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)
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.
So that's it huh? The question was "In light of future expansions, do you believe a catch up mechanic is necessary?". Question was about the future, I don't know why you are so butthurt by the fact that it is not at the present. Also you cannot deny that formats increase stability, compare Legacy to any Block format in Magic. There's a MASSIVE difference in variability due to card variety. You keep asking for evidence related to Hearthstone because you know you cannot when compared to another game.
" 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. "
Doesn't this paragraph hurt your point? No shit players are able to craft old cards, the question is how fast will they need to change and if it will remain feasible to keep up. You keep demanding evidence, the problem is you refuse to acknowledge any of the patterns or precedents of any other card game?"
You are relying on a logical fallacy, because it does not pose a problem now it will never pose a problem. You are using the exact same excuse Ben Brode is. The problem isn't your assertion but the conviction with which you repeat it.
Here's the exact question taken from the podcast: "Do you feel like the catch up is A) hard right now or B) going to be harder moving forward as new expansions hit or new content comes to the game".
Also Ben Brode specifically mentions how generous Blizzard is for giving basic cards just for playing the game. He also claims you can play 100% F2P at the very highest levels of play. Meaning tournaments. It's an obvious PR statement but it still annoys me that many people will blind parrot it indefinitely.
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.
"Dishonest and deceptive" please go ahead and highlight my "dishonest and deceptive" moments.
Good god this is some of the best reading I've had in a while.
In case anyone wants a TL:DR, it's basically just someone whining about Ben Brode saying something he disagrees with (originally pretending he merely didn't understand the quote) and then trying to shove his opinion down people's throats when they provide arguments against his views.
He also assumes that physical card games, where you have to spend lots of money and time to collect all the cards, can be used as a comparison for an online card game, where the cards are readily available to you and can be obtained with either:
A) A lot of money, little to no time B) A fair bit of time, little to no money
I do suggest reading the whole thing though, great for a laugh.
Good god this is some of the best reading I've had in a while.
In case anyone wants a TL:DR, it's basically just someone whining about Ben Brode saying something he disagrees with (originally pretending he merely didn't understand the quote) and then trying to shove his opinion down people's throats when they provide arguments against his views.
He also assumes that physical card games, where you have to spend lots of money and time to collect all the cards, can be used as a comparison for an online card game, where the cards are readily available to you and can be obtained with either:
A) A lot of money, little to no time B) A fair bit of time, little to no money
I do suggest reading the whole thing though, great for a laugh.
Well nice red herring.
The question was resolved in the first 5 posts. The argument against my views didn't appear until iandaker came up, he's by far the best counterargument in this thread. You whining about not having a counterargument makes you a bit of a hypocrite. Also that part about physical card games is a straw man. It was used to compare behaviors of metas. At no point was there ever a discussion of a F2P system, it was irrelevant but I guess your reading comprehension just wasn't ready for it. The comparison was used to show that Catch up mechanisms, like formats, allows players to play in environments where there is a stable enough meta that will allow them to craft a deck that will last.
A catch up mechanism does not have to be a handout, the availability of multiple formats in MTG replace the need for a catch up mechanism. My problem is that instead of addressing any of the points, Brode gave a garbage PR statement. You should have taken your own advice and read the whole thing.
Good god this is some of the best reading I've had in a while.
In case anyone wants a TL:DR, it's basically just someone whining about Ben Brode saying something he disagrees with (originally pretending he merely didn't understand the quote) and then trying to shove his opinion down people's throats when they provide arguments against his views.
He also assumes that physical card games, where you have to spend lots of money and time to collect all the cards, can be used as a comparison for an online card game, where the cards are readily available to you and can be obtained with either:
A) A lot of money, little to no time B) A fair bit of time, little to no money
I do suggest reading the whole thing though, great for a laugh.
The roundabout way he started the conversation was a bit unorthodox but I think his perspective is worth considering. Hearthstone does seem to facing some serious entry barriers in the near future. Ben brode's banal comment (while admittedly devoid of context) seems to be glossing over an important issue.
Good god this is some of the best reading I've had in a while.
In case anyone wants a TL:DR, it's basically just someone whining about Ben Brode saying something he disagrees with (originally pretending he merely didn't understand the quote) and then trying to shove his opinion down people's throats when they provide arguments against his views.
He also assumes that physical card games, where you have to spend lots of money and time to collect all the cards, can be used as a comparison for an online card game, where the cards are readily available to you and can be obtained with either:
A) A lot of money, little to no time B) A fair bit of time, little to no money
I do suggest reading the whole thing though, great for a laugh.
The roundabout way he started the conversation was a bit unorthodox but I think his perspective is worth considering. Hearthstone does seem to facing some serious entry barriers in the near future. Ben brode's banal comment (while admittedly devoid of context) seems to be glossing over an important issue.
Yes it's a good issue to discuss.
unfortunately this thread is all about OP hating ben brode and how ben brode is the worst human being alive. Everything needs to be related to ben's original statement as titled in this thread.
Good god this is some of the best reading I've had in a while.
