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.
Part of the reason these players are so consistent is simply because they have the hours to grind to legend every month. As long as you are above average, hitting legend isn't some ridiculous goal but for how long it may take you to get there. There are a lot of "pro" Hearthstone players who are only invited to tournaments because they have successful Twitch streams/community presence.
The same is a bit true in a pro-scene like MTG, where once a player starts really earning pro-points and can start making the game a reliable source of income they can grind tournaments much more easily and cost effectively (some tiers of pro-point levels actually result in Hasbro paying the player's travel expenses and earning them several byes of early play for example). I would say though that MTG is general is a much more skill intensive game as it is miles and miles beyond HS in interactivity and decision making. I play both and have for years (many in the case of MTG) and would like to think of myself as at least "good" at both, watching a pro MTG player run through lines of play versus a HS player it's no comparison. You can even use Kibler himself as an example: his videos he discusses his lines of play and what he's playing around/setting up for, but then if you watch some of his MTG videos you're talking about multiple times more levels of contingencies. Part of that is just because of 'land' being a thing in HS and mana resources being less linear. "I can play this creature now, but if I don't hit my land drop next turn that's really bad. Alternatively, I can play this draw spell and try and make sure I hit my land drop next turn but then I'm tempoing myself out. What are the possible plays my opponent can have that either punish me for missing a land drop versus not having my creature in play?" Something simple like that really impacts a game in a way HS doesn't really have.
@ScaryKoolaid; I think the issue with just saying "these players are consistent because they can grind to Legend every month" is that it's not incorrect, but that it's not the sole reason they're there. Similar to literally any competitive scene, I doubt you're really going to see the top echelon of players consist of people who aren't sinking a ton of time improving or experimenting in a game so they can perform better in tournaments. Based on your second sentence, I think you're conflating Legend with actually being competitive; Top Legend is the only portion of ladder that actually matters to competitive players, and it's not as simple as spamming games as a mediocre player. And with your third sentence it seems you're forgetting that while invitationals still exist, they're outside the HCT circuit (and have been I believe since late 2015); we're seeing consistent performance in HCT and major tournaments like Dreamhack, where they qualified just like anyone else would. So while I completely agree that these players clearly have more time than most people and that gives them a competitive advantage over other people, I think it's a false equivalency to say that's the entire reason they're performing well.
MTG being more or less skill intensive genuinely doesn't matter to this conversation for the most part, because when you're evaluating Hearthstone's skill floor/ceiling you don't exactly need a measuring stick to do it. There are some pros that maintain that Hearthstone is harder than Magic (I believe Stancifka is in that camp), and there are some pros that believe Magic is a lot harder; all that really matters is that Hearthstone continues to reward excellent play, remains enjoyable, and continues to have solid support for the competitive scene. The winrates of tournament players in Hearthstone lining up similarly with those of Pro Tour winners is the indicator that Hearthstone and Magic both reward excellent play at about the same level, regardless of mechanical complexities.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Articles I suggest every player reads to improve at the game;
@Wellingt0n; that mirrors a lot of what some of the Magic pros that had migrated to the Hearthstone scene have basically said. Granted, I do think there are some merits to complaints with things that have a very wide variance in impact (Swashburglar for instance is pretty damn broad, so I'm not sure it's technically correct to factor in what your opponent may or may not have gotten from it)... but even those cases aren't necessarily ones I think instantly win games. But it seems like the conclusion for a lot of people arguing RNG is a problem is that it jumps straight into the argument that "Lots of RNG means there isn't skill in Hearthstone". People are kind of awful when it comes to nuance.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Articles I suggest every player reads to improve at the game;
I used to play a lot of MtG, and I have to say ... I lost at least as many games to being mana-screwed as I've ever lost due to random effects in Hearthstone. Talk about your "bad RNG"!
But no one ever really does talk about this because A) it's boring, and B) they can't exactly see what would have happened on a better draw. So they shrug and say, "Well, that's just part of the game!"
But it's a part of the game that happens all the time, and to me it's a million times more frustrating than any random effect in Hearthstone.
(This is all compounded by the fact that a lot of Hearthstone players like to blame RNG when they won't admit or don't even realize that their losses had a lot more to do with their own incompetent plays leading up to the random event.)
I used to play a lot of MtG, and I have to say ... I lost at least as many games to being mana-screwed as I've ever lost due to random effects in Hearthstone. Talk about your "bad RNG"!
But no one ever really does talk about this because A) it's boring, and B) they can't exactly see what would have happened on a better draw. So they shrug and say, "Well, that's just part of the game!"
But it's a part of the game that happens all the time, and to me it's a million times more frustrating than any random effect in Hearthstone.
(This is all compounded by the fact that a lot of Hearthstone players like to blame RNG when they won't admit or don't even realize that their losses had a lot more to do with their own incompetent plays leading up to the random event.)
I agree with most of what you say, but some cards have effects that are extremely high in variance. Hearthstone does get boring after awhile, and that's why I don't play it for more than 2 hours a day. In the little that I do play however, i find myself losing to things i could've never played around even if I had tried. I play arena most of the time, but constructed just seems as if it's too much of a grind. I'm relatively good at arena so, I know my skill level has nothing to do with my losses.
What do you think about this? Do you feel cards that have extremely high ranges of power should be printed?
