I think there is one argument here that no one is addressing: Isn't it a problem that a card game and its random elements have more control over the players' emotions then their own minds?
I personally don't think it's a problem, because it's essentially the case in any game where random chance is involved. The human brain tries to find patterns in random events and make correlations between them (look at the people who think matchmaking is legitimately rigged based on their deck choice, as an example), which is why most players argue to look at averages over slices of games. Paveling Book gets thrown around a bunch, but there was a giant breakdown of things that basically illuminated that the RNG really didn't favor either him or Amnesiac more than the other; meanwhile people focus in on a clip they can absorb in less than 30 seconds, and determine that's why he won the match. So maybe it is a problem, but it's a problem with how we as people function if we don't take a step back and approach something logically. The human brain is amazing but easily one of the biggest reasons we tend to sabotage ourselves.
I'll genuinely be curious to see what the Gwent community looks like in about 2 years, because they're clearly very focused on a low-RNG game. Not even in the sense that there are no random effects, but they're taking on draw RNG by making games a very similar length and having you play most of the cards in your deck every game; once the novelty has worn off, what will people decide to hate? What will the pain points for competitive players be at that point? I imagine we'll see a vocal burst over something in the game, because that's generally how gaming communities devolve over the years like it did with Hearthstone. People will envision new and better ways to forego logic in favor of what they think is a better way to tell themselves they don't actually need to get better, the game does.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Articles I suggest every player reads to improve at the game;
I think there is one argument here that no one is addressing: Isn't it a problem that a card game and its random elements have more control over the players' emotions then their own minds?
I personally don't think it's a problem, because it's essentially the case in any game where random chance is involved. The human brain tries to find patterns in random events and make correlations between them (look at the people who think matchmaking is legitimately rigged based on their deck choice, as an example), which is why most players argue to look at averages over slices of games. Paveling Book gets thrown around a bunch, but there was a giant breakdown of things that basically illuminated that the RNG really didn't favor either him or Amnesiac more than the other; meanwhile people focus in on a clip they can absorb in less than 30 seconds, and determine that's why he won the match. So maybe it is a problem, but it's a problem with how we as people function if we don't take a step back and approach something logically. The human brain is amazing but easily one of the biggest reasons we tend to sabotage ourselves.
I'll genuinely be curious to see what the Gwent community looks like in about 2 years, because they're clearly very focused on a low-RNG game. Not even in the sense that there are no random effects, but they're taking on draw RNG by making games a very similar length and having you play most of the cards in your deck every game; once the novelty has worn off, what will people decide to hate? What will the pain points for competitive players be at that point? I imagine we'll see a vocal burst over something in the game, because that's generally how gaming communities devolve over the years like it did with Hearthstone. People will envision new and better ways to forego logic in favor of what they think is a better way to tell themselves they don't actually need to get better, the game does.
Well said and fair enough. I'm slightly amused by the whole physiological aspect here; it's as if we are playing a card game against ourselves ya know?
This is a bit off topic here, but let me just take the time to say that I think you are one of the best members of the Hearthpwn community. You always organize your arguments well and express them eloquently. You always seem to respect other people opinions and never call anyone a "hater", "fanboy", or any other general labels that people like to apply to each other. Your thoughts rarely ever rely on your emotions, and there's always some sort of logical thought behind each and every one of your comments. And I respect you for that. Keep up the good work!
@Cogito_Ergo_Sum; that's very flattering, but I'm definitely not one of the best members. :P
I do think it's cool to see this kind of topic though, even if people have opinions that are a bit out there. Hopefully there's more demand for analytical content down the road too, I think really that's one of the big issues right now; someone like Firebat can make a video where he's breaking down a thought process and thinking competitively... or he can make a video with a meme deck. The latter just tends to be more appealing to most people, and you can't blame a guy for wanting to make more money (content creation is his job, after all).
There's a lot of room for content creation that focuses on putting a spotlight on the competitive aspect of the game, but it just doesn't tend to be very lucrative. Once it gets lucrative we'll see something more similar to Magic's ecosystem I imagine.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Articles I suggest every player reads to improve at the game;
Speaking of negativity, I was recently reading the latest Magic article: Metamorphosis 2.0.
As usual, I looked at MTG Salvation to see what people were saying about the article. (MTG Salvation is like the Magic equivalent of Hearthpwn). Here's the first comment on the thread. It was written by a MTG Salvation mod.