In case anyone wants a TL:DR, it's basically just someone whining about Ben Brode saying something he disagrees with (originally pretending he merely didn't understand the quote) and then trying to shove his opinion down people's throats when they provide arguments against his views.
He also assumes that physical card games, where you have to spend lots of money and time to collect all the cards, can be used as a comparison for an online card game, where the cards are readily available to you and can be obtained with either:
A) A lot of money, little to no time B) A fair bit of time, little to no money
I do suggest reading the whole thing though, great for a laugh.
The roundabout way he started the conversation was a bit unorthodox but I think his perspective is worth considering. Hearthstone does seem to facing some serious entry barriers in the near future. Ben brode's banal comment (while admittedly devoid of context) seems to be glossing over an important issue.
Yes it's a good issue to discuss.
unfortunately this thread is all about OP hating ben brode and how ben brode is the worst human being alive. Everything needs to be related to ben's original statement as titled in this thread.
So you agree that his point is of no relevance? Good now maybe we can start discussing, I suggest reading iandaker's posts if you wish to catch up on the debate.
Good god this is some of the best reading I've had in a while.
In case anyone wants a TL:DR, it's basically just someone whining about Ben Brode saying something he disagrees with (originally pretending he merely didn't understand the quote) and then trying to shove his opinion down people's throats when they provide arguments against his views.
He also assumes that physical card games, where you have to spend lots of money and time to collect all the cards, can be used as a comparison for an online card game, where the cards are readily available to you and can be obtained with either:
A) A lot of money, little to no time B) A fair bit of time, little to no money
I do suggest reading the whole thing though, great for a laugh.
The roundabout way he started the conversation was a bit unorthodox but I think his perspective is worth considering. Hearthstone does seem to facing some serious entry barriers in the near future. Ben brode's banal comment (while admittedly devoid of context) seems to be glossing over an important issue.
Yes it's a good issue to discuss.
unfortunately this thread is all about OP hating ben brode and how ben brode is the worst human being alive. Everything needs to be related to ben's original statement as titled in this thread.
So you agree that his point is of no relevance? Good now maybe we can start discussing, I suggest reading iandaker's posts if you wish to catch up on the debate.
His point sets out the basics of the game. 30 cards, build deck, play and compete.
now, before we can decide whether a catch-up mechanism is required, we need to ask ourselves: catch up to what?
what kind of gameplay do you expect to give a new player after 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months of play?
to be able to compete on the ladder depends on 2 factors, deck and playskill. Is it reasonable to introduce a catch-up mechanism so that any new player can have all naxx cards within 1 week and facehunter their way to rank 12 in the first season? Must the catch up system just spoonfeed new players with good cards to the point that they don't have to make the decision between crafting a harvest golem or earthshock with their limited resources?
who should be able to compete in the ladder? Anyone who is 3 months into the game?
are the basic cards and initial rewards not enough to start a player off to an enjoyable game?
ben's statement was about competitive play, how competitive are we talking about? StrifeCro? Or laddering from 20 to 15?
this topic can be discussed in length and be more productive if you put aside your personal agenda with ben and just get straight to the point. Now it just leaves a sour taste because it started off as a jab at the game developer, and it will forever remain as such, just a jab thread.
Can somebody please explain why some people feel it's necessary for brand-new players to be able to start the game and then immediately be able to compete with experienced players that have invested x amount of time/money and made an effort to be good at the game? I feel like this is the underlying issue the OP is arguing about.
Can somebody please explain why some people feel it's necessary for brand-new players to be able to start the game and then immediately be able to compete with experienced players that have invested x amount of time/money and made an effort to be good at the game? I feel like this is the underlying issue the OP is arguing about.
It has to do with the self entitlement of new generations. probably stemmed from sports day mentality of "there are no losers, everyone is a winner" as well as distribution of participation medals for just showing up.
So that's it huh? The question was "In light of future expansions, do you believe a catch up mechanic is necessary?". Question was about the future, I don't know why you are so butthurt by the fact that it is not at the present. Also you cannot deny that formats increase stability, compare Legacy to any Block format in Magic. There's a MASSIVE difference in variability due to card variety. You keep asking for evidence related to Hearthstone because you know you cannot when compared to another game.
1. Lay off the condescending tone. It makes you look like a youtube commenter.
2. I already addressed the 'future' element anyway. More cards do not mean an unstable, hyperchanging meta.
And I AM denying that the formats increase meta stability. I ASKED for you to prove otherwise. I provided a reference that the blocks were made due to the difficulty of obtaining older cards rather than slowing down the meta. Do you have any reference, any actual examples of otherwise? Or are you going to keep assuming I'm still stuck on the 'present' thing?
And I didn't ask for 'evidence related to HS. I used MTG for an example: a physical TCG. You're free to use other card games for examples. Just actually HAVE examples and not just declarations with no proof.
" 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. "
Doesn't this paragraph hurt your point? No shit players are able to craft old cards, the question is how fast will they need to change and if it will remain feasible to keep up. You keep demanding evidence, the problem is you refuse to acknowledge any of the patterns or precedents of any other card game?"
