine it going as far as being game breaking. One of the worst ideas I've heard in a long time.
However - aside from the fact that suggestion has been brought up and shot down in a blaze of flames (pun intended) - this then becomes detrimental to the game as a whole. It may not be "desirable", but you are denying decks that are good against yours from playing you. Which might sound good at first, but then consider the fact that decks you are good against will also ban / skip matches against your deck. Suddenly you will find yourself without any games to play whatsoever, because no opposing decks will want to play each other and will skip matches against them.
I believe you made absolutely wrong assumption here. What you described would be a problem if it happened on a massive scale. Yet even now, the vast majority of players don't instantly give up any matchups, even the most hopeless ones (like 70/30), right? So why introduction of this feature would increase the scale of insta conceding? In my opinion, for most players nothing would change, and for a few percent, it would be an improvement of their game experience, that's all.
Let's assume for the moment that what you are saying is correct and that it wouldn't have the detrimental effect that I outlined. What possible use would a feature such as this provide to a player that doesn't already exist?
Also, there are a big number of other huge problems that this generates (now I consider it) : If you had a system that auto-conceded whenever facing against a particular class -
Firstly, it ruins your own gameplay in terms of rank progression - you would likely be matched up by similar numbers of the chosen class as normal, but the system would force-concede; therefore it would basically tank your rank uncontrollably, so you would plummet down the ladder.
Secondly, it ruins the game for the opponent. After they have waited for X amount of time to find a match, it automatically wins, thus depriving them of playing the game and enjoying it.
Thirdly, and this one is a HUGE no-no - it ruins the game for other people in that rank bracket - if players continually get "free wins" from those who are auto-conceding every match against them, they will start to learn which classes get the most auto-wins, and begin to farm them for free climbing.
Fourthly, it ruins the game community at large, by effectively increasing the load on the server for people searching for games (because their games are ending much much faster, so the demand is exponentially increased).
And lastly, it would also ruin/ break the community websites that run statistical analysis on the game and decks in general; any deck that auto-concedes against another deck will cause big changes to the "win rate" and "lose rate" of those decks. So you would never get a true representation of how good / bad a deck is, because the numbers end up meaning nothing.
If you filter by class, and let's say you want to avoid ctrl warlock, that means you auto-concede against any zoo list or everybody who just wants to farm achievements? Or every ctrl warlock deck without the cards that ruin your experience?
If you filter by cards, which is a better idea, you could create a "ban-list" for each of your decks. I mean, that could be fair, but there is a concede button and creating that list would probably take more time than hitting your concede button instead. Would be smarter, though, than just conceding to every, let's say, warlock you meet. Don't you have a few seconds to concede, if you aren't willing to try to win your 20-30% MU?
Speaking of winrates, sure, it takes time, but 20-30% is still much better than 0%. And you can learn quite a lot about your own deck from bad matchups.
I don't understand what the benefit of your idea is, but I can see how this would take too many resources from the game because small indie company.
I get the idea of what TC is saying, and I think it would be fine (not that I think it's a great idea).
I think people are grossly overestimating how much people would actually be doing it / its effects on either side. People already play "cancer" decks. "Free wins" only really makes a big difference if the deck is winning already (if it's losing and you get free wins, it's breakeven more or less and you don't climb). Thus, if a deck was winning, people would be playing it anyways. This wouldn't really impact peoples' deck choices (people who want to win play the best meta decks they can afford anyways to improve WR). And the amount of "free wins" you get would be negligible to the number you actually play. And if the deck isn't actually good / you aren't good player, you'll end up losing more games and ranking down anyways.
Warcraft III has this option. Competetive HS has that options (banning decks). The fact matchmaking in hs doesn't have this feature only shows how bad it is.
Warcraft III has this option. Competetive HS has that options (banning decks). The fact matchmaking in hs doesn't have this feature only shows how bad it is.
No part of your post contains even the slightest hint of relevance.
Warcraft is not a card game. Tournament play is nothing like ranked play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
I can imagine the case though where you're searching for matches and you instantly lose 3-4 stars because matchmaking wanted to pair you up with 3-4 classes (or singular class) in a row that you want to skip. That seems like it would feel awful. On the flipside, free wins don't feel good either. There's much more of a mental reward in fighting for a win. Tell me if an auto-concede win getting you into Legend is as satisfying as winning your final game before advancing to Legend.
