Hearthpwn

Quote from Kahgro»

Quote from iandakar»

Quote from Kahgro»

Quote from MLPosey27»

Shown your hand?  Backed into a corner?  

This isn't a competition.  You aren't trying to "defeat" the other commenters.

Present information, share your opinion, and invite others to do the same.  Friendly debate is fine.  But don't take your frustrations with Brode or Hearthstone out on members of the community.

I've said my piece.  But please keep the mood welcoming and respectful.

I'm not trying to defeat anyone, I'm trying to persuade. People have intrinsic bias towards certain issues, such as the amount to which Hearthstone is F2P. A lot of people would automatically argue against the existence of a catch up mechanism for new players. By first asking people about Ben Brode's defense to this question is without any sort of argument, I get honest answers about the source material. Most of the people in this thread have NOT defended his answer, only when they arrived at the main discussion did they try to salvage his response, but it fell apart. My purpose was to get Ben Brode's useless comment out of the way, to stop anyone from attempting to use it and to show their bias. Notice how most of the people that were overly aggressive on page 1 have not returned to defend his initial statement.

You know what. I'll bite and go into the defense.

Ben's statement is that in order to compete in this game, you just need 30 cards.  According to that, I should be able to craft just 30 cards then beat anyone in any spot of the ladder at any point in time.

As far as how accurate, I will note that he did not put a time period.  He never said that you could win everything forever with 30 cards.  In fact, that works against HS's design as , say, expansions will eventually break old metas.  Thus you could assume that he means at one particular point.  

And, at least up until GvG he has been accurate.  Once the game hit release there has been one deck that has consistently beaten all others: Miracle Rogue.  You could, and many have, crafted those 30 cards and competed from rank 20 to #1 legendary from May until Leeroy was Nerfed.  You did not need any other deck.  

Now is there a critique that can be done?  Yes due to the lack of a time period.  Technically, it should be "you can compete at any particular time with 30 cards." Thus it's noted that, eventually, you will need more cards.

HOWEVER, we do need to note the context behind his statement since, sadly, Blizzard does tend to simplify things to 'cute statements'.  The context is that he's talking about folks who judge how well they can do based on how many legendaries they have or how big their collection is.  They talk about how many cards there are and how impossible it is to get a full collection and then use that for the basis as to why they can't compete in the ladder.  "I can't fight against the top? They have all of the cards!"  

Within that context, the '30 cards' statement is really this: "You don't need every single legendary and every single deck in the game to compete.  You don't need all of GvG.  You don't even need HALF of it.  All you need is the right deck for the meta and the skill to use it.  If the #1 deck turns out to be amaz's control Priest, well. you don't need Rag or Ysera or Alexstransa or Trogz or KT or any of that mess.   All you need is his deck.  

And do note that picking apart someone's specific wording is rather dishonest even if it's a bad on them for not being accurate.  Once you know the context behind his words, you argue with THAT and not that he phrased it wrong.  And his context is that you don't need a full collection to play: just enough cards to make the decks that win which is a VERY small number compared to the entire list.  

And in that, he's right.  he's also a better laugher than a debater, but he's right.

This argument fails when you bring in the "all levels of play" statement he made. The problem is that this theoretically deck that "beats all others" is not sustainable. It may work at some points in ladder, but players are constantly developing counters to the current meta. Only using a single superior deck to climb means you are probably netdecking. This is exactly what has happened in the past with Zoo and Hunter. Cheap easy to play netdecks with low play times and high win rates. The problem is that people adapt to these decks. Counters are constantly being made. At high levels this deck are far less successful than in low tier ladder. Your magical "beat all" superior deck will only get you as far until someone decides to counter it.

Now in the past, people have been slow to build counters to these decks because of mainly 2 reasons:

1) Most people on ladder are not innovators. Either because they lack the means to adapt because of lack of cards or because they see no need to.