I used to play a lot of MtG, and I have to say ... I lost at least as many games to being mana-screwed as I've ever lost due to random effects in Hearthstone. Talk about your "bad RNG"!
But no one ever really does talk about this because A) it's boring, and B) they can't exactly see what would have happened on a better draw. So they shrug and say, "Well, that's just part of the game!"
But it's a part of the game that happens all the time, and to me it's a million times more frustrating than any random effect in Hearthstone.
(This is all compounded by the fact that a lot of Hearthstone players like to blame RNG when they won't admit or don't even realize that their losses had a lot more to do with their own incompetent plays leading up to the random event.)
It's this coupled with the insane mulligan system in HS and hero ability being a thing. I find far more games of HS play linearly than MTG games because you can almost all but guarantee a decent curve (as long as you aren't running like Astral Druid or something) over your first 3 turns. Everyone saying HS has way more RNG, that's only sort of true. Sure, you'll get housed by the Lyra miracle turn or Hallucination ripping exactly the right card from your class, but you don't have to worry about mana production and you almost always have a 2-mana play at the very worst.
The finals of the most recent Pro Tour included a Game 1 where a Hall of Fame player kept a 1-land hand looking to draw any land over his first two turns to just about ensure a win. He didn't draw it and basically just drew his card and said "go" until he was dead. If that isn't "bad RNG" I don't know what is.
EDIT: Also perhaps even more relevant - the moment Brian Kibler died a little inside:
I think the big problem isn't the level of skill or randomness involved. Doing the statistics would probably quite easily show the consistency of high level players are completly unreasonable asumming only the winrates of the decks. Instead I would argue that the value of the different kinds of skills required have different kinds of appearances to people, some being less obvious than others. I would consider skill being required for these different scenarios in Hearthstone
Playing the optimal card each turn. Whatever the play that optimizes the your chance to win at each given turn. This includes
Playing cards in the right order. (This is by far the most obvious).
Evaluating your opponents current hand and eventual future hands, assigning them with probability.
Evaluating your own future turns. What possible cards can you draw, discover or generate? Assigning them with probabilities.
Evaluate the possible decisions your opponent will make given the hand you think they have. Can you possibly bait out a good answer before your major threat?
The mulligan phase.
Evaluate the possible matchup. Are some techcards so important that you need to hard mulligan, are there more than one possible matchup, what is most likely?
Evaluate the probability of getting a better hand by actually trading your card(s) away, by assigning values to each card depending on the match. Is a card 2 times better, 1.3 times better or do you just straightup win if you get it?
The deck building (choosing) phase.
Choose the right archetype for the meta (or for a tournament the right lineup. This is quite a different beast and will get its own bulletpoint)
Choose the right tech cards for your archetype. Evaluate the possible matchups. Can you improve the overall winrate of your deck by using a tech card even though it might make your deck worse in some matchups.
Tournament play
Evaluate the possible decks other people will bring. What decks will be the most common. What decks will be the hardest to beat.
What decks will overall maximize your chance to win the tournament.
What decks will overall maximize your placement in the tournament. Maybe maximize your winnings?
What decks will other people expect you to bring?
These are just the possible places that requires skill that I could come up with right now, and I'm sure that there is more than these. My point is that many own these are incredibly nontrivial decisions. Most of the focus is placed 1. and maybe this is not justified. I think a lot of the people who cry that the skill is low, do not consider that they might have chosen a less consistent deck themselves, maybe a high variance deck. One of the common complaints are aggro decks which arguably has some of the highest consistencies to drawn the cards you actually want because of the large amount of cards that do mostly the same thing.
I also belive that noone has any good indication of what exactly the skill to luck ratio is within Hearthstone, and people are know to bad judges of the influence of luck on performance. One good book that highlights this is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow.
@Wellingt0n; that mirrors a lot of what some of the Magic pros that had migrated to the Hearthstone scene have basically said. Granted, I do think there are some merits to complaints with things that have a very wide variance in impact (Swashburglar for instance is pretty damn broad, so I'm not sure it's technically correct to factor in what your opponent may or may not have gotten from it)... but even those cases aren't necessarily ones I think instantly win games. But it seems like the conclusion for a lot of people arguing RNG is a problem is that it jumps straight into the argument that "Lots of RNG means there isn't skill in Hearthstone". People are kind of awful when it comes to nuance.
So glad someone finally agrees with me on that one :D ty man! u made my evening! And you are also right - that one kind of missed in my pro-RNG-monologue: Sure cards with a too big variance are a problem even with all this stuff being said. When variance is so high that you have no realistic way of playing around all the potentiell outcomes, skill will be reduced. Best example is ofc Yogg, which in many cased just comes down to a general risk estimation and not a real gameplan.
But also sort of high-outcome-variance cards with a more limited number of outcomes like implosion or tinkmaster overspark can be problematic when there is very little middle ground and the difference in the potentiell outcomes is too big. So y it's a matter of nuance when looking at the issue. Nicely put!