In a few hours from me writing this, MaRo's Metamorphosis v2 article will be released. Once that happens, this thread will be unlocked and discussion about it can begin. However, given the current state of standard and how people's views about WOTC currently are, we expect this to become a rather incendiary topic. This is why the discussion is prefaced with this warning: Keep things civil. While criticism of WOTC is perfectly allowed, we do not allow any personal attacks, flaming, veiled threats or anything of the sort. Once the discussion about the article starts, keep this in mind: Attack the Idea, not the Person. We will be keeping an eye on this thread and people who break this warning will recieve 1-point warnings, no questions asked. So please, keep it civil. And at the same time, please also avoid one-sentence responses like "This sucks" or "This is awesome". We're trying to go for discussion here, not spam.
I think a point Kibler made that is not being discussed (insofar as I can see at least), is this:
In the competitive scene for Hearthstone, the majority of players who compete in tournaments at the championship level are pretty consistent.
You see newcomers - there should never be a competitive game where NOBODY can ever break into it - but by and large, you see similar faces in each major tournament.
If RNG were as bad as people claim and believe it to be, would you not see random people in every tournament ? It's not like there aren't a lot of people trying for it - qualifying tournaments and rounds filter out hundreds if not thousands of players.
Doesn't the fact that it's consistently the same people each time actually mean that randomness does NOT trump skill and practice in the game? And if you don't believe that, could you explain why? Could you explain why the tournament lineup is consistent?
Yes, Pavel won a game based on a lucky draw from babbling book - but that's only looking at a very small sample size of matches. Even if it's a championship - the overall trend is that RNG is not that impactful.
I want to hear Kibler rant more on Quest Rogue decks, he had a brief outburst in today's YouTube video while ironically playing a Yogg deck (remember that card?). He rarely gets bitter but that and pirate warrior decks get under his skin.
Video game players ranting about luck of the draw in nerd poker after a loss? That is just natural.
Blizzard is never going to make this game about skill. That will shut out a large market of revenue for them. The game will always balance around RNG and corresponding match-ups to give everyone a shot at wining a few games, completing some quests and luring in more players to purchase more packs, thats it. All at the expense of skill. The RNG factor is so high that in order to create some semblance of competition in tournaments, players are allowed to ban decks leaving tournaments winners feeling "yeah I kinda one cause of skill but not really."
I enjoy RNG. RNG allows any player the chance to win a given match. If I were to play against Kolento there is a reasonable chance I could win. That makes the game exciting. I also know that he'll likely beat me 9 out of 10, which also makes it fair.
Without RNG all that's left is skill. I don't want the better player to always win. I'd gladly lose X% of matches to an inferior player if that means I would also pick up X% of games against a superior player. The knowlege that ANYTHING could happen makes me keep coming back for more!
Imagine if there were no RNG in HS. There would be deck matchups with 90-10 win probability. Currently we live in a meta with a half dozen tier 1 decks all with similar win rates. At best you could be a 60-40 favorite. I find that awesome.
For those of you who spout negativity why stick around? There are so many other games to choose from. If you think Magic is better go play that. Nobody has to know or care about your reasons. Personal preference is personal. But the truth is the negative whiners on Reddit and these boards play this game because it's downright fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Anger is the punishment we give ourselves for someone else's mistake.
I enjoy RNG. RNG allows any player the chance to win a given match. If I were to play against Kolento there is a reasonable chance I could win. That makes the game exciting. I also know that he'll likely beat me 9 out of 10, which also makes it fair.
Without RNG all that's left is skill. I don't want the better player to always win. I'd gladly lose X% of matches to an inferior player if that means I would also pick up X% of games against a superior player. The knowlege that ANYTHING could happen makes me keep coming back for more!
Imagine if there were no RNG in HS. There would be deck matchups with 90-10 win probability. Currently we live in a meta with a half dozen tier 1 decks all with similar win rates. At best you could be a 60-40 favorite. I find that awesome.
For those of you who spout negativity why stick around? There are so many other games to choose from. If you think Magic is better go play that. Nobody has to know or care about your reasons. Personal preference is personal. But the truth is the negative whiners on Reddit and these boards play this game because it's downright fun.
You're exactly right on. It what keeps Casinos packed and people playing the game. No argument there. The question from what I inferred from the video is why pro-players seem to take away from their skills when they when win, most times chalking it up to RNG. Well, because they should and why they should and why that won't change. Don't confuse negativity with stating the obvious.
The knowlege that ANYTHING could happen makes me keep coming back for more!