2) There is a lack of cards in Hearthstone. Compared to other games, Hearthstone has a very low card count meaning players are much more constrained when seeking to create new decks.

The problem is that as more cards are released, people will be able to deal with 2 better. There will be more possible cards to experiment and counter with. But for people stuck with 1, the problem will get worse. As Hearthstone becomes more about building decks based on the state of ladder, and not finding an unfair netdeck, they will be disadvantaged due to the lack of access to cards. 

As I have mentioned in the past, the current state of Hearthstone is perfectly fine, it is not that difficult for new players to have access to a variety of decks. But as expansions keep coming out, this will become increasingly more difficult. And THAT was the context of the question Ben Brode sought to avoid. He wanted to plant an absolute instead of addressing legitimate worries or a plan for the future. 

Even as more cards go into the meta, there will still BE a meta.  Right now that meta switches about every month at best, barring blizz changes.  I put the burden of proof to show that your theory is accurate.  Otherwise, you have no proof that what you say-that the meta will switch so often that no deck will be competitive from top to bottom.  Perhaps what you say will happen, or perhaps not and new players will always be able to find 'that one deck they can use, at least for that particular moment.  

Myself, I've found that to be the case when joining other CCPs late.  In the competitive scene, you don't see decks used several years ago right along side decks made last week.  There's always a set number of 'viable' decks.  Expansions come in with new decks.  Some of them replace old ones while others fail and fall out of favor.  But it's always a few.  Thus new players can just choose one of those instead of crafting the many many MANY cards others have done in the past.  Once I have that, I become viable.  By the time the meta switches, I'm no longer new and have more decks.  

I didn't need a catchup mechanism as it was just as difficult to get in when I joined as it was when others had joined.  The cards I crafted won't the same as theirs, but, in the end, a season 10 Rare costs the same as a season 1 Rare.

The same will be true here.  If I needed a control deck in May, I would probably craft Ragnaros and Alexstransa.  If I need one in March '15 it'll probably be Sneed's and Earthenator that I need.  New players won't need to craft Rag and Alex in that case.  No one nowadays needs to build freeze mage.  If deathrattle ever falls out of favor, then new players won't have to visit all of the weeks of Naxx like we did.  You won't see the old naxx decks along side the old pre-naxx decks along side the GvG decks.  

Thus why 'catchup wont' be needed'.  Honestly, what new players need more is some kind of zoo deck that's always available which seems to exist now.  If they play their cards right, then that'll be all they need to get into the game.

 

Now in the past, people have been slow to build counters to these decks because of mainly 2 reasons:

1) Most people on ladder are not innovators. Either because they lack the means to adapt because of lack of cards or because they see no need to.

2) There is a lack of cards in Hearthstone. Compared to other games, Hearthstone has a very low card count meaning players are much more constrained when seeking to create new decks.

The problem is that as more cards are released, people will be able to deal with 2 better. There will be more possible cards to experiment and counter with. But for people stuck with 1, the problem will get worse. As Hearthstone becomes more about building decks based on the state of ladder, and not finding an unfair netdeck, they will be disadvantaged due to the lack of access to cards. 

You're talking theory.  This has not been the history if Hearthstone up to this point.  If your argument is "He is correct right now but he won't be in the future" then make that statement.  However, what you describe is NOT the case....

...unless you're mistaking that zoo was THE SUPERIOR DECK.  In truth, a lot of decks that people fear tend to be not THE top deck. In fact, the top deck tends to counter the meta.  People kept running hunter and zoo even when it was Miracle that topped the ladder.  Note that Miracle was NEVER countered.  It was nerfed...several times.

Even still, all of the top decks have been, by definition, 'netdecks' if only because any deck that makes it that high turns into one.  

As I have mentioned in the past, the current state of Hearthstone is perfectly fine, it is not that difficult for new players to have access to a variety of decks. But as expansions keep coming out, this will become increasingly more difficult. And THAT was the context of the question Ben Brode sought to avoid. He wanted to plant an absolute instead of addressing legitimate worries or a plan for the future. 