Tinkmaster is one I'd argue isn't super problematic, but he's borderline (kind of like Rag, you can set up a board to make him worse to play or better to play). Imp-losion and Crackle were kind of just atrocious in their variance, and luckily those kind of designs really haven't been recreated. :)
For the most part though, I think the unfortunate part about these discussions is that the people who are pro-RNG are basically never going to convince the people who are anti-RNG of their side of the argument... and vice versa. But in those cases I always wonder why people don't swap to lower-RNG games if something like Discover is really going to rustle their jimmies; that's not a condescending statement either, there are some great games out there that have very few random effects on their cards.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Articles I suggest every player reads to improve at the game;
A lot of players rant about how RNG ruins Hearthstone and compare it to the level of RNG in Magic. Magic and Hearthstone only share one randomness generating feature: what you draw off your deck each turn.
The big difference between Magic and Hearthstone is that in Magic cards with random elements/effects are almost entirely casual in nature and see little to no play competitively. As a paper-based game it is harder for Magic to incorporate random effects like those we see in Hearthstone, but Magic has a huge random factor already built into it in the form of lands. If you draw too many or too few then you will most likely lose regardless of how good the matchup is for you or how skilled you are compared to your opponent.
Hearthstone, on the other hand, as a digital game can easily accommodate the design space of RNG. People use the term "RNG" like it is some bad thing. Done properly and in an interesting manner it is good for a game (and I think Blizzard is finally honing in on the proper level after some missteps last year). Without RNG Hearthstone would be boring and Blizzard knows this. There is no built in mechanism in Hearthstone similar to lands in Magic. I gain one mana every turn like clockwork, meaning with a properly built deck I can be assured that I will be able to play my cards each and every game without fail. If there is no RNG present this causes the outcome of a particular match to be almost 100% ensured assuming both players are of roughly equal skill level. If that was he case we'd have all already quit from boredom.
In general, humans have a hard time understanding the effect randomness plays into their lives. When things go good we naturally attribute it to some kind of skill we must possess. When things go bad we look to blame the factors we can't control rather than ourselves. It's human nature. In an environment such as Hearthstone it leads to a culture of negativity when the easy way to make ourselves feel better is to assume we just always have bad beats instead of looking into why things didn't go our way. Sure, not every scenario is winnable, but many could be if we had done something differently.
TL;DR: All of this is just a long way of saying that in general humans have a hard time grasping how RNG affects them and thus we get salty really easily.
I don't think drawing cards or how many cards you draw is an entirely RNG effect in the sense that you can affect those outcomes directly as a player thru' deck building, even in a CCG that involves dice to determine an outcome like Warlord (D20 system) the RNG is less detrimental to the game experience because atleast you always know your odds and can maximize your chances to win. The problem with RNG in Hearthstone is that it intentionally reduces the skill cap by undermining things like deck knowledge and card couting. WTF should you expect off of an Unstable Portal? Who knows! And that isn't even the worst RNG in the game.
I think it's exactly because human beings are not good at processing RNG that it should never be part of a serious card game, nothing Kibler says is going to change human nature and the Pavel Book debacle pretty much ended me bothering to watch competitive Hearthstone ever again.
Someone like Kibler needs to be lead designer of Hearthstone. I think the game would be so much better, so much better designed with more tools that would make it fun. He knows what is wrong with the game, he knows what would make it better, he understands things about it better than the people at Blizzard.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You do not truly know someone, until you fight them.....
....I think a lot of the people who cry that the skill is low, do not consider that they might have chosen a less consistent deck themselves, maybe a high variance deck. One of the common complaints are aggro decks which arguably has some of the highest consistencies to drawn the cards you actually want because of the large amount of cards that do mostly the same thing.
You might want to consider the source of complains about RNG. Here is something to consider. People recognize RNG is here to stay even when they complain about it. It is just that they have a difficult time to voice deeper reasons.Talking randomness is a coverup for things they rather not talk about.
Hearthstone is an aggro game. Midrange and control are just background for aggro to shine. For obvious reasons, the skill floor is low, easy rankup/winfix caters into fast paced game which is a magnet for increasing the playerbase. It is well known aggressive, high consistency builds have a low RNg. Guess what, those who want to play a slower game complain the most about randomness - complaining about RNG is simply a quest for a slower meta.
The skill floor is dropping. People are not intellectually challenged (even on tournament level) - So they start to complain about....randomness. Then Kibler comes around and ask for respect. Well yes...Kibler.... the nicest fanboy around.
Numerous balance issues are unaddressed; resulting in problems with symmetry. RPS doesn't work properly. There is too much aggro. - So they....
It is typically people who love to play aggro that have no problem with randomness. They have no problem with current card design philosophy. They actually love it. Arguing within the existing culture of HS, they can reason quit interestingly, enthusiastically and pseudo-intellectual. Recognized by those who are impressed. But really the above key issues remain unaddressed. Probably because they can do nothing about it, except to take it as a given. And from there others are cry babies.
When Kibler talks about "...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), he doesn't talk about card variance but archetype variance. Low level of game variance in the game engine is a fancy way of saying HS is a game in which aggro archetypes will always dominate. It is in the game engine. If that is true there is even less to talk about.
Talking nuance means talking tough, even about things you can do nothing about...because Brode decides. I rather have Kripparrian than Kibler.