The paragraph was linked to the topic of why limited formats exist in MTG. They exist because you CANNOT just craft up a season 1 card after season 30 is out if it turns out you need it. Thus they need limited formats to block out those old cards and force the meta into cards that others can actually obtain. I then mused on whether HS will need such a format.
I mused about it because I had already addressed the question you asked: yes it is feasable to keep up. Your example using MTG doesn't work because they use block formats for other reasons, not because of the meta changing too much. I deny your statement and provided an outside reference defending my denial. You can find evidence defending this point if you wish. Otherwise, you will need another example.
You are relying on a logical fallacy, because it does not pose a problem now it will never pose a problem. You are using the exact same excuse Ben Brode is. The problem isn't your assertion but the conviction with which you repeat it.
Incorrect. I am relying on the logic that it not only hasn't happened here but it doesn't happen in other card games. I use the above statement about the reasons for MTG's block formats along with my own personal experience. When I joined card games that were well established, even when they didn't have block formats, so long as I had equal ability to obtain any of the entire card selection I had no more problem drafting a deck. All it took was researching the current meta, then just pulling the cards needd from each expansion. The only times when I would have difficulty is when cards stopped being available. Nothing like OP cards that were only obtainable during special events or good cards that go out of print. THAT is when you leave players stuck. It was NEVER due to the meta switching so often that my deck would be out of commission soon after I made it. And that's including games where they added in new expansion every 2 months.
Here's the exact question taken from the podcast: "Do you feel like the catch up is A) hard right now or B) going to be harder moving forward as new expansions hit or new content comes to the game".
Also Ben Brode specifically mentions how generous Blizzard is for giving basic cards just for playing the game. He also claims you can play 100% F2P at the very highest levels of play. Meaning tournaments. It's an obvious PR statement but it still annoys me that many people will blind parrot it indefinitely.
NONE of which is relevant to the discussion. This isn't "The thing I hate about Ben Brode" This is a thread specifically talking about ONE of his statements. If you wanted to talk about F2P vs P2W then you should've started your debate about THAT instead of focusing on his one line.
Now stop trying to 'pick apart' my posts and actually defend your points. To make it easier I'll plop what seems to be the root arguments.
Adding more cards into a card game does not result in an constantly shifting meta. Instead it results in a period of 'flux' as people try out new cards and styles. Eventually, a few high end decks are made or modified from past decks until the meta slows and stabilized around those decks. This stays put until the next expansion.
While individually you can adapt your deck to counter others, the majority of players, the Meta, does not switch quickly. Even when counters to the main decks are found, the majority takes time to shift into it at best after the initial flux. Sometimes, they never do resulting in a very easy climb to the top.
MTG's format system isn't due to meta instability. It's due to players in Legacy using cards that now require a contract with the devil to locate and obtain making it VERY hard for new players to compete. Thus the blocks allow those with those hard to obtain cards to compete together while others can use decks that are more recent and, thus, easier to obtain.
Since the Meta stabilizes regularly, new players have time to locate and build a deck that works with the meta at the time. Adding more expansions will not change this overall element. By the time they have a deck that competes and they face a major meta shift, they will no longer be 'new' and thus will have a collection that allows for such shifting.
Swearing during a debate suggests that you sound more angry and desperate than I am. Aka more 'butthurt' as you would put it.
I said it many times and i'll say it again, MTG is not comparable to HS in terms of expansion releases and formatting. MTG has no way to allow new players to obtain old cards from 10 expansions ago, because physical production of the cards were halted, which is why they need to introduce blocks. In HS, 50 years from now you can still craft a Ragnaros with the very same amount of dust as you need today.
HS is NOT a TCG, there is no trading involved, ALL cards are accessible to ALL players via crafting mode. Any player who wants a Ragnaros 50 years from now has to go through the same amount of packs (RNGesus willing) that a player has to go through today. It is already as fair as you can get, no catch up needed.
2 players who spend the same amount of money (0 dollars to 2,000 dollars) will be able to build the same deck within the same time frame regardless of when they start playing. No catch up needed.
time= money friend invest one or both into your collection. You might not start off at the top of the ladder but you can compete and CLIMB through the tiers of play without spending any money. No matter how far "behind" you are in your collection you can still progress. don't mistake an opportunity as something you're entitled to.
You can claim that the gap will become to much to bridge, but it won't stop other players from grinding... just you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Those who do not step forth and decide the meta, will only be ruled by it"
He's beating around the bush. Basically, it's a rainbows & sunshine way of saying you can craft a competitive deck at any time. True of course, but it fails to account for sideboard, experimentation, adaptation and evolution (no to mention collection, alts, fun) which does require more than 30 cards and all of those things suffer at the expense of working on that 30 cards.
Yeah, it's pretty easy to cobble together a deck that will function on ladder, but variations are limited. Without a great deal or research beforehand it's easier to create a horrible deck that it is a competitive one. And once cards start getting disenchanted to craft new ones the inefficiency locks you into whatever choice was made to a large degree.
Not an issue for experienced players - but for new players you can expect to spend a great deal of time or a great deal of money to get into the game in a competitive way. I think that is why this issue comes up - it's not that it can't be done, but that it's not easy without a foundation of experience to start with. Either way - you will need time, money, or help. It's not as simple as "30 cards".