Pretty much this. And by now, HS's identity is already defined as a game filled with whacky RNG, and whoever plays it now certainly tolerates it or would have left for slower, less random card games.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Start of Year: Provoke the failure of 3 expansions, force nerfs on otherwise balanced cards, bring deckbuilding to an all-time low and get rotated one year earlier for being such a threat to the game's health. - Genn and Baku's historical entry on the White Book of Shit Design, shortly before retiring unpunished
Pivotal to the video is 11.10 - 12.10 In that one minute he says it all, revealing the reason why he made this video. More importantly is the interpretation of his words and what he is trying to say:
There's is more respect for competitive players and for the game in MTG compared to Hearthstone.
People complaining about randomness: part of card games.
'..Randomness in Hearthstone, because of the low level of game variance in the game engine is pretty crucial for the game to remain fun and make different thing happen from game to game.' (11.48- 12.01).
What He is saying resonates/defends the opinion, outlook and card design philosophy of Brode and consort. For the game to be fun variance must be low. How low variance emanates into more fun is quite unclear. What he is simply saying is that the dominance (low variance) of aggressive aggro makes the game fun, which is the hallmark of advertisement: "a fast paced game."
How 'different things' could happen from game to game in this understanding of fun is also pretty unclear. But if there's more respect for streamers and broader community in MTG, less with Hearthstone Kibler just gave the explanation: the skill level of MTG is higher than Hearthstone and that creates more respect.
You can't expect people in HS having more respect for streamers/ being less negative; you only can battle negativity by raising the skill floor of card design. Negativity has everything to do with the continuance of repulsive, aggressive, aggro oriented card design mr. Kibler.
You better call on Brode and consort to slow down the game and generate more variance and diversity. Don't blame the community to be negative. Just give Brode a call. People want to be vindicated, respected by a skillful game approach which is intellectually more demanding (like MTG). That is not provided by current card design. If it is already clear by turn 4 who will win, you can't maintain there's is significant skill involved in HS, even in the competitive scene. It is pretty understandable that people shy away from saying they'd put al lot of effort in it as everybody acknowledge the meta is an ongoing low skill aggro frenzy.
So mr. Kibler, your video was meant for 12-years olds. But really your fanboyism defending current card design by asking for more respect/ less negativity, is in stark contrast with conditions to earn that respect: better card design and an intellectually satisfying game. Since that is not the case, your quest is in vain.
TL;DR. There is more respect/ less negativity in MTG than in Hearthstone because the skill level of MTG is higher than HS.
Just out of curiosity, could you make some cards for us that have better card design? I'm not challenging you or anything. I'm just curious as to what the ideal card for you might be.
Anything that would slowdown the game qualifies.
...that isn't specific at all. No offence, but "cards that slow down the game" isn't good enough in terms of card design nor detailed feedback. It's just not that simple. Could you please give me specific cards? (You can make them at Hearthcards.com) Your comment is starting to lose credibility here.
Give me what you want: some complicated, slowing cards that you so desire. Because frankly, I have no idea what you specifically want. Criticism requires details. You can't complain about how a pilot drives and expect them to better when your best advice is "fly better", no?
I want to hear Kibler rant more on Quest Rogue decks, he had a brief outburst in today's YouTube video while ironically playing a Yogg deck (remember that card?). He rarely gets bitter but that and pirate warrior decks get under his skin.
Video game players ranting about luck of the draw in nerd poker after a loss? That is just natural.
I wondered if you have seen This. From the same channel as the negativity video. I watched it a while back but his statement is that Quest Rogue is a deck where you don't have a lot of influence on if you play against it. It is not impossible to win against a quest rogue, it is just that you can't really interact against. Kibler finds it the one of the worst decks/mechanics ever created for Hearthstone. Following the discussion in this topic, this is maybe an example of having no big moves, RNG or other, to put against Quest rogue. Ofcourse the Quest rogue needs to draw well, but has enough tools to do that.
'..Randomness in Hearthstone, because of the low level of game variance in the game engine is pretty crucial for the game to remain fun and make different thing happen from game to game.' (11.48- 12.01).
... For the game to be fun variance must be low.
Kibler's quote doesn't mean anything remotely like your paraphrase of it.
If HS was more complex and strategic, it would lose half the players. Simplicity it's the core of this game and you must accept it. Ofc RNG is bad for a card game because the players loses control of the his own game, but it adds that spice every game needs.
You can't say that because consistency of same players at tournaments, there must be skill in the game. These people are more trained and studied harder, doing nothing else all day.
Huh? Again, you make no sense. That's exactly what skill is, the ability to outperform others. And, you acquire it through practice.
Negativity comes from the low skill floor which is expressed by the pace of the game, the dominance of aggro, multiple imbalances and asymmetry. Outside the tournaments scene people complain about that and that flows over into tournaments.