1) Kibler is a control player defending randomness. Hearthstone is a very well balanced game in its current state. The top deck is a control deck (control mage), mid pally is incredible, secrets mage and token shaman are fast decks, but not aggro and can play both long and fast games depending on the situation. Yes, the game is a bit heavier on the aggro because of how punishing certain decks can be against control, but fatigue is a one dimensional low skill play-style and if over punishing said style of play brings a little more aggro to the forefront, then so be it (this coming from an ex fatigue priest who thought he was hot shit). Control Mage, Priest, Paladin, and quest warrior are all viable deck choices in the meta and all have viable win conditions which is good for the game.
2) The skill floor can drop, but the skill ceiling is plenty high (hence why higher level players are in fact challenged and have consistent win-rates in tournaments and on ladder. Many players don't see this as they don't play high level tournaments or build their own decks, with their own techs. Metagaming in Hearthstone is incredibly skill intensive and easily makes or breaks an unprepared player. The current ladder system definitely needs fixing though as it over rewards players who play more games in a span of time rather than the most skilled players. Hopefully upcoming changes that Brode was talking about can address this issue to make non tournament play feel more skill driven.
3) The balance is fine and seems better than most card games I touch. Not going to go too much into this though as balance is a very subjective thing that isn't really worth arguing too much about.
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?
Oi chap, you want suggestions of cards that slow down the game? Here's a mechanic I've been pondering about (no pun intended) for months. Hard to balance of course, but here goes.
Mechanic: Bigman (unoriginal, I know). This card may only be included in your deck if your deck contains X cards costing Y+ mana. And this restriction would be slapped on broken anti-aggro cards. 3 mana 2/15 taunt? sign me up. 1 mana 15 HP heal? Why the fuck not? 3 mana AOE boardclear that draws you cards. Yes.
The question then becomes, what are the appropriate values of X and Y? For example, if I'm playing a good old heavy Ramp druid, I'm easily including 10+ cards that cost 5 mana+. Nourishes, AOWs, Rag/Ysera/Sylv, you get the drift. But the main issue is finding the exact number which will not allow bullshit aggro and midrange decks to take advantage of it. Midrange Hunter should NOT be able to activate Bigman by including 2x Savannah, 2x Tundra Rhino, 2x Call of the Wild and Dr. Boom.
The idea still needs alot of work, but I think you get the jist. Could also make it that the more OP the card is, the harsher the Bigman requirement. 10 cards in deck costing 6+ would be brutal, for example, but something that a control warr or ramp druid would be able to pull off. 6 cards costing 8 mana+? 4 cards costing 10mana? how about requiring 15 cards costing more than 4? It all depends, and needs to be worked out by a developer team, but that's the idea. Make OP anti-aggro stuff (just like OP anti-control stuff exists) then restrict it to Control decks ONLY so aggro/midrange can't abuse it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 60: All classes Golden Classes: Druid, Mage, Shaman, Paladin, Warrior Highest rank: Legend, 52 (EU, obviously) Best arena: 12-0
These are exactly the things you need skill for in HS, you are correct. The problem is that everyone who constantly finishes in top1000 legend knows this stuff so thoroughly, it's like second nature. What this means is that the high-level games turn into coin flips, since both players are playing optimally only luck matters. It's funny to watch tournaments nowadays when the players are roping every turn and i can see the correct play instantly when the turn starts. This is just another way of saying that the game has super low skill-cap.
If that were the case, there wouldn't be as much consistency in tournament results as there is. In fact, it's a lot more likely that you only think you see the correct play, and you're not close enough to the top players in skill to be aware of the outcomes they're thinking about.
F1 is a sport. If the cars were super easy to drive, anyone could drive these cars. If anyone could drive these cars, what's the point of competition?
Even reading his comment your way, lowering the minimum skill necessary to drive doesn't have any impact at all on competition among the most-skilled drivers. It just (maybe) means more people fighting for spots at the bottom. So what?
These are exactly the things you need skill for in HS, you are correct. The problem is that everyone who constantly finishes in top1000 legend knows this stuff so thoroughly, it's like second nature. What this means is that the high-level games turn into coin flips, since both players are playing optimally only luck matters. It's funny to watch tournaments nowadays when the players are roping every turn and i can see the correct play instantly when the turn starts. This is just another way of saying that the game has super low skill-cap.
If that were the case, there wouldn't be as much consistency in tournament results as there is. In fact, it's a lot more likely that you only think you see the correct play, and you're not close enough to the top players in skill to be aware of the outcomes they're thinking about.
As 17 times top100 finisher, 48 times legend player i do have some experience in this game and i do consider myself equal to any of the "pro's".
There is no consistency in the tournament results are you drunk or what? The only "consistent" winner has been Pavel and we all have to agree that it's only because of hes absurd luck.
Aside from me not really believing you in all honesty, ladder success isn't tournament success. Not to invalidate your achievements if you did really hit legend 48 times (which would of course be the most anyone has ever done considering there have only been 37 seasons and 4 test seasons of ranked play), but tournament play is more difficult. Pavel is hardly the only consistent winner and isn't even the most consistent winner. Even if he were, one moment of luck doesn't invalidate the work and skill he showed in every other match to get to where he could win the title off of Paveling book.
A formula one driver has high driving skills, but that doesn't justify dropping the skills neccessary to drive a car.
I'm confused. Why is it a problem if it requires less skill to drive a car?
I'd probably feel safer on the road, for one thing.