Even as more cards go into the meta, there will still BE a meta.  Right now that meta switches about every month at best, barring blizz changes.  I put the burden of proof to show that your theory is accurate.  Otherwise, you have no proof that what you say-that the meta will switch so often that no deck will be competitive from top to bottom.  Perhaps what you say will happen, or perhaps not and new players will always be able to find 'that one deck they can use, at least for that particular moment.  

Myself, I've found that to be the case when joining other CCPs late.  In the competitive scene, you don't see decks used several years ago right along side decks made last week.  There's always a set number of 'viable' decks.  Expansions come in with new decks.  Some of them replace old ones while others fail and fall out of favor.  But it's always a few.  Thus new players can just choose one of those instead of crafting the many many MANY cards others have done in the past.  Once I have that, I become viable.  By the time the meta switches, I'm no longer new and have more decks.  

I didn't need a catchup mechanism as it was just as difficult to get in when I joined as it was when others had joined.  The cards I crafted won't the same as theirs, but, in the end, a season 10 Rare costs the same as a season 1 Rare.

The same will be true here.  If I needed a control deck in May, I would probably craft Ragnaros and Alexstransa.  If I need one in March '15 it'll probably be Sneed's and Earthenator that I need.  New players won't need to craft Rag and Alex in that case.  No one nowadays needs to build freeze mage.  If deathrattle ever falls out of favor, then new players won't have to visit all of the weeks of Naxx like we did.  You won't see the old naxx decks along side the old pre-naxx decks along side the GvG decks.  

Thus why 'catchup wont' be needed'.  Honestly, what new players need more is some kind of zoo deck that's always available which seems to exist now.  If they play their cards right, then that'll be all they need to get into the game.

 

 

This whole question is about theory. That was the context of the question. If you have a problem with the very question you should be arguing against the interviewer. I'm only making observations about Ben Brode add his non-answer. Now you are correct, top decks become net decks, they are mass produced, but you aren't addressing the repercussions of this. Including specialization.

Now your point about the meta is a bit iffy. There will most certainly be trends but the concept of a meta is a flexible one. Why do other card games have certain formats for cards from different years? It's to limit the amount of possible cards available for play to create some sort of consistency. A meta in this case is the result of actively enforced restrictions. However, Hearthstone has no plans to enforce any restrictions on the types of cards played meaning the repertoire of cards available to people is indefinite. 

My problem with your argument is this line "Thus new players can just choose one of those instead of crafting the many many MANY cards others have done in the past. " and this "New players won't need to craft Rag and Alex in that case.  No one nowadays needs to build freeze mage.  If deathrattle ever falls out of favor, then new players won't have to visit all of the weeks of Naxx like we did.  You won't see the old naxx decks along side the old pre-naxx decks along side the GvG decks.  "

You only look in retrospect like the meta is a static thing. You diminish the the effects of a changing meta, and that's the main issue we at hand. With an indefinite card pool there are bound to be far more possibilities and opportunities for counter play than there are now. Other card games have artificial mechanisms to circumvent this, Hearthstone has none. The question isn't that the meta changes, the question is how fast. 

Also, key word is COMPETE at all levels. Compete =/= dominate the meta and reach legend within 2 weeks. Compete is a very ambiguous term, especially in a game like hearthstone.

One can argue that "to be able to compete" just means that you can play the game with a reasonable win rate, and that reasonable win rate is up to personal interpretation.

question was asked about catch up system (still waiting for OP to grace us with the actual question), and Ben basically countered by saying you don't have to "catch up" to the entire collection of cards from basic to gvg in order to build a deck that can "compete" at all levels (rank 25 to legend). He wasn't wrong.

Trump beat a level 16 Handlock with a basic paladin deck in his Trump Teachings, funny to watch.