This is a game that includes favorable and unfavorable matchups. You should try to play them all out. Unbalance in the meta is an issue that should and many times will be addressed by the developers, but you should still try to win each game.
Autoconceding is something I think should never be implemented, that would really turn the game into rock/paper/scissors haha.
I think a better idea would be to have the option to ban one class when going into the queue, or maybe even a seperate game mode with bans enabled.
uhh no being able to ban a class would make priest quite op, they are only really being kept in check by warlock right now.
i think auto concede would be a fine quality of life addition and really don't see how you could exploit it in a bad way. there are just some matchups where it's not worth your time to play it out, so saving users a few clicks here and there for no real in game advantage seems fine to me.
Well if your deck is bad against Priest you would just be able to ban Priest then right?
Autoconceding seems so useless, you can always just concede when the game starts if it's really such a big issue. I think almost nobody would use it, there isn't a single matchup that has a 0% winrate so you're always hurting your performance.
You've had several people not just say its a bad idea but explain why and you don't seem to be all that bothered. I won't do the same because as I said, I'm not convinced you're willing to have your mind changed anyway.
Because it was never about changing my mind (I like the idea, no matter what others think, and I even already coded prototype of auto skipping app). I made this thread only to know your opinions, that's it. When I'm done, I'll put files on GitHub and post links on reddit to see how many people will be interested (I'm sure more than some of you think).
Okay, but what if I decide to "skip" a certain class, but the class that is favored for me decides to "skip" me? What exactly would I queue in to? This idea just doesn't seem to have a lot of thought put behind it.
Also, Hearthstone itself doesn't read what archetype people are playing, which is why Zephrys doesn't give you EXACTLY what you need and just offers you what he thinks is best based on the board condition, hand size, and health. If Hearthstone could read what deck the opponent was playing, Zephrys would have been the most incredible, auto-include in every deck card. But Hearthstone can't read what deck your opponent is playing, hence why this idea just doesn't make any sense.
Also, winning like this and getting to Legend because people skipped you would be unsatisfactory. The point of playing against random players is to test your skill. You don't grow or progress if you just get skipped. Ultimately you just end up feeling cheated having been handed the victory.
You've had several people not just say its a bad idea but explain why and you don't seem to be all that bothered. I won't do the same because as I said, I'm not convinced you're willing to have your mind changed anyway.
Because it was never about changing my mind (I like the idea, no matter what others think, and I even already coded prototype of auto skipping app). I made this thread only to know your opinions, that's it. When I'm done, I'll put files on GitHub and post links on reddit to see how many people will be interested (I'm sure more than some of you think).
Awesome -- you're just making the game easier for those of us who are not stupid enough to use your terrible addon, as you tank the records of those who do use it.
if Hearthstone team systematically implements an auto-concede system, its a lazy approach to competitive gaming because rather than balancing the gameplay to make it more enjoyable, their approach would be "Just quit if you dont like your competition. We made it easier for you to do so". Brings absolutely no benefit to the consumer.
True, but everything seems to be going in the opposite direction now. Some matchups are so polarized (despite not being OP or broken) that trying to win them is almost pointless. Even if they are statistically winnable, playing them feels like a chore and it's not fun at all.
Not sure what you mean by “going opposite direction” because I highly doubt hearthstone team is intentionally making the game polarizing.
As others pointed out, you have to also think about the other side of the coin. You can avoid them, but they can also avoid you. Using your example as a priest player, lets say you want avoid mages and warlocks but you have fun playing against druid or warrior. Well guess what; warrior and druids will autoconcede against you because they believe its polarizing to play against priest. In other words, you will not play against unfun decks but you wont play against fun decks either. This will kill hearthstone. Here is the scenario I foresee if they implement autoconcede system for the priest example:
Round 1: vs warlock, you auto concede
Round 2: vs druid, they auto concede
Round 3: vs mage, you auto concede
Round 4: vs priest, play normally
Round 5: vs warrior, they auto concede, etc etc
Do you now see how unhealthy autoconcede system is to a game that needs to be interactive?And you may say “ but autoconcede isnt for everyone. Only people who want to use it.” In that case, its a feature not needed in hearthstone since majority will not be using it anyways.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Exactly this. And it would be terrible if Hearthstone implemented feature like auto-concede because their objective is to promote inter-activeness between players and enjoyable gameplay. Auto-concede goes exactly opposite of this philosophy because Blizzard would allow one playerto saying "nope, I dont want to play with you." Its ok if a player does this at their own account by auto-conceding, but if Hearthstone team systematically implements an auto-concede system, its a lazy approach to competitive gaming because rather than balancing the gameplay to make it more enjoyable, their approach would be "Just quit if you dont like your competition. We made it easier for you to do so". Brings absolutely no benefit to the consumer.