So that's it huh? The question was "In light of future expansions, do you believe a catch up mechanic is necessary?". Question was about the future, I don't know why you are so butthurt by the fact that it is not at the present. Also you cannot deny that formats increase stability, compare Legacy to any Block format in Magic. There's a MASSIVE difference in variability due to card variety. You keep asking for evidence related to Hearthstone because you know you cannot when compared to another game.
1. Lay off the condescending tone. It makes you look like a youtube commenter.
2. I already addressed the 'future' element anyway. More cards do not mean an unstable, hyperchanging meta.
And I AM denying that the formats increase meta stability. I ASKED for you to prove otherwise. I provided a reference that the blocks were made due to the difficulty of obtaining older cards rather than slowing down the meta. Do you have any reference, any actual examples of otherwise? Or are you going to keep assuming I'm still stuck on the 'present' thing?
And I didn't ask for 'evidence related to HS. I used MTG for an example: a physical TCG. You're free to use other card games for examples. Just actually HAVE examples and not just declarations with no proof.
" 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. "
Doesn't this paragraph hurt your point? No shit players are able to craft old cards, the question is how fast will they need to change and if it will remain feasible to keep up. You keep demanding evidence, the problem is you refuse to acknowledge any of the patterns or precedents of any other card game?"
The paragraph was linked to the topic of why limited formats exist in MTG. They exist because you CANNOT just craft up a season 1 card after season 30 is out if it turns out you need it. Thus they need limited formats to block out those old cards and force the meta into cards that others can actually obtain. I then mused on whether HS will need such a format.
I mused about it because I had already addressed the question you asked: yes it is feasable to keep up. Your example using MTG doesn't work because they use block formats for other reasons, not because of the meta changing too much. I deny your statement and provided an outside reference defending my denial. You can find evidence defending this point if you wish. Otherwise, you will need another example.
You are relying on a logical fallacy, because it does not pose a problem now it will never pose a problem. You are using the exact same excuse Ben Brode is. The problem isn't your assertion but the conviction with which you repeat it.
Incorrect. I am relying on the logic that it not only hasn't happened here but it doesn't happen in other card games. I use the above statement about the reasons for MTG's block formats along with my own personal experience. When I joined card games that were well established, even when they didn't have block formats, so long as I had equal ability to obtain any of the entire card selection I had no more problem drafting a deck. All it took was researching the current meta, then just pulling the cards needd from each expansion. The only times when I would have difficulty is when cards stopped being available. Nothing like OP cards that were only obtainable during special events or good cards that go out of print. THAT is when you leave players stuck. It was NEVER due to the meta switching so often that my deck would be out of commission soon after I made it. And that's including games where they added in new expansion every 2 months.
Here's the exact question taken from the podcast: "Do you feel like the catch up is A) hard right now or B) going to be harder moving forward as new expansions hit or new content comes to the game".
Also Ben Brode specifically mentions how generous Blizzard is for giving basic cards just for playing the game. He also claims you can play 100% F2P at the very highest levels of play. Meaning tournaments. It's an obvious PR statement but it still annoys me that many people will blind parrot it indefinitely.
NONE of which is relevant to the discussion. This isn't "The thing I hate about Ben Brode" This is a thread specifically talking about ONE of his statements. If you wanted to talk about F2P vs P2W then you should've started your debate about THAT instead of focusing on his one line.
Now stop trying to 'pick apart' my posts and actually defend your points. To make it easier I'll plop what seems to be the root arguments.
Adding more cards into a card game does not result in an constantly shifting meta. Instead it results in a period of 'flux' as people try out new cards and styles. Eventually, a few high end decks are made or modified from past decks until the meta slows and stabilized around those decks. This stays put until the next expansion.
While individually you can adapt your deck to counter others, the majority of players, the Meta, does not switch quickly. Even when counters to the main decks are found, the majority takes time to shift into it at best after the initial flux. Sometimes, they never do resulting in a very easy climb to the top.
MTG's format system isn't due to meta instability. It's due to players in Legacy using cards that now require a contract with the devil to locate and obtain making it VERY hard for new players to compete. Thus the blocks allow those with those hard to obtain cards to compete together while others can use decks that are more recent and, thus, easier to obtain.
Since the Meta stabilizes regularly, new players have time to locate and build a deck that works with the meta at the time. Adding more expansions will not change this overall element. By the time they have a deck that competes and they face a major meta shift, they will no longer be 'new' and thus will have a collection that allows for such shifting.
Swearing during a debate suggests that you sound more angry and desperate than I am. Aka more 'butthurt' as you would put it.
Your entire argument hinges on the existence of formats not being to limit the meta. Which they are not, yet you deny that this is an unintended positive repercussion. That is a logical fallacy. You deny any possible evidence that legacy has more variety than standard based on your silly concept "that's not the purpose of formats". I really don't know how to convince you but here, have a link about MTG players talking about the differences between legacy and standard: http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/standard-type-2/standard-archives/101584-legacy-vs-standard-an-analytical-comparison .