Obviously he meant that you don't need a complete collection - you just need to obtain the right 30 cards.

If you're F2P, that might mean aggressively DEing anything you don't want, and it also would mean that you can't change your deck around according to the meta. So realistically, you would probably need a minimum of 30 cards + 5 tech cards to swap in according to the meta.

Sometimes the very same people who created the game may sound like they have zero idea about the game.

And believe me... it happens a LOT.

This whole question is about theory. That was the context of the question. If you have a problem with the very question you should be arguing against the interviewer. I'm only making observations about Ben Brode add his non-answer. Now you are correct, top decks become net decks, they are mass produced, but you aren't addressing the repercussions of this. Including specialization.

1. The line is "You don't need a full collection to be able to "compete at all levels of play"  only 30 cards."  Catchup mechanics are not necessary.  

The context of the question is whether a new player can compete even though there are so many cards in the game: far more than the game started.  His context is that you don't: that no matter how many cards are added, you only need a limited number of cards to be competitive.  

If you do not believe that this is his context then you must prove it.  Simply telling me that I'm wrong isn't enough.  You have not done that yet. Instead your argument assumes a context that he did not imply.

Now your point about the meta is a bit iffy. There will most certainly be trends but the concept of a meta is a flexible one. Why do other card games have certain formats for cards from different years? It's to limit the amount of possible cards available for play to create some sort of consistency. A meta in this case is the result of actively enforced restrictions. However, Hearthstone has no plans to enforce any restrictions on the types of cards played meaning the repertoire of cards available to people is indefinite. 

Actually this is not true.  

in MTG, for example, there's a VERY big issue with formats that allow for the entire card list: the difficulty in obtaining older cards.  If a card printed in 1990 that's no longer heavily printed becomes viable in one of the top tier decks today, that means everyone will need to find that card in order to create that deck.  The result is a card that's very very expensive and difficult to get, which means most players will never have access to said top deck. 

Limited formats mean that you can 'group up' players according to the cards they have access to.  If I've been playing since the beginning and have a full collection, I can play in a format that lets me combine season 1 cards with season 20 cards and play with others who can easily do the same.  Meanwhile folks who started at other times won't have to dig through ebay to get the 3 insane to get cards you need to match up my deck as THEY will be in aformat with others who have access to similar cards to them.

Will HS need the same thing?  Maybe not.  If, after 10 expansions, a deck that uses Ragnaros comes in, a new player can still use the dust gathered from arena and dusting expansion 10 cards and just craft a Ragnaros at any time.  If the old Miracle Rogue shows up that uses just Classic cards, then you can just go buy classic packs until you got the cards just like now.  

(With the exception that you can't spam Arena for it.  Note that I DON'T agree with the "only the newest pack for arena" idea, but that can be fixed by just allowing people to choose the deck they want to win there, and just have the default be the newest pack)

Source btw would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic:_The_Gathering_formats#Modern first line.  Yes it's wiki, so you are welcome to pull from a better source with evidence of your statement.

You only look in retrospect like the meta is a static thing. You diminish the the effects of a changing meta, and that's the main issue we at hand. With an indefinite card pool there are bound to be far more possibilities and opportunities for counter play than there are now. Other card games have artificial mechanisms to circumvent this, Hearthstone has none. The question isn't that the meta changes, the question is how fast. 

As stated earlier, you have no evidence to support your statement that limited formats are there to slow down the meta.  Your entire argument hinges on it as, otherwise, my theory that a full format would still mean a stable meta stands.  Limited formats are due to the nature of the limits of physical card decks and the difficulty of obtaining earlier sets: an issue that HS will not have.  It's why the people who complain about "the same decks being played over and over" will never be happy in a game like this.  It's why the folks who have been playing other card games for long enough tell people that 10k cards doesn't mean a whole rainbow of new decks played everywhere.  The only people who state that 'more cards = expanded meta' like that are dreamers and the inexperienced.  It's also WHY card games MUST constantly add new cards: otherwise the meta stops changing and everyone sticks to the same things forever.  It's a constant fight against entropy.  Note that the rumor is that Blizzard plans to only introduce one adventure and one expansion per year.  That's 6 months, on average, in between meta shakes.  In between, the meta will stabilize and slow down.   