True, but everything seems to be going in the opposite direction now. Some matchups are so polarized (despite not being OP or broken) that trying to win them is almost pointless. Even if they are statistically winnable, playing them feels like a chore and it's not fun at all.
There is a rather large and inherent flaw in this proposal.
Namely, such a system would have to be able to cater for a very wide and ever-changing range of decks that you would like to "skip". And at what granularity would such a check be confirmable / rejected?
For example, what specific cards have to be included in Face Hunter for it to know that it is a Face Hunter deck? And so, players would know that they just have to exclude one or two of those cards to game the system and get around it.
So that then logically leads us to the concept of being able to "Ban / skip" games against a specific class. However - aside from the fact that suggestion has been brought up and shot down in a blaze of flames (pun intended) - this then becomes detrimental to the game as a whole. It may not be "desirable", but you are denying decks that are good against yours from playing you.
Which might sound good at first, but then consider the fact that decks you are good against will also ban / skip matches against your deck. Suddenly you will find yourself without any games to play whatsoever, because no opposing decks will want to play each other and will skip matches against them.
This is just a huge demonstration of scrub mentality. You even said it yourself: "these matchups are winnable but unfavoured so I don't want to even try". It sounds like an attempt to increase your winrate by cherrypicking games -pretty sure all Dhalsim players in street fighter would love to only fight Zangief, but that's not how competition and skill works.
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win
No, as I said before, filtering would be based on class, not decks or cards.
Exactly.
I believe you made absolutely wrong assumption here. What you described would be a problem if it happened on a massive scale. Yet even now, the vast majority of players don't instantly give up any matchups, even the most hopeless ones (like 70/30), right? So why introduction of this feature would increase the scale of insta conceding? In my opinion, for most players nothing would change, and for a few percent, it would be an improvement of their game experience, that's all.
You've had several people not just say its a bad idea but explain why and you don't seem to be all that bothered. I won't do the same because as I said, I'm not convinced you're willing to have your mind changed anyway.
But it is an awful idea, for several reasons. I've never heard of this or experienced it in any other game so it's not just a bad idea with regards to hearthstone, it's a bad idea overall. Without wanting to be hyperbolic, I can imagine it going as far as being game breaking. One of the worst ideas I've heard in a long time.
Let's assume for the moment that what you are saying is correct and that it wouldn't have the detrimental effect that I outlined.
What possible use would a feature such as this provide to a player that doesn't already exist?
Also, there are a big number of other huge problems that this generates (now I consider it) :
If you had a system that auto-conceded whenever facing against a particular class -
Firstly, it ruins your own gameplay in terms of rank progression - you would likely be matched up by similar numbers of the chosen class as normal, but the system would force-concede; therefore it would basically tank your rank uncontrollably, so you would plummet down the ladder.
Secondly, it ruins the game for the opponent. After they have waited for X amount of time to find a match, it automatically wins, thus depriving them of playing the game and enjoying it.
Thirdly, and this one is a HUGE no-no - it ruins the game for other people in that rank bracket - if players continually get "free wins" from those who are auto-conceding every match against them, they will start to learn which classes get the most auto-wins, and begin to farm them for free climbing.
Fourthly, it ruins the game community at large, by effectively increasing the load on the server for people searching for games (because their games are ending much much faster, so the demand is exponentially increased).
And lastly, it would also ruin/ break the community websites that run statistical analysis on the game and decks in general; any deck that auto-concedes against another deck will cause big changes to the "win rate" and "lose rate" of those decks. So you would never get a true representation of how good / bad a deck is, because the numbers end up meaning nothing.
If you filter by class, and let's say you want to avoid ctrl warlock, that means you auto-concede against any zoo list or everybody who just wants to farm achievements? Or every ctrl warlock deck without the cards that ruin your experience?
If you filter by cards, which is a better idea, you could create a "ban-list" for each of your decks. I mean, that could be fair, but there is a concede button and creating that list would probably take more time than hitting your concede button instead. Would be smarter, though, than just conceding to every, let's say, warlock you meet. Don't you have a few seconds to concede, if you aren't willing to try to win your 20-30% MU?
