I must say they are very successful in distracting crowds dissatisfaction with the meta by introducing changes that don't solve the real issues, but keep the masses occupied. I'm impressed.
+1, they dodge the real problems with just shifting the META. This however will cost them player base and revenue in the long term. They are greedy as it could be with no core changes to the game (new modes and things one can do in-game) since release, just massing cards like it's the end of the world and making 99% of them useless by introducing OP best sellers that form a 4 decks META and everyone and his mom copies them like it's a bottle caps factory until the next line of production is released with the new expansion. For how long?
Does your point not start to fall down though if you consider that for (by my estimate) 80-90% of the playing population are not experiencing this 4 deck meta you keep talking about? Also that (aside from a couple of outliers) the win rates between all classes is around the 50% mark? How about that there are many different deck options on the many site that tracks them Tempostorm itself has 25 different decks between T1 and T3?
What stats are you using to form your opinions? Is it only the most efficient decks that are Tier 1 or what stats are gathered for the top tier to legend players which is a tiny percentage of the playerbase or are you considering everything from level 25? If it's the former is that not a somewhat narrow view to base your assessment on the state of the game?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Arguing on the internet is like playing chess with a pigeon. You may be good at chess, but the pigeon is just going to knock all the pieces down, take a shit on the table, and strut around like its victorious.
This making the game friendlier for new platers. If you look at the upcoming ladder changes, it suppose the venture the idea that there's skill in the game now that people of equal skill can play against each other, a nice way to keep the current design philosophy (card design catering into mindlessly aggressive decks) unchecked. So the next expansion will see another round of OP-cards and brotarded decks for the vulgarized crowd. I must say they are very successful in distracting crowds dissatisfaction with the meta by introducing changes that don't solve the real issues, but keep the masses occupied. I'm impressed.
Well, if the choice is to be part of the "vulgarised crowd" where I get to play an easy to learn fast paced game (as Hearthstone is meant to be) with lots of variety, or to be part of your elitist Trump like crowd where the only possible option is to slog it out in every game with lengthy control matchups, I know which I'd pick.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Arguing on the internet is like playing chess with a pigeon. You may be good at chess, but the pigeon is just going to knock all the pieces down, take a shit on the table, and strut around like its victorious.
I don't see why you think people will mass troll in such mode making decks of particular cards - what do they achieve with this? Some cards will never see play in off-meta match-ups? What's the big deal of this keeping trolls spaming games with useless decks?
About new players: The increased gold income from easier match-ups will simply give them more freedom. How they spend their mana and which cards they craft is their choice. Some will prefer to focus on meta decks, others not. Both options are viable since off-meta decks are usually 10-20 times more cheaper than meta decks. Their off-meta decks can't suddenly ALL become meta when they are built with different cheap cards.
Honestly just to be dicks and to make other people's playing experience less fun. Look at Eve online, I'm sure there was a famous situation where a coordinated group of people spent over a year and hundreds if not thousands of pounds setting up a major troll on one of the corporations.
Regarding the new players and gold will the upcoming changes not accomplish the same thing as you'll be grouped with people of the same level. How do they decide which card to buy as well if the meta changes every week or more frequently. Also if its only handled on a card by card basis how do you stop the real meta decks (lets say Razakus) building the core then filling with weak cards to ensure they're off meta before easily getting the rewards at the expense of the weak off-meta decks? This is why I thought it would be a fairly complex assessment as to really do it I think you'd need to look at decks in their entirety. I appreciate you continuing to discuss this with me I just can't see the beneits of it ouside the current game - other than getting higher level rewards easier and cheaply.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Arguing on the internet is like playing chess with a pigeon. You may be good at chess, but the pigeon is just going to knock all the pieces down, take a shit on the table, and strut around like its victorious.
Ok but how would that work for edge cases? For example what would happen if people just started putting Kazakus in normal decks just to force his meta rating. How would it take into account neutral cards that are always used in one class becoming meta for a class that almost never uses them. What would stop trolls forcing cards into meta just to limit the play of this small off-meta game community.
I don't think people will sacrifice win rate just to influence the meta with putting highly used cards that complete their deck as off-meta. What we talk is: Player A puts 29 cards in the deck and wants to throw some highly used card to increase its percent of usage while keeping the deck off-meta. He puts card K in the deck instead of his optimal card choice losing 1% win rate and raising the usage of card K with 0.001%. Sure, player A could do this, but I don't think this will be on mass scale since in order the percent of usage of exactly card K to be raised significantly the trolls as you said have to coordinate themselves and every one of them to put exactly card K. Also, no point to do this if you are regular player and you already are offered the choice to simply ban a class/card.
TLDR: I don't think the players could exploit such system somehow.
You have greater faith in people that I do my friend ;) given the long history of trolling in computer games this one could be the ultimate BM. You avoid the loss impact as you'e probably focussing on the real ladder and just trolling the off-meta ladder. It would take little more than building a deck of every card you want to influence and then go into games. Quit out, tweak the deck so the algorithm thinks it's new, rinse and repeat.