I really have no idea how to get to you if you stick to that logic. The problem is that your last part screwed you over. You basically admit your ignorance over this specific issue. You are factually incorrect in this part. More cards DO directly widen the meta. But instead of relying on any factual evidence you go back to "if it wasn't intended by the creator it mustn't be true!"
You are getting deeper into a tangent you aren't best suited for. There is overwhelming evidence that card diversity does indeed change the variability in the meta. Why don't you argue on practical grounds? Like creating blocks in Hearthstone allowing players to choose to only play from one expansion? Oh yeah, card variety never matters. According to you there will always be the exact same amount of competitive decks if Hearthstone has 200 cards or if Hearthstone has 200,000 cards.
I said it many times and i'll say it again, MTG is not comparable to HS in terms of expansion releases and formatting. MTG has no way to allow new players to obtain old cards from 10 expansions ago, because physical production of the cards were halted, which is why they need to introduce blocks. In HS, 50 years from now you can still craft a Ragnaros with the very same amount of dust as you need today.
HS is NOT a TCG, there is no trading involved, ALL cards are accessible to ALL players via crafting mode. Any player who wants a Ragnaros 50 years from now has to go through the same amount of packs (RNGesus willing) that a player has to go through today. It is already as fair as you can get, no catch up needed.
2 players who spend the same amount of money (0 dollars to 2,000 dollars) will be able to build the same deck within the same time frame regardless of when they start playing. No catch up needed.
The problem with your analogy is that it's static. It takes a single frame and ignores all context. Yes players will be able to craft Ragnaros, that isn't the issue. The issue is if new players will be able to compete with a constantly changing meta. This is not a problem in MTG because of different formats, but Hearthstone as of now has no cap or block system to allow players to build a deck that will be continually competitive in a static environment like the one you mentioned.
"The problem with your analogy is that it's static. It takes a single frame and ignores all context. Yes players will be able to craft Ragnaros, that isn't the issue. The issue is if new players will be able to compete with a constantly changing meta. This is not a problem in MTG because of different formats, but Hearthstone as of now has no cap or block system to allow players to build a deck that will be continually competitive in a static environment like the one you mentioned."
i doubt the meta changes every week within a season. Even if it does, it is not gonna render a deck 100% useless on the ladder. So, as a new player jumping into the game, all you need to do is determine which 30-card deck you want to use to ladder, buy packs with real money, dust, and then craft those 30 cards. There is no assurance that the deck will bring you to legend, for legendary rank is only attainable for a selected group of players, but you will have the chance to compete on the ladder. Also, it is not confirmed that the same deck that brought you to legend this season can do the same for the subsequent seasons until the next expansion, and no format or block can ensure that. However, regardless of how many thousands of cards are available in the system, that 30-card deck that you made 3 months ago can compete on the ladder. Key word is "compete".
If you want to talk about how f2p players should be given a chance to be competitive within 1 month of getting into the game with 2 hours of play time per day, i think it is ridiculous.
Then say that in the OP and maybe I wouldn't have wasted my time responding to your whine. "I'm upset about how he says it" GOD what are you a 12 year old? Grow up, this is a business, this is marketing and PR, look at what you get and think about what you're willing to pay for it (whether in time or money) and grow the f up.
Should've just ended the thread here, this is all that needed to be said.
So, going back to the first post made and listening to the interview. To answer the question in my words, he's merely stating that new players don't need to have a full collection of cards to compete at a given time. You just need a deck that fits the meta. Competing doesn't mean winning.
This is the way new players play as well - they usually have just the one class they like and they add cards as they go along. I disenchanted all my non-class commons for a while to boost my starting hunter deck.
Then say that in the OP and maybe I wouldn't have wasted my time responding to your whine. "I'm upset about how he says it" GOD what are you a 12 year old? Grow up, this is a business, this is marketing and PR, look at what you get and think about what you're willing to pay for it (whether in time or money) and grow the f up.
Should've just ended the thread here, this is all that needed to be said.
Well actually there was a lot of good discussion that came up after that, I'm guessing you didn't read between the snickers of childish glee you had when someone was supposedly "epicly own XDXD lol".
People like you is why these threads need to exist, people unwilling to justify their reasoning that just blind parrot what others say, by the way the post you decided to blind parrot was one of the trashiest ones.
"The problem with your analogy is that it's static. It takes a single frame and ignores all context. Yes players will be able to craft Ragnaros, that isn't the issue. The issue is if new players will be able to compete with a constantly changing meta. This is not a problem in MTG because of different formats, but Hearthstone as of now has no cap or block system to allow players to build a deck that will be continually competitive in a static environment like the one you mentioned."
i doubt the meta changes every week within a season. Even if it does, it is not gonna render a deck 100% useless on the ladder. So, as a new player jumping into the game, all you need to do is determine which 30-card deck you want to use to ladder, buy packs with real money, dust, and then craft those 30 cards. There is no assurance that the deck will bring you to legend, for legendary rank is only attainable for a selected group of players, but you will have the chance to compete on the ladder. Also, it is not confirmed that the same deck that brought you to legend this season can do the same for the subsequent seasons until the next expansion, and no format or block can ensure that. However, regardless of how many thousands of cards are available in the system, that 30-card deck that you made 3 months ago can compete on the ladder. Key word is "compete".