Yes, we get that you feel a skilled control player should have a 100% win rate vs. aggro. That's your bias, not the game's problem.
F1 is a sport. If the cars were super easy to drive, anyone could drive these cars. If anyone could drive these cars, what's the point of competition?
To figure out who drives them better? Is that not obvious? Just because I can run doesn't mean the people who are incredibly talented at running are invalidated or for instance, just because I can make food that doesn't make 5* food any less impressive.
....I think a lot of the people who cry that the skill is low, do not consider that they might have chosen a less consistent deck themselves, maybe a high variance deck. One of the common complaints are aggro decks which arguably has some of the highest consistencies to drawn the cards you actually want because of the large amount of cards that do mostly the same thing.
You might want to consider the source of complains about RNG. Here is something to consider. People recognize RNG is here to stay even when they complain about it. It is just that they have a difficult time to voice deeper reasons.Talking randomness is a coverup for things they rather not talk about.
Hearthstone is an aggro game. Midrange and control are just background for aggro to shine. For obvious reasons, the skill floor is low, easy rankup/winfix caters into fast paced game which is a magnet for increasing the playerbase. It is well known aggressive, high consistency builds have a low RNg. Guess what, those who want to play a slower game complain the most about randomness - complaining about RNG is simply a quest for a slower meta.
The skill floor is dropping. People are not intellectually challenged (even on tournament level) - So they start to complain about....randomness. Then Kibler comes around and ask for respect. Well yes...Kibler.... the nicest fanboy around.
Numerous balance issues are unaddressed; resulting in problems with symmetry. RPS doesn't work properly. There is too much aggro. - So they....
It is typically people who love to play aggro that have no problem with randomness. They have no problem with current card design philosophy. They actually love it. Arguing within the existing culture of HS, they can reason quit interestingly, enthusiastically and pseudo-intellectual. Recognized by those who are impressed. But really the above key issues remain unaddressed. Probably because they can do nothing about it, except to take it as a given. And from there others are cry babies.
When Kibler talks about "...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), he doesn't talk about card variance but archetype variance. Low level of game variance in the game engine is a fancy way of saying HS is a game in which aggro archetypes will always dominate. It is in the game engine. If that is true there is even less to talk about.
Talking nuance means talking tough, even about things you can do nothing about...because Brode decides. I rather have Kripparrian than Kibler.
The skill floor can drop, but the skill ceiling is plenty high (hence why higher level players are in fact challenged and have consistent win-rates in tournaments and on ladder. Many players don't see this as they don't play high level tournaments or build their own decks, with their own techs. Metagaming in Hearthstone is incredibly skill intensive and easily makes or breaks an unprepared player.
When people going to think first before they write. Everything in live has a 'skill cealing.' But that doesn't justify dropping the skill floor. The one has nothing to do with the other. A formula one driver has high driving skills, but that doesn't justify dropping the skills neccessary to drive a car. Dropping causes all kind of things undesirable. Meta gaming in HS skill intensive? Aggro paladin, aggro druid, jade druid, aggro hunter, taunt warrior.....skill intensive? To the contrary. These builds are proof of the ongoing dumbing down of the game.
Maybe you should rethink your concept of skill.
Do you know what a ceiling and a floor are? A low skill floor means that the game is new player friendly, while a high skill ceiling means that the game has a lot of nuance. Metagaming is the process of figuring out how to break a meta. The decks you listed are not the top decks in the meta, but that aside metagaming isn't the process of using these decks but figuring out how to take them all on best. For example, if I'm on ladder and expect a lot of taunt warrior, mid pally and pirate warrior, I would add in weapon hate to my decks. That's a very dumbed down and simple example, but imagine that kind of decision multiplied out and more difficult to see. This is especially key in tournaments where you have to build numerous decks and have a great read on what the average player would bring to the tournament.
F1 is a sport. If the cars were super easy to drive, anyone could drive these cars. If anyone could drive these cars, what's the point of competition?
Even reading his comment your way, lowering the minimum skill necessary to drive doesn't have any impact at all on competition among the most-skilled drivers. It just (maybe) means more people fighting for spots at the bottom. So what?
We were talking about driving a F1 car. People who haven't been trained to drive these cars since kids, aren't capable of driving them +300km/h. There are huge differences between the drivers skills in the F1 circle. Anyone can learn to drive a normal car in ~hour.
This is totally the opposite in HS. You start to play the game -> you suck -> you learn -> you become good -> that's it, no more further to improve. Every single player in the top1000 legend is exactly on the same level skill-wise. You cant say stuff like "Ohh, Kolento is so much more skilled than Thijs tho Pavel is better than them both".
This doesn't appear to be true. There are a number of sites which track the win-rates of tournament pros in HS. If you are interested, you can visit gosugamers, and check out the stats for hundreds of players. The win-rate variance between the top pros and the bottom feeders is close to 20%.
@GrandPatzer; so in the case of driving (it doesn't really matter what, but sure let's just continue with F1 as an example), you're still essentially progressing through the phases of "you start to play the game -> you suck -> you learn -> you become good -> that's it". I don't think anyone in their right mind is trying to argue that Hearthstone's skill cap and F1 racing are even remotely in the same league though, nor would they argue that most physical sports are remotely in the same league; but we could argue that for any game where motor skills aren't in high demand (see: chess, other card games, etc.). It's kind of a shitty comparison, but regardless of what you're doing competitors are always going to progress through that list of steps. You suck at something until you get better.