I'm interested that you think this would be better for the free to play or new players. My thoughts are this would be awful as they'll focus their resources on building the most efficient deck they can which is then ruined should this force them into the meta bracket where they end up facing the true meta decks. Or they focus their resources on staying off-meta only to be crushed when they move to the real ladder because they've invested their resources in the wrong things.
I do understand now why you thought this would be simple to code though as just gathering usage stats and putting a meta threshold against them should be fairly straightforward. However I don't think this would deliver what you want.
Arguing on the internet is like playing chess with a pigeon. You may be good at chess, but the pigeon is just going to knock all the pieces down, take a shit on the table, and strut around like its victorious.
Ok but how would that work for edge cases? For example what would happen if people just started putting Kazakus in normal decks just to force his meta rating. How would it take into account neutral cards that are always used in one class becoming meta for a class that almost never uses them. What would stop trolls forcing cards into meta just to limit the play of this small off-meta game community.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Arguing on the internet is like playing chess with a pigeon. You may be good at chess, but the pigeon is just going to knock all the pieces down, take a shit on the table, and strut around like its victorious.
whilst it may be boring for you and what you want from the game it doesn't mean it is for others.
Make a poll then and see for yourself - are the people happy with the META? I suspect most are not and would enjoy such mode. From what I see in ladder in the last year - more and more META decks are played on lower ranks, which means the number of players copy/pasting META decks increases. Of course there will be people who won't find playing the same META boring, but I think these are minority since the most players in-game are in the first month after release of a new expansion/cards.
The logical conclusion is that META kills the game long term and a solution is needed. The proposed mode in the OP is a valid solution thus the thread.
There's literally no point in a poll as I suspect you well know. As doing it on here I suspect it would hover around 50% happy 50% unhappy, you only have to look at the discussions that always pop up about it they're rarely one sided, just look at this thread.
Whilst on paper it may seem a valid solution it's not in practice, do you realise purely on the number of different 30 card combinations in a full standard set of 6-8 releases (I've assumed 2000 cards) you're talking about trillions of trillions of trillions different combinations (rough calc puts it a 3 x 10 to the 66th power) and that doesn't even account for the 9 classes, or the fact that a cards % rating would differ depending on which of these decks it's in thus exponentially increasing the number of calculations. It would be cheaper for them to let Hearthstone just die rather than spend on the infrastructure and people to manage this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Arguing on the internet is like playing chess with a pigeon. You may be good at chess, but the pigeon is just going to knock all the pieces down, take a shit on the table, and strut around like its victorious.
In the way that you have to play 4-5 decks only for 3 months to have high win rate. This means boring game for the smart people on Standard. Wild is better, but still far from optimal. In casual you face more diverse decks, but you have no rewards there. HS has become boring, because everyone and his mom is copy/pasting meta decks and playing them only. I can predict how a game develops with 90% certainty on each turn. Since you are familiar with coding, tell your team to come up with a fun game based on that if you think it's possible. But better save them the time and effort, and just watch how HS loses player base in the next years.
Depends what your game goals are, if all they are is to get to as high a rank as possible / gotta get to legend then maybe but I suspect for the majority of the playerbase this isn't the experience as the further from the 5-1-Legend 5%ers you get, the more decks you see, the less you feel the grind and the more players you have occupying those areas. Remember whilst it may be boring for you and what you want from the game it doesn't mean it is for others. Me, I'm trying to get Control Hunter to work for the umpteenth time and it's an absolute blast and it'll probably get me to level 15 and that's fine. It certainly isn't boring and I see way more than 4-5 decks.
Also apologies, I hadn't made it clear I wasn't working in the games industry, it's actually high volume manufacture where we're trying to monitor quality. However the principal of what we're trying to achieve seemed similar to your concept of how you wanted to manage off-meta and meta and it was a light-hearted attempt to show that it's not as easy as just a couple of days work.
Arguing on the internet is like playing chess with a pigeon. You may be good at chess, but the pigeon is just going to knock all the pieces down, take a shit on the table, and strut around like its victorious.
There's nothing special about such ladder - an experienced programmer can code the matching for a few days. And it's understandable why most of you don't like it - copy/pasting decks is a lot easier to do. What if it suddenly stops working and we can't win anymore? We have to build decks ourselves? Is this what the OP is suggesting? NO, NO, NO!!!
Seriously, META will kill this game sooner or later. A new mode is needed ASAP. I hope the devs are not blind like the most of you and see it. HS could be fun!
Crikey a programmer who could code (and I assume test) the level of interaction you're talking about within a few days? Could you send me the details as I'm managing a team of experienced developers trying to connect quality defects based on multiple failure codes (similar principle to what you're after but less dynamic) and they've forecast 6-8 weeks of work to get me an mvp.
In what way will meta kill the game, meta is not something the developers dictate it's something the players do by showing they are the best deck builders and identify the most efficient ways to win and then other players follow them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Arguing on the internet is like playing chess with a pigeon. You may be good at chess, but the pigeon is just going to knock all the pieces down, take a shit on the table, and strut around like its victorious.