If you want to talk about how f2p players should be given a chance to be competitive within 1 month of getting into the game with 2 hours of play time per day, i think it is ridiculous.
So you definition of compete is pretty much just playing the game. You are completely eliminating it of any context. If we look at it that way then I can make a deck of 30 wisps, hypothetical, and still "compete" on later. But doing so would be a travesty to the argument. I agree to some extent that player decks will have a moderate amount of sustainability and reusability, my worry is that this entry level will turn off players. Sure their decks will be playable but it won't be able to compete with people that have access to multiple decks, those on the cutting edge. The point is I don't believe people should instantly get a full collection when they enter the game, I don't think they should get more than the basic set. But there should be some mechanism to ease in this new players and allow them to play in a pseudo competitive environment so they can enjoy the game while they build up their deck. I advocate some sort of separate playlist that only allows certain decks as a possible solution.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Looks like OP had been "backed into a corner".
"Put your face in the light!" - Tirion Fordring
So that's it huh? The question was "In light of future expansions, do you believe a catch up mechanic is necessary?". Question was about the future, I don't know why you are so butthurt by the fact that it is not at the present. Also you cannot deny that formats increase stability, compare Legacy to any Block format in Magic. There's a MASSIVE difference in variability due to card variety. You keep asking for evidence related to Hearthstone because you know you cannot when compared to another game.
" 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. "
Doesn't this paragraph hurt your point? No shit players are able to craft old cards, the question is how fast will they need to change and if it will remain feasible to keep up. You keep demanding evidence, the problem is you refuse to acknowledge any of the patterns or precedents of any other card game?"
You are relying on a logical fallacy, because it does not pose a problem now it will never pose a problem. You are using the exact same excuse Ben Brode is. The problem isn't your assertion but the conviction with which you repeat it.
Here's the exact question taken from the podcast: "Do you feel like the catch up is A) hard right now or B) going to be harder moving forward as new expansions hit or new content comes to the game".
Also Ben Brode specifically mentions how generous Blizzard is for giving basic cards just for playing the game. He also claims you can play 100% F2P at the very highest levels of play. Meaning tournaments. It's an obvious PR statement but it still annoys me that many people will blind parrot it indefinitely.
"Dishonest and deceptive" please go ahead and highlight my "dishonest and deceptive" moments.
Good god this is some of the best reading I've had in a while.
In case anyone wants a TL:DR, it's basically just someone whining about Ben Brode saying something he disagrees with (originally pretending he merely didn't understand the quote) and then trying to shove his opinion down people's throats when they provide arguments against his views.
He also assumes that physical card games, where you have to spend lots of money and time to collect all the cards, can be used as a comparison for an online card game, where the cards are readily available to you and can be obtained with either:
A) A lot of money, little to no time
B) A fair bit of time, little to no money
I do suggest reading the whole thing though, great for a laugh.
You can find me here! Good luck everyone!
Well nice red herring.
The question was resolved in the first 5 posts. The argument against my views didn't appear until iandaker came up, he's by far the best counterargument in this thread. You whining about not having a counterargument makes you a bit of a hypocrite. Also that part about physical card games is a straw man. It was used to compare behaviors of metas. At no point was there ever a discussion of a F2P system, it was irrelevant but I guess your reading comprehension just wasn't ready for it. The comparison was used to show that Catch up mechanisms, like formats, allows players to play in environments where there is a stable enough meta that will allow them to craft a deck that will last.
A catch up mechanism does not have to be a handout, the availability of multiple formats in MTG replace the need for a catch up mechanism. My problem is that instead of addressing any of the points, Brode gave a garbage PR statement. You should have taken your own advice and read the whole thing.
The roundabout way he started the conversation was a bit unorthodox but I think his perspective is worth considering. Hearthstone does seem to facing some serious entry barriers in the near future. Ben brode's banal comment (while admittedly devoid of context) seems to be glossing over an important issue.
Yes it's a good issue to discuss.
unfortunately this thread is all about OP hating ben brode and how ben brode is the worst human being alive. Everything needs to be related to ben's original statement as titled in this thread.
"Put your face in the light!" - Tirion Fordring
So you agree that his point is of no relevance? Good now maybe we can start discussing, I suggest reading iandaker's posts if you wish to catch up on the debate.
His point sets out the basics of the game. 30 cards, build deck, play and compete.
now, before we can decide whether a catch-up mechanism is required, we need to ask ourselves: catch up to what?
what kind of gameplay do you expect to give a new player after 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months of play?
to be able to compete on the ladder depends on 2 factors, deck and playskill. Is it reasonable to introduce a catch-up mechanism so that any new player can have all naxx cards within 1 week and facehunter their way to rank 12 in the first season? Must the catch up system just spoonfeed new players with good cards to the point that they don't have to make the decision between crafting a harvest golem or earthshock with their limited resources?
who should be able to compete in the ladder? Anyone who is 3 months into the game?
are the basic cards and initial rewards not enough to start a player off to an enjoyable game?
ben's statement was about competitive play, how competitive are we talking about? StrifeCro? Or laddering from 20 to 15?
this topic can be discussed in length and be more productive if you put aside your personal agenda with ben and just get straight to the point. Now it just leaves a sour taste because it started off as a jab at the game developer, and it will forever remain as such, just a jab thread.