As you said, the question is how fast the meta changes.  I've stated, and proved evidence that the meta doesn't change dramatically enough.  If you disagree then you can provide evidence and proof that larger card sets results in unstable metas.  Your time using Theory and your own logic is done. Provide evidence to counter me.  Without this piece your entire statement against Ben fails.  

The meta will stabilize even under large card supplies.  At BEST, there will be multiple options for players to compete with.  However players will not need all of those options to compete.  They just need the right one for the stable meta to grow on.  

Quote from meatraker »

I understand the point Brode is trying to make and I think it is a good one, but it is in no way true. No one, not even the best player in the world, could compete at a competitive level with 30 basic cards.

Did he say you could be competitive with just 30 basic cards? He just said 30 cards. Some of those cards could be rares, epics or even Legendaries you managed to get enough dust to craft, or you got by luck. There's plenty of solid decks which don't require all the most expensive cards. Zoo isn't going away any time soon and it's one of the cheapest and most effective decks. I made a Ramp druid without spending a dime on the game. 

Quote from Danthemedman»

Trump beat a level 16 Handlock with a basic paladin deck in his Trump Teachings, funny to watch.

He means 30 cards as in 1 deck. Also trump has made f2p legend constructed guides, showing it was possible. So yes. Ben brodes statement is correct. If you can't achieve certain feats as a f2p player maybe you should just practice and get better at the game.

Quote from H2050 »

This is not intended to offense anyone, but I do not think Ben has the knowledge nor skill to make that statement. "You only need 30 cards to compete at all levels", is probably just a marketing statement to attract new players. 

Oh, in all honesty the statement IS a PR corporate statement made in a rush like they typically are.  He shouldn't have said it, but that's like saying that people shouldn't make typos.  It wll happen.  We just let it be and laugh it off.

Luckily for Ben, the biggest issue is that it's rather simplified rather than being utterly wrong.  What he SHOULD've said is this:

"As we add more cards into the game, we will continue to make sure that players, new and old, inexperienced and experienced, will have decks and builds that they can make and to compete with to both grow their collection and fight against their peers based on the cards available.  A 'catchup' mechanic that speeds up newer player's growth won't be necessary in such a system.  In the end, the only one holding you back is time and you. "

(it's still a corporate statement so you have to put SOME PR cuteness in there ;)  .  It still fails as a corp statment as it's too wordy.  People respond more to buzzwords and taglines).

A bit better than saying "30 cards and you are done" but more in line with what he's trying to say.

Though honestly, it's a statment to be ignored really, unless you are out to Win A Debate Against The Internet, if you don't mind me being snarky.

Quote from Kahgro »

Quote from ManseEverard »

How many cards are in zoo amigo?

How many cards are in any deck amigo? It's just a deepity that does nothing to prove his point.

Who the hell uses a word like deepity, i dont remember this being a real word? Its not pointless as you need 30 cards to compete at all levels and there are tournament decks around 1000 dust. You don't need a single legend and you dont need a single epic. If you play the game for more than 2 weeks you will be able to play at tournament level considering you have some semblance of skill in critical decision making and foresight into the meta. Hes telling kids to stop crying about not being able to afford stuff and make due with what you've got because with a little effort you can succeed. A great lesson kids these days aren't taught, even in the real world. 

That's a pretty stupid statement for him to make.  It's a true statement of course, but it's obviously deceptive.  To really be competitive in the game you need to be able to adjust your deck.  You will face different styles of play as you move up the ladder.  If you stick with one single deck you're going to have a hard time and he knows it.