What it sounds like you're really complaining about is that among low to mid-skilled players, randomness overwhelms skill difference in determining game outcome. That may be the case, but if a player's reaction isn't to try to get better at the game, that would seem to be their problem.
I'll note that poker has the same issue, but few people argue that poker is an entirely unskillful game.
You know why I am always negative about Hearthstone? Two very simple reasons:
1. Because in EVERY meta there is a way a complete moron can get legend. Aggro druid, pirate warrior, aggro shaman, secret paladin, face hunter etc. you name it. A complete moron can do well by playing obvious shit on curve.
2. Randomness IS bad in the game. Now, discover I don't really mind as a mechanic. I think that's well designed. But bullshit like Yogg-Saron? They should've never considered making that.
I enjoy RNG. RNG allows any player the chance to win a given match. If I were to play against Kolento there is a reasonable chance I could win. That makes the game exciting. I also know that he'll likely beat me 9 out of 10, which also makes it fair.
Without RNG all that's left is skill. I don't want the better player to always win. I'd gladly lose X% of matches to an inferior player if that means I would also pick up X% of games against a superior player. The knowlege that ANYTHING could happen makes me keep coming back for more!
Imagine if there were no RNG in HS. There would be deck matchups with 90-10 win probability. Currently we live in a meta with a half dozen tier 1 decks all with similar win rates. At best you could be a 60-40 favorite. I find that awesome.
For those of you who spout negativity why stick around? There are so many other games to choose from. If you think Magic is better go play that. Nobody has to know or care about your reasons. Personal preference is personal. But the truth is the negative whiners on Reddit and these boards play this game because it's downright fun.
I agree entirely.
Taking this point further, this is why I greatly enjoy Hearthstone despite having played Magic extensively on the fringe of the European competitive scene for 20+ years. Both games have significant RNG but Hearthstone's RNG exists in a much more FUN form.
In Magic, the RNG exists primarily in random draws of land (mana crystals). One can easily draw very little land or draw far too much (and thus not enough creatures/spells) and lose any given game without ever having truly having been competitive. This can very well be despite being the superior player with a good match-up. It just happens and it isn't fun. Indeed, I estimate that 1in 3 games is decided, to one degree of another, by mana issues.
Don't get me wrong, the land mechanism is also responsible for a MASSIVE amount of skill in the deck design process and also a certain degree of skill in the Mulligan process, so it certainly has its plus points. However, it is certainly true to say that the majority of RNG in Magic exists in a very UNFUN place.
Hearthstone avoids this situation through the mana crystal system (mana isn't subject to the randomness of needing to be drawn from your deck). This would naturally lead to far less RNG than is present in Magic and hence would lose the Casino charm which Definitelynotsalty and others rightly praise. Instead, Hearthstone places its RNG in MUCH MORE FUN places and this is to be applauded, in my opinion.
Again this whiny kid in a body of a grown up guy.. He only plays meme decks cuz meta decks are "too common" and complains about not having enough success... Seriously he should just quit and start playing gwent or something
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Articles I suggest every player reads to improve at the game;
MTG/Hearthstone biases to avoid
Reframing negative Hearthstone experiences to improve at the game
Who's the Beatdown?
@Cogito_Ergo_Sum; that's very flattering, but I'm definitely not one of the best members. :P
I do think it's cool to see this kind of topic though, even if people have opinions that are a bit out there. Hopefully there's more demand for analytical content down the road too, I think really that's one of the big issues right now; someone like Firebat can make a video where he's breaking down a thought process and thinking competitively... or he can make a video with a meme deck. The latter just tends to be more appealing to most people, and you can't blame a guy for wanting to make more money (content creation is his job, after all).
There's a lot of room for content creation that focuses on putting a spotlight on the competitive aspect of the game, but it just doesn't tend to be very lucrative. Once it gets lucrative we'll see something more similar to Magic's ecosystem I imagine.
Articles I suggest every player reads to improve at the game;
MTG/Hearthstone biases to avoid
Reframing negative Hearthstone experiences to improve at the game
Who's the Beatdown?
Speaking of negativity, I was recently reading the latest Magic article: Metamorphosis 2.0.
As usual, I looked at MTG Salvation to see what people were saying about the article. (MTG Salvation is like the Magic equivalent of Hearthpwn). Here's the first comment on the thread. It was written by a MTG Salvation mod.
In a few hours from me writing this, MaRo's Metamorphosis v2 article will be released. Once that happens, this thread will be unlocked and discussion about it can begin. However, given the current state of standard and how people's views about WOTC currently are, we expect this to become a rather incendiary topic. This is why the discussion is prefaced with this warning: Keep things civil. While criticism of WOTC is perfectly allowed, we do not allow any personal attacks, flaming, veiled threats or anything of the sort. Once the discussion about the article starts, keep this in mind:
Attack the Idea, not the Person.