Top1000 being in the same general skill level, though I don't think that's the case, really doesn't bother me all that much considering the fact we're playing a game with tens of millions of players. And even in the Top1000 we still have people setting themselves apart like Thijs, Pavel, Muzzy, etc, not unlike something like Magic. If people have an issue with that scenario, then competitive games susceptible to variance in general are likely not going to make them happy; but the reality is that Hearthstone's competitive scene, for all its issues, is not showing behavior any differently from well-respected scenes like Magic or Poker.
Keep in mind, if you have been Top100 multiple times on ladder then you're already a tiny percentage of players in this game. It doesn't really mean much that you can identify plays while you're watching tournaments, especially because you're a) seeing more information than the competitors are capable of seeing, and b) already at a skill level where you quite honestly should see most or all of the viable plays in a situation. The same would be the case for Magic. The same will be the case for Gwent.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Articles I suggest every player reads to improve at the game;
Obviously the top players have better win percentages than the bottom ones??? How could they not have? ROFL
The question is whether those better win percentages are as a result of randomness or because of skill differences. Fortunately, statisticians have developed a technique that can help with this, called a P-value test. It's too much to go into here, but here's an introduction to how to apply it.
Short version is that top pros who consistently win 60+% of the time even against other pros aren't doing so by getting lucky with coin flips.
These are exactly the things you need skill for in HS, you are correct. The problem is that everyone who constantly finishes in top1000 legend knows this stuff so thoroughly, it's like second nature. What this means is that the high-level games turn into coin flips, since both players are playing optimally only luck matters. It's funny to watch tournaments nowadays when the players are roping every turn and i can see the correct play instantly when the turn starts. This is just another way of saying that the game has super low skill-cap.
If that were the case, there wouldn't be as much consistency in tournament results as there is. In fact, it's a lot more likely that you only think you see the correct play, and you're not close enough to the top players in skill to be aware of the outcomes they're thinking about.
As 17 times top100 finisher, 48 times legend player i do have some experience in this game and i do consider myself equal to any of the "pro's".
There is no consistency in the tournament results are you drunk or what? The only "consistent" winner has been Pavel and we all have to agree that it's only because of hes absurd luck.
Aside from me not really believing you in all honesty, ladder success isn't tournament success. Not to invalidate your achievements if you did really hit legend 48 times (which would of course be the most anyone has ever done considering there have only been 37 seasons and 4 test seasons of ranked play), but tournament play is more difficult. Pavel is hardly the only consistent winner and isn't even the most consistent winner. Even if he were, one moment of luck doesn't invalidate the work and skill he showed in every other match to get to where he could win the title off of Paveling book.
A formula one driver has high driving skills, but that doesn't justify dropping the skills neccessary to drive a car.
I'm confused. Why is it a problem if it requires less skill to drive a car?
I'd probably feel safer on the road, for one thing.
Yes, we get that you feel a skilled control player should have a 100% win rate vs. aggro. That's your bias, not the game's problem.
F1 is a sport. If the cars were super easy to drive, anyone could drive these cars. If anyone could drive these cars, what's the point of competition?
To figure out who drives them better? Is that not obvious? Just because I can run doesn't mean the people who are incredibly talented at running are invalidated or for instance, just because I can make food that doesn't make 5* food any less impressive.
....I think a lot of the people who cry that the skill is low, do not consider that they might have chosen a less consistent deck themselves, maybe a high variance deck. One of the common complaints are aggro decks which arguably has some of the highest consistencies to drawn the cards you actually want because of the large amount of cards that do mostly the same thing.
You might want to consider the source of complains about RNG. Here is something to consider. People recognize RNG is here to stay even when they complain about it. It is just that they have a difficult time to voice deeper reasons.Talking randomness is a coverup for things they rather not talk about.
Hearthstone is an aggro game. Midrange and control are just background for aggro to shine. For obvious reasons, the skill floor is low, easy rankup/winfix caters into fast paced game which is a magnet for increasing the playerbase. It is well known aggressive, high consistency builds have a low RNg. Guess what, those who want to play a slower game complain the most about randomness - complaining about RNG is simply a quest for a slower meta.
The skill floor is dropping. People are not intellectually challenged (even on tournament level) - So they start to complain about....randomness. Then Kibler comes around and ask for respect. Well yes...Kibler.... the nicest fanboy around.
Numerous balance issues are unaddressed; resulting in problems with symmetry. RPS doesn't work properly. There is too much aggro. - So they....
It is typically people who love to play aggro that have no problem with randomness. They have no problem with current card design philosophy. They actually love it. Arguing within the existing culture of HS, they can reason quit interestingly, enthusiastically and pseudo-intellectual. Recognized by those who are impressed. But really the above key issues remain unaddressed. Probably because they can do nothing about it, except to take it as a given. And from there others are cry babies.
When Kibler talks about "...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), he doesn't talk about card variance but archetype variance. Low level of game variance in the game engine is a fancy way of saying HS is a game in which aggro archetypes will always dominate. It is in the game engine. If that is true there is even less to talk about.