Quote from zeek81 »

That's a pretty stupid statement for him to make.  It's a true statement of course, but it's obviously deceptive.  To really be competitive in the game you need to be able to adjust your deck.  You will face different styles of play as you move up the ladder.  If you stick with one single deck you're going to have a hard time and he knows it.

Well, it'll work for a time and that time will be enough for you to make other decks.  Which is all you really need.  Start with one deck. Learn it. Master it.  Go up with it.  By the time things shift you'll be able to shift with it.  Honestly, new players will be held back by their own skill level anyway.  

But really what you said overall: Pretty much that. 

Perhaps Brode could have rephrased his argument in this way: You need cards to play this game. Is anything lost when compared to his actual statement?

Now you're just being silly.  The context that's trying to come across is, "yes all of those cards, with more coming seems intimidating, but you won't need most of them to get ahead."  It's a counter to the folks speaking as if new players will need all of Classic and Naxx and GvG and the next 5 expansions just to rank up.  

The folks who look at the entire card supply and think that you'll need to spend $1000 to do anything effective is pretty much negative Bens except even less accurate.

Your reading comprehension really sucks man, he said 30 cards, nowhere in there was the expresion "basic cards" he basically meant that a competitive deck is only 30 cards that you can achieve by just crafting.

Quote from iandakar »

Now your point about the meta is a bit iffy. There will most certainly be trends but the concept of a meta is a flexible one. Why do other card games have certain formats for cards from different years? It's to limit the amount of possible cards available for play to create some sort of consistency. A meta in this case is the result of actively enforced restrictions. However, Hearthstone has no plans to enforce any restrictions on the types of cards played meaning the repertoire of cards available to people is indefinite. 

Actually this is not true.  

in MTG, for example, there's a VERY big issue with formats that allow for the entire card list: the difficulty in obtaining older cards.  If a card printed in 1990 that's no longer heavily printed becomes viable in one of the top tier decks today, that means everyone will need to find that card in order to create that deck.  The result is a card that's very very expensive and difficult to get, which means most players will never have access to said top deck. 

Limited formats mean that you can 'group up' players according to the cards they have access to.  If I've been playing since the beginning and have a full collection, I can play in a format that lets me combine season 1 cards with season 20 cards and play with others who can easily do the same.  Meanwhile folks who started at other times won't have to dig through ebay to get the 3 insane to get cards you need to match up my deck as THEY will be in aformat with others who have access to similar cards to them. 

As you pointed out, MtG and L5R do implement rotation but it can be easily argued that this is more to allow new players to enter into the game than it is to prevent an excessively large card pool (especially given the popularity of legacy play). You can't just 'dust' your magic cards to make one that was printed in '96 as easily as one of the same rarity from the latest pack.

Don't worry, I have a feeling that soon we will learn that this wasn't ever the *real* discussion either, it was just an elaborate ruse from the master logician to expose our beliefs on a tangental matter, so that he could blind us with his *actual* point. Because hostility, deception, and rhetorical airs are how you make salient points on the internet. Your thread is a derpity.

If nothing else, I think Brode overstepped his bounds in this statement because tournaments are one of the levels of competitive play and last I checked, most high-level tournaments required 3-5+ decks of different classes so 30 cards isn't going to cut it lol. Sure, Hearthstone costs less than every other TCG out there, but let's not get crazy.

I love this thread.

The OP simply has a personal dislike for Ben Brode and tries to prove that Ben is dishonest and deceptive by ... being dishonest and deceptive himself. When people tell him Ben didn't even actually say what he claims he said and that he is just over-interpreting his quote, he responds by ... over-interpreting their posts. When he's wrong, he starts to move the goal posts to what he REALLY meant, until his later posts don't resemble his earlier post anymore at all.

People, you should be grateful that such a first-class troll deems us worthy of his attention.

Think of it like this, you don't even need 30 cards to compete in arena. In arena, no one cares how much dust you have.