The players with the highest win rates won't be the best players nor the best deckbuilders, they will be the best at exploiting the matchmaker to match them against easy opponents.
The best players will be exactly the best deck builders since:
- You have to learn building optimal decks with available non-meta cards
- You have to learn to adjust depending how aggro/control oriented are your opponents
And you can't exploit the matchmaking in any way since before starting play you know which of your decks are considered meta. Let's say you have 20 decks prepared with different cards in each. Every hour the meta changes and some of your decks become meta/non-meta and vice versa. However you still don't know how your prepared decks which crushed before, became meta and are non-meta again now will perform against the other non-meta decks currently played. It is highly likely that you'll have to adjust your decks on a daily basis.
Out of interest how much extra would you be willing to pay (maybe a subscription model to access that content?) for blizzard to deliver this as you're adding a whole load of complexity (and hence the extra cost to Blizzard to develop and maintain) to the game for a situation that for me already exists i.e. I can truly test how good my deck building is in the standard ladder I just have to accept that I may lose some ranks doing so, if my decks can't compete well enough against the meta to get me more wins than losses then they don't deserve to increase my ranks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Arguing on the internet is like playing chess with a pigeon. You may be good at chess, but the pigeon is just going to knock all the pieces down, take a shit on the table, and strut around like its victorious.
Same or different ladder - it doesn't really matter - deck building deserves to be recognized as a major part of the skill game and as I pointed out it is simply not rewarded in the current ranked play mode.
I would argue it is, all the meta decks have been built and refined by someone and their success is evident and rewarded. I suspect your issue is the people who didn't actively build them using them i.e. netdeckers. Other than the complexity of implementing it, I have no bother with the core of your suggestion in casual however personally feel that the current ladder sufficiently recognises good deck building, playing ability and time invested.
My big issue with your suggestion is the yo-yo effect it would create between the off-meta and meta decks. So lets call off-meta what it will actually be un-optimised/meme decks that can't compete anywhere else. At some point the best of the bad will rise to the top thus establishing them as the off-meta-meta. Then if I understand your description of the algorithm correctly these would be grouped with the good meta decks and hence utterly crushed to the point that their rating drops and they drop back to the off-meta where they are again the best of the bad and the yo-yo loop continues.
Also how do you actually grade your deck building skills if it isn't against the whole community.
I'm totally against banning in any kind of ladder format. It works in tournaments because your opponent is already decided however for ladder I feel it would be unfair for other peoples wait time to be increased just because people don't like particular cards/classes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Arguing on the internet is like playing chess with a pigeon. You may be good at chess, but the pigeon is just going to knock all the pieces down, take a shit on the table, and strut around like its victorious.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
⚙
Learn More
Cosmetics
Related Cards
Card Pools
✕
×
PopCard Settings
Click on the buttons to change the PopCard background.
Elements settings
Click on the button to hide or unhide popcard elements.
Arguing on the internet is like playing chess with a pigeon. You may be good at chess, but the pigeon is just going to knock all the pieces down, take a shit on the table, and strut around like its victorious.
Arguing on the internet is like playing chess with a pigeon. You may be good at chess, but the pigeon is just going to knock all the pieces down, take a shit on the table, and strut around like its victorious.
Arguing on the internet is like playing chess with a pigeon. You may be good at chess, but the pigeon is just going to knock all the pieces down, take a shit on the table, and strut around like its victorious.
Arguing on the internet is like playing chess with a pigeon. You may be good at chess, but the pigeon is just going to knock all the pieces down, take a shit on the table, and strut around like its victorious.
Ok but how would that work for edge cases? For example what would happen if people just started putting Kazakus in normal decks just to force his meta rating. How would it take into account neutral cards that are always used in one class becoming meta for a class that almost never uses them. What would stop trolls forcing cards into meta just to limit the play of this small off-meta game community.
Arguing on the internet is like playing chess with a pigeon. You may be good at chess, but the pigeon is just going to knock all the pieces down, take a shit on the table, and strut around like its victorious.
Arguing on the internet is like playing chess with a pigeon. You may be good at chess, but the pigeon is just going to knock all the pieces down, take a shit on the table, and strut around like its victorious.
Arguing on the internet is like playing chess with a pigeon. You may be good at chess, but the pigeon is just going to knock all the pieces down, take a shit on the table, and strut around like its victorious.
Arguing on the internet is like playing chess with a pigeon. You may be good at chess, but the pigeon is just going to knock all the pieces down, take a shit on the table, and strut around like its victorious.
Arguing on the internet is like playing chess with a pigeon. You may be good at chess, but the pigeon is just going to knock all the pieces down, take a shit on the table, and strut around like its victorious.
Arguing on the internet is like playing chess with a pigeon. You may be good at chess, but the pigeon is just going to knock all the pieces down, take a shit on the table, and strut around like its victorious.