"Put your face in the light!" - Tirion Fordring
Can somebody please explain why some people feel it's necessary for brand-new players to be able to start the game and then immediately be able to compete with experienced players that have invested x amount of time/money and made an effort to be good at the game? I feel like this is the underlying issue the OP is arguing about.
It has to do with the self entitlement of new generations. probably stemmed from sports day mentality of "there are no losers, everyone is a winner" as well as distribution of participation medals for just showing up.
"Put your face in the light!" - Tirion Fordring
1. Lay off the condescending tone. It makes you look like a youtube commenter.
2. I already addressed the 'future' element anyway. More cards do not mean an unstable, hyperchanging meta.
And I AM denying that the formats increase meta stability. I ASKED for you to prove otherwise. I provided a reference that the blocks were made due to the difficulty of obtaining older cards rather than slowing down the meta. Do you have any reference, any actual examples of otherwise? Or are you going to keep assuming I'm still stuck on the 'present' thing?
And I didn't ask for 'evidence related to HS. I used MTG for an example: a physical TCG. You're free to use other card games for examples. Just actually HAVE examples and not just declarations with no proof.
The paragraph was linked to the topic of why limited formats exist in MTG. They exist because you CANNOT just craft up a season 1 card after season 30 is out if it turns out you need it. Thus they need limited formats to block out those old cards and force the meta into cards that others can actually obtain. I then mused on whether HS will need such a format.
I mused about it because I had already addressed the question you asked: yes it is feasable to keep up. Your example using MTG doesn't work because they use block formats for other reasons, not because of the meta changing too much. I deny your statement and provided an outside reference defending my denial. You can find evidence defending this point if you wish. Otherwise, you will need another example.
Incorrect. I am relying on the logic that it not only hasn't happened here but it doesn't happen in other card games. I use the above statement about the reasons for MTG's block formats along with my own personal experience. When I joined card games that were well established, even when they didn't have block formats, so long as I had equal ability to obtain any of the entire card selection I had no more problem drafting a deck. All it took was researching the current meta, then just pulling the cards needd from each expansion. The only times when I would have difficulty is when cards stopped being available. Nothing like OP cards that were only obtainable during special events or good cards that go out of print. THAT is when you leave players stuck. It was NEVER due to the meta switching so often that my deck would be out of commission soon after I made it. And that's including games where they added in new expansion every 2 months.
NONE of which is relevant to the discussion. This isn't "The thing I hate about Ben Brode" This is a thread specifically talking about ONE of his statements. If you wanted to talk about F2P vs P2W then you should've started your debate about THAT instead of focusing on his one line.
Now stop trying to 'pick apart' my posts and actually defend your points. To make it easier I'll plop what seems to be the root arguments.
Adding more cards into a card game does not result in an constantly shifting meta. Instead it results in a period of 'flux' as people try out new cards and styles. Eventually, a few high end decks are made or modified from past decks until the meta slows and stabilized around those decks. This stays put until the next expansion.
While individually you can adapt your deck to counter others, the majority of players, the Meta, does not switch quickly. Even when counters to the main decks are found, the majority takes time to shift into it at best after the initial flux. Sometimes, they never do resulting in a very easy climb to the top.
MTG's format system isn't due to meta instability. It's due to players in Legacy using cards that now require a contract with the devil to locate and obtain making it VERY hard for new players to compete. Thus the blocks allow those with those hard to obtain cards to compete together while others can use decks that are more recent and, thus, easier to obtain.
Since the Meta stabilizes regularly, new players have time to locate and build a deck that works with the meta at the time. Adding more expansions will not change this overall element. By the time they have a deck that competes and they face a major meta shift, they will no longer be 'new' and thus will have a collection that allows for such shifting.
Swearing during a debate suggests that you sound more angry and desperate than I am. Aka more 'butthurt' as you would put it.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
I said it many times and i'll say it again, MTG is not comparable to HS in terms of expansion releases and formatting. MTG has no way to allow new players to obtain old cards from 10 expansions ago, because physical production of the cards were halted, which is why they need to introduce blocks. In HS, 50 years from now you can still craft a Ragnaros with the very same amount of dust as you need today.
HS is NOT a TCG, there is no trading involved, ALL cards are accessible to ALL players via crafting mode. Any player who wants a Ragnaros 50 years from now has to go through the same amount of packs (RNGesus willing) that a player has to go through today. It is already as fair as you can get, no catch up needed.
2 players who spend the same amount of money (0 dollars to 2,000 dollars) will be able to build the same deck within the same time frame regardless of when they start playing. No catch up needed.
"Put your face in the light!" - Tirion Fordring
time= money friend invest one or both into your collection. You might not start off at the top of the ladder but you can compete and CLIMB through the tiers of play without spending any money. No matter how far "behind" you are in your collection you can still progress. don't mistake an opportunity as something you're entitled to.
You can claim that the gap will become to much to bridge, but it won't stop other players from grinding... just you.