We will be keeping an eye on this thread and people who break this warning will recieve 1-point warnings, no questions asked. So please, keep it civil. And at the same time, please also avoid one-sentence responses like "This sucks" or "This is awesome". We're trying to go for discussion here, not spam.
How curious.
I think a point Kibler made that is not being discussed (insofar as I can see at least), is this:
In the competitive scene for Hearthstone, the majority of players who compete in tournaments at the championship level are pretty consistent.
You see newcomers - there should never be a competitive game where NOBODY can ever break into it - but by and large, you see similar faces in each major tournament.
If RNG were as bad as people claim and believe it to be, would you not see random people in every tournament ? It's not like there aren't a lot of people trying for it - qualifying tournaments and rounds filter out hundreds if not thousands of players.
Doesn't the fact that it's consistently the same people each time actually mean that randomness does NOT trump skill and practice in the game? And if you don't believe that, could you explain why? Could you explain why the tournament lineup is consistent?
Yes, Pavel won a game based on a lucky draw from babbling book - but that's only looking at a very small sample size of matches. Even if it's a championship - the overall trend is that RNG is not that impactful.
I want to hear Kibler rant more on Quest Rogue decks, he had a brief outburst in today's YouTube video while ironically playing a Yogg deck (remember that card?). He rarely gets bitter but that and pirate warrior decks get under his skin.
Video game players ranting about luck of the draw in nerd poker after a loss? That is just natural.
Blizzard is never going to make this game about skill. That will shut out a large market of revenue for them. The game will always balance around RNG and corresponding match-ups to give everyone a shot at wining a few games, completing some quests and luring in more players to purchase more packs, thats it. All at the expense of skill. The RNG factor is so high that in order to create some semblance of competition in tournaments, players are allowed to ban decks leaving tournaments winners feeling "yeah I kinda one cause of skill but not really."
I enjoy RNG. RNG allows any player the chance to win a given match. If I were to play against Kolento there is a reasonable chance I could win. That makes the game exciting. I also know that he'll likely beat me 9 out of 10, which also makes it fair.
Without RNG all that's left is skill. I don't want the better player to always win. I'd gladly lose X% of matches to an inferior player if that means I would also pick up X% of games against a superior player. The knowlege that ANYTHING could happen makes me keep coming back for more!
Imagine if there were no RNG in HS. There would be deck matchups with 90-10 win probability. Currently we live in a meta with a half dozen tier 1 decks all with similar win rates. At best you could be a 60-40 favorite. I find that awesome.
For those of you who spout negativity why stick around? There are so many other games to choose from. If you think Magic is better go play that. Nobody has to know or care about your reasons. Personal preference is personal. But the truth is the negative whiners on Reddit and these boards play this game because it's downright fun.
Anger is the punishment we give ourselves for someone else's mistake.
Start of Year: Provoke the failure of 3 expansions, force nerfs on otherwise balanced cards, bring deckbuilding to an all-time low and get rotated one year earlier for being such a threat to the game's health.
- Genn and Baku's historical entry on the White Book of Shit Design, shortly before retiring unpunished
I dont like Brian Kibler, sorry for being negative :(
- Click Here To Join Us On Discord! -
If HS was more complex and strategic, it would lose half the players. Simplicity it's the core of this game and you must accept it. Ofc RNG is bad for a card game because the players loses control of the his own game, but it adds that spice every game needs.
What it sounds like you're really complaining about is that among low to mid-skilled players, randomness overwhelms skill difference in determining game outcome. That may be the case, but if a player's reaction isn't to try to get better at the game, that would seem to be their problem.
I'll note that poker has the same issue, but few people argue that poker is an entirely unskillful game.
for anyone who's interested, I dug up the discussion Kibler mentions from Fr0zen about the thought process behind his play that viewers claimed was a misplay.
You know why I am always negative about Hearthstone? Two very simple reasons:
1. Because in EVERY meta there is a way a complete moron can get legend. Aggro druid, pirate warrior, aggro shaman, secret paladin, face hunter etc. you name it. A complete moron can do well by playing obvious shit on curve.
2. Randomness IS bad in the game. Now, discover I don't really mind as a mechanic. I think that's well designed. But bullshit like Yogg-Saron? They should've never considered making that.
Fuck cubelock
Again this whiny kid in a body of a grown up guy.. He only plays meme decks cuz meta decks are "too common" and complains about not having enough success... Seriously he should just quit and start playing gwent or something