Talking nuance means talking tough, even about things you can do nothing about...because Brode decides. I rather have Kripparrian than Kibler.
The skill floor can drop, but the skill ceiling is plenty high (hence why higher level players are in fact challenged and have consistent win-rates in tournaments and on ladder. Many players don't see this as they don't play high level tournaments or build their own decks, with their own techs. Metagaming in Hearthstone is incredibly skill intensive and easily makes or breaks an unprepared player.
When people going to think first before they write. Everything in live has a 'skill cealing.' But that doesn't justify dropping the skill floor. The one has nothing to do with the other. A formula one driver has high driving skills, but that doesn't justify dropping the skills neccessary to drive a car. Dropping causes all kind of things undesirable. Meta gaming in HS skill intensive? Aggro paladin, aggro druid, jade druid, aggro hunter, taunt warrior.....skill intensive? To the contrary. These builds are proof of the ongoing dumbing down of the game.
Maybe you should rethink your concept of skill.
Do you know what a ceiling and a floor are? A low skill floor means that the game is new player friendly, while a high skill ceiling means that the game has a lot of nuance. Metagaming is the process of figuring out how to break a meta. The decks you listed are not the top decks in the meta, but that aside metagaming isn't the process of using these decks but figuring out how to take them all on best. For example, if I'm on ladder and expect a lot of taunt warrior, mid pally and pirate warrior, I would add in weapon hate to my decks. That's a very dumbed down and simple example, but imagine that kind of decision multiplied out and more difficult to see. This is especially key in tournaments where you have to build numerous decks and have a great read on what the average player would bring to the tournament.
Aside from the fact i could not care less about your opinion whether you believe me or not, i decided to enlighten you a bit.
Have you heard about other regions? Do you know it's possible to reach legend 3 times in a month? Do you know Tyler has reached legend over 100 times??
I do know tournament play is harder. I play for a team and have attended in nearly 700 online tournaments as well as numerous LAN tournaments, with decent results. Don't try to teach people who are way ahead of you in something, its pathetic.
You seem to idolize Pavel quite a lot, wonder why that's the case. However, he's just another player who is no better than any other "pro" tho RNG has been in hes favor for years.
So, here's my read. Either you got defensive when I questioned your skill in Hearthstone because you actually believe there is skill in Hearthstone and took offense to my questioning of your skill or you are doing everything in your power to hold onto a lie. I'll assume the former as I'd rather keep this a fairly civilized argument.
If you are the caliber of player you claim, it doesn't instantly make you right. Take the Monty Hall problem for example. Numerous PhD statisticians disagreed with the notion that always switching doors is the right call. These people didn't budge after seeing the math and had to be shown numerous computer simulations before conceding.
I do not idolize Pavel and he is honestly far from my favorite player in the Hearthstone scene, I can however defend him rather easily. If all Pavel did was win 50/50 in every tournament he played in, he would have ridiculously low odds to have the 71% winrate that he possess. I won't do the math as stats isn't my area of expertise, but he's played over 200 matches making it a statistically relevant outlier on a normal curve. Thijs also has a pretty significant 62% winrate lifetime in almost 500 matches. Again, I'm no stats expert, but those are pretty significant outliers if most players are considered equal. These are just two random top players. You could claim they just hit the lottery, but these are significant results against other strong players.
Last point, if you know tournament play is harder than ladder play, why are we having this discussion?
Oh and who is Tyler, I'd like to look him up, but Tyler is a very common name.
The same is a bit true in a pro-scene like MTG, where once a player starts really earning pro-points and can start making the game a reliable source of income they can grind tournaments much more easily and cost effectively (some tiers of pro-point levels actually result in Hasbro paying the player's travel expenses and earning them several byes of early play for example). I would say though that MTG is general is a much more skill intensive game as it is miles and miles beyond HS in interactivity and decision making. I play both and have for years (many in the case of MTG) and would like to think of myself as at least "good" at both, watching a pro MTG player run through lines of play versus a HS player it's no comparison. You can even use Kibler himself as an example: his videos he discusses his lines of play and what he's playing around/setting up for, but then if you watch some of his MTG videos you're talking about multiple times more levels of contingencies. Part of that is just because of 'land' being a thing in HS and mana resources being less linear. "I can play this creature now, but if I don't hit my land drop next turn that's really bad. Alternatively, I can play this draw spell and try and make sure I hit my land drop next turn but then I'm tempoing myself out. What are the possible plays my opponent can have that either punish me for missing a land drop versus not having my creature in play?" Something simple like that really impacts a game in a way HS doesn't really have.
Balancing busted cards version 1.0.
@ScaryKoolaid; I think the issue with just saying "these players are consistent because they can grind to Legend every month" is that it's not incorrect, but that it's not the sole reason they're there. Similar to literally any competitive scene, I doubt you're really going to see the top echelon of players consist of people who aren't sinking a ton of time improving or experimenting in a game so they can perform better in tournaments. Based on your second sentence, I think you're conflating Legend with actually being competitive; Top Legend is the only portion of ladder that actually matters to competitive players, and it's not as simple as spamming games as a mediocre player. And with your third sentence it seems you're forgetting that while invitationals still exist, they're outside the HCT circuit (and have been I believe since late 2015); we're seeing consistent performance in HCT and major tournaments like Dreamhack, where they qualified just like anyone else would. So while I completely agree that these players clearly have more time than most people and that gives them a competitive advantage over other people, I think it's a false equivalency to say that's the entire reason they're performing well.