"Those who do not step forth and decide the meta, will only be ruled by it"
He's beating around the bush. Basically, it's a rainbows & sunshine way of saying you can craft a competitive deck at any time. True of course, but it fails to account for sideboard, experimentation, adaptation and evolution (no to mention collection, alts, fun) which does require more than 30 cards and all of those things suffer at the expense of working on that 30 cards.
Yeah, it's pretty easy to cobble together a deck that will function on ladder, but variations are limited. Without a great deal or research beforehand it's easier to create a horrible deck that it is a competitive one. And once cards start getting disenchanted to craft new ones the inefficiency locks you into whatever choice was made to a large degree.
Not an issue for experienced players - but for new players you can expect to spend a great deal of time or a great deal of money to get into the game in a competitive way. I think that is why this issue comes up - it's not that it can't be done, but that it's not easy without a foundation of experience to start with. Either way - you will need time, money, or help. It's not as simple as "30 cards".
Your entire argument hinges on the existence of formats not being to limit the meta. Which they are not, yet you deny that this is an unintended positive repercussion. That is a logical fallacy. You deny any possible evidence that legacy has more variety than standard based on your silly concept "that's not the purpose of formats". I really don't know how to convince you but here, have a link about MTG players talking about the differences between legacy and standard: http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/standard-type-2/standard-archives/101584-legacy-vs-standard-an-analytical-comparison .
I really have no idea how to get to you if you stick to that logic. The problem is that your last part screwed you over. You basically admit your ignorance over this specific issue. You are factually incorrect in this part. More cards DO directly widen the meta. But instead of relying on any factual evidence you go back to "if it wasn't intended by the creator it mustn't be true!"
You are getting deeper into a tangent you aren't best suited for. There is overwhelming evidence that card diversity does indeed change the variability in the meta. Why don't you argue on practical grounds? Like creating blocks in Hearthstone allowing players to choose to only play from one expansion? Oh yeah, card variety never matters. According to you there will always be the exact same amount of competitive decks if Hearthstone has 200 cards or if Hearthstone has 200,000 cards.
The problem with your analogy is that it's static. It takes a single frame and ignores all context. Yes players will be able to craft Ragnaros, that isn't the issue. The issue is if new players will be able to compete with a constantly changing meta. This is not a problem in MTG because of different formats, but Hearthstone as of now has no cap or block system to allow players to build a deck that will be continually competitive in a static environment like the one you mentioned.
"The problem with your analogy is that it's static. It takes a single frame and ignores all context. Yes players will be able to craft Ragnaros, that isn't the issue. The issue is if new players will be able to compete with a constantly changing meta. This is not a problem in MTG because of different formats, but Hearthstone as of now has no cap or block system to allow players to build a deck that will be continually competitive in a static environment like the one you mentioned."
i doubt the meta changes every week within a season. Even if it does, it is not gonna render a deck 100% useless on the ladder. So, as a new player jumping into the game, all you need to do is determine which 30-card deck you want to use to ladder, buy packs with real money, dust, and then craft those 30 cards. There is no assurance that the deck will bring you to legend, for legendary rank is only attainable for a selected group of players, but you will have the chance to compete on the ladder. Also, it is not confirmed that the same deck that brought you to legend this season can do the same for the subsequent seasons until the next expansion, and no format or block can ensure that. However, regardless of how many thousands of cards are available in the system, that 30-card deck that you made 3 months ago can compete on the ladder. Key word is "compete".
If you want to talk about how f2p players should be given a chance to be competitive within 1 month of getting into the game with 2 hours of play time per day, i think it is ridiculous.
"Put your face in the light!" - Tirion Fordring
Should've just ended the thread here, this is all that needed to be said.
So, going back to the first post made and listening to the interview. To answer the question in my words, he's merely stating that new players don't need to have a full collection of cards to compete at a given time. You just need a deck that fits the meta. Competing doesn't mean winning.
I'll end with Hearthstone is fun. :D
This is the way new players play as well - they usually have just the one class they like and they add cards as they go along. I disenchanted all my non-class commons for a while to boost my starting hunter deck.
Well actually there was a lot of good discussion that came up after that, I'm guessing you didn't read between the snickers of childish glee you had when someone was supposedly "epicly own XDXD lol".
People like you is why these threads need to exist, people unwilling to justify their reasoning that just blind parrot what others say, by the way the post you decided to blind parrot was one of the trashiest ones.
So you definition of compete is pretty much just playing the game. You are completely eliminating it of any context. If we look at it that way then I can make a deck of 30 wisps, hypothetical, and still "compete" on later. But doing so would be a travesty to the argument. I agree to some extent that player decks will have a moderate amount of sustainability and reusability, my worry is that this entry level will turn off players. Sure their decks will be playable but it won't be able to compete with people that have access to multiple decks, those on the cutting edge. The point is I don't believe people should instantly get a full collection when they enter the game, I don't think they should get more than the basic set. But there should be some mechanism to ease in this new players and allow them to play in a pseudo competitive environment so they can enjoy the game while they build up their deck. I advocate some sort of separate playlist that only allows certain decks as a possible solution.