Speaking of winrates, sure, it takes time, but 20-30% is still much better than 0%. And you can learn quite a lot about your own deck from bad matchups.
I don't understand what the benefit of your idea is, but I can see how this would take too many resources from the game because small indie company.
I get the idea of what TC is saying, and I think it would be fine (not that I think it's a great idea).
I think people are grossly overestimating how much people would actually be doing it / its effects on either side. People already play "cancer" decks. "Free wins" only really makes a big difference if the deck is winning already (if it's losing and you get free wins, it's breakeven more or less and you don't climb). Thus, if a deck was winning, people would be playing it anyways. This wouldn't really impact peoples' deck choices (people who want to win play the best meta decks they can afford anyways to improve WR). And the amount of "free wins" you get would be negligible to the number you actually play. And if the deck isn't actually good / you aren't good player, you'll end up losing more games and ranking down anyways.
Warcraft III has this option. Competetive HS has that options (banning decks). The fact matchmaking in hs doesn't have this feature only shows how bad it is.
No part of your post contains even the slightest hint of relevance.
Warcraft is not a card game. Tournament play is nothing like ranked play.
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
I can imagine the case though where you're searching for matches and you instantly lose 3-4 stars because matchmaking wanted to pair you up with 3-4 classes (or singular class) in a row that you want to skip. That seems like it would feel awful. On the flipside, free wins don't feel good either. There's much more of a mental reward in fighting for a win. Tell me if an auto-concede win getting you into Legend is as satisfying as winning your final game before advancing to Legend.
This is a game that includes favorable and unfavorable matchups. You should try to play them all out. Unbalance in the meta is an issue that should and many times will be addressed by the developers, but you should still try to win each game.
Would be awesome. Much more free wins for me xD
Well if your deck is bad against Priest you would just be able to ban Priest then right?
Autoconceding seems so useless, you can always just concede when the game starts if it's really such a big issue. I think almost nobody would use it, there isn't a single matchup that has a 0% winrate so you're always hurting your performance.
Because it was never about changing my mind (I like the idea, no matter what others think, and I even already coded prototype of auto skipping app). I made this thread only to know your opinions, that's it. When I'm done, I'll put files on GitHub and post links on reddit to see how many people will be interested (I'm sure more than some of you think).
Okay so you were looking for an echo chamber and an ego boost, not actual discussion. Got it. Seeya.
It's a rock scissors paper game. If you get rid of the rock scissors always win
Okay, but what if I decide to "skip" a certain class, but the class that is favored for me decides to "skip" me? What exactly would I queue in to? This idea just doesn't seem to have a lot of thought put behind it.
Also, Hearthstone itself doesn't read what archetype people are playing, which is why Zephrys doesn't give you EXACTLY what you need and just offers you what he thinks is best based on the board condition, hand size, and health. If Hearthstone could read what deck the opponent was playing, Zephrys would have been the most incredible, auto-include in every deck card. But Hearthstone can't read what deck your opponent is playing, hence why this idea just doesn't make any sense.
Also, winning like this and getting to Legend because people skipped you would be unsatisfactory. The point of playing against random players is to test your skill. You don't grow or progress if you just get skipped. Ultimately you just end up feeling cheated having been handed the victory.
Sorry bud, but this is a miss.
Awesome -- you're just making the game easier for those of us who are not stupid enough to use your terrible addon, as you tank the records of those who do use it.
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
Not sure what you mean by “going opposite direction” because I highly doubt hearthstone team is intentionally making the game polarizing.
As others pointed out, you have to also think about the other side of the coin. You can avoid them, but they can also avoid you. Using your example as a priest player, lets say you want avoid mages and warlocks but you have fun playing against druid or warrior. Well guess what; warrior and druids will autoconcede against you because they believe its polarizing to play against priest. In other words, you will not play against unfun decks but you wont play against fun decks either. This will kill hearthstone. Here is the scenario I foresee if they implement autoconcede system for the priest example:
Round 1: vs warlock, you auto concede
Round 2: vs druid, they auto concede
Round 3: vs mage, you auto concede
Round 4: vs priest, play normally
Round 5: vs warrior, they auto concede, etc etc
Do you now see how unhealthy autoconcede system is to a game that needs to be interactive?And you may say “ but autoconcede isnt for everyone. Only people who want to use it.” In that case, its a feature not needed in hearthstone since majority will not be using it anyways.