MTG being more or less skill intensive genuinely doesn't matter to this conversation for the most part, because when you're evaluating Hearthstone's skill floor/ceiling you don't exactly need a measuring stick to do it. There are some pros that maintain that Hearthstone is harder than Magic (I believe Stancifka is in that camp), and there are some pros that believe Magic is a lot harder; all that really matters is that Hearthstone continues to reward excellent play, remains enjoyable, and continues to have solid support for the competitive scene. The winrates of tournament players in Hearthstone lining up similarly with those of Pro Tour winners is the indicator that Hearthstone and Magic both reward excellent play at about the same level, regardless of mechanical complexities.
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?
@Wellingt0n; that mirrors a lot of what some of the Magic pros that had migrated to the Hearthstone scene have basically said. Granted, I do think there are some merits to complaints with things that have a very wide variance in impact (Swashburglar for instance is pretty damn broad, so I'm not sure it's technically correct to factor in what your opponent may or may not have gotten from it)... but even those cases aren't necessarily ones I think instantly win games. But it seems like the conclusion for a lot of people arguing RNG is a problem is that it jumps straight into the argument that "Lots of RNG means there isn't skill in Hearthstone". People are kind of awful when it comes to nuance.
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?
I used to play a lot of MtG, and I have to say ... I lost at least as many games to being mana-screwed as I've ever lost due to random effects in Hearthstone. Talk about your "bad RNG"!
But no one ever really does talk about this because A) it's boring, and B) they can't exactly see what would have happened on a better draw. So they shrug and say, "Well, that's just part of the game!"
But it's a part of the game that happens all the time, and to me it's a million times more frustrating than any random effect in Hearthstone.
(This is all compounded by the fact that a lot of Hearthstone players like to blame RNG when they won't admit or don't even realize that their losses had a lot more to do with their own incompetent plays leading up to the random event.)
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
The finals of the most recent Pro Tour included a Game 1 where a Hall of Fame player kept a 1-land hand looking to draw any land over his first two turns to just about ensure a win. He didn't draw it and basically just drew his card and said "go" until he was dead. If that isn't "bad RNG" I don't know what is.
Balancing busted cards version 1.0.
I think the big problem isn't the level of skill or randomness involved. Doing the statistics would probably quite easily show the consistency of high level players are completly unreasonable asumming only the winrates of the decks. Instead I would argue that the value of the different kinds of skills required have different kinds of appearances to people, some being less obvious than others.
I would consider skill being required for these different scenarios in Hearthstone
These are just the possible places that requires skill that I could come up with right now, and I'm sure that there is more than these. My point is that many own these are incredibly nontrivial decisions. Most of the focus is placed 1. and maybe this is not justified. I think a lot of the people who cry that the skill is low, do not consider that they might have chosen a less consistent deck themselves, maybe a high variance deck. One of the common complaints are aggro decks which arguably has some of the highest consistencies to drawn the cards you actually want because of the large amount of cards that do mostly the same thing.
I also belive that noone has any good indication of what exactly the skill to luck ratio is within Hearthstone, and people are know to bad judges of the influence of luck on performance. One good book that highlights this is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow.
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?
Someone like Kibler needs to be lead designer of Hearthstone. I think the game would be so much better, so much better designed with more tools that would make it fun. He knows what is wrong with the game, he knows what would make it better, he understands things about it better than the people at Blizzard.
You do not truly know someone, until you fight them.....
Level 60: All classes
Golden Classes: Druid, Mage, Shaman, Paladin, Warrior
Highest rank: Legend, 52 (EU, obviously)
Best arena: 12-0
@GrandPatzer; so in the case of driving (it doesn't really matter what, but sure let's just continue with F1 as an example), you're still essentially progressing through the phases of "you start to play the game -> you suck -> you learn -> you become good -> that's it". I don't think anyone in their right mind is trying to argue that Hearthstone's skill cap and F1 racing are even remotely in the same league though, nor would they argue that most physical sports are remotely in the same league; but we could argue that for any game where motor skills aren't in high demand (see: chess, other card games, etc.). It's kind of a shitty comparison, but regardless of what you're doing competitors are always going to progress through that list of steps. You suck at something until you get better.
Top1000 being in the same general skill level, though I don't think that's the case, really doesn't bother me all that much considering the fact we're playing a game with tens of millions of players. And even in the Top1000 we still have people setting themselves apart like Thijs, Pavel, Muzzy, etc, not unlike something like Magic. If people have an issue with that scenario, then competitive games susceptible to variance in general are likely not going to make them happy; but the reality is that Hearthstone's competitive scene, for all its issues, is not showing behavior any differently from well-respected scenes like Magic or Poker.
Keep in mind, if you have been Top100 multiple times on ladder then you're already a tiny percentage of players in this game. It doesn't really mean much that you can identify plays while you're watching tournaments, especially because you're a) seeing more information than the competitors are capable of seeing, and b) already at a skill level where you quite honestly should see most or all of the viable plays in a situation. The same would be the case for Magic. The same will be the case for Gwent.
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?