The phrase "low skill" can only have meaning in relativity to the rest of available decks or available players. In other words, there will always be a gigantic skill gap between your average Hearthpwn poster and the professional scene. While I do look forward to you explaining to me how major tournament winners are "low skill", and I think we will all get a laugh when that inevitably happens, no amount of explanation will make a definitionally false premise true.
You have only to look at the professional Go! scene to understand that regardless of the simplicity of a game, the skill ceiling is basically infinite. I suppose one could play Tic-Tac-Toe and not have this hold up, but if you really think Hearthstone is a valid analogue for Tic-Tac-Toe, I think we can /thread now.
To Swaodrisnes (whatever it's spelled).
No further elaboration needed. The non-fanboy understands me perfectly. But I bet you don't understand core difference between floor and ceiling.
Have you realized how nice it will be after Worlds this year? Everyone is going to have an opportunity to play in online tournaments, and at that point, no one will need to listen to the bullshit anymore. Anytime someone talks shit about "low skill" just ask them to link their latest tournament results and replays. If they don't have any, why would you listen to them in favor of those that do?
Moronism is quite a thing reading all the pro- staus quo comments like this one.. It is about the average level of skill floor which is linked to card design. If all the cards tend to create decks are low skill, one might be succesful playing low skill, even in tournaments, The result remains low skill. This is the beating heart of HS' success. Serving the mindless fanboy. On the contrary, skill begins when you raise the (current) skill floor.
So listening to people who are succesfull in playing mindless decks and give them credit is the worst thing you can do. Succesful moronism has nothing to do with skill. You just show that you as them are still trapped in the card design Matrix of HS.
This made me LOL!
If you hate low-skill games and blizzard fanboys at once, go reach Grandmaster in Starcraft 2, there is the an incredibly high skillcap and very little rng waiting for you. Hearthstone is more casual, they never intended it to be a game where a mediocre player will lose to a pro 100% of the time.
It is fine to debate the complexity level of the game, but lately, I think the main problem has been polarized matchups rather than low skillcap decks. Even piloting the most grindy controldeck perfectly has little impact when facing a 20-80 matchup.
Apart from my spelling errors in mentioned post dear moderator, I assume you realise that polarization is quintessential to mindlessness. Deliberate constructing polarization through card design is a important mechanic to define the low skill floor. Albeit if you raise the skill floor, by design automatically avoid polarization. You make it harder to win games, you must think harder, plan better, outwith, outmanoeuvre your opponent. Also a nice result: a better diversified meta, where creative decks can blossom. A HS I'm looking for. A HS that is denied by the fanboy.
Another aspect of mindlessness is to steep RPS. Shallow it up, means skill gets a better chance to win in a unfavourable matchup. It all comes down to what devs want the meta to be. They steer through card design and steer low skill. And as is well esthablished: the meta is defined by devs, the community - infested by the plague called fanboy - is just its executioner.
Have you realized how nice it will be after Worlds this year? Everyone is going to have an opportunity to play in online tournaments, and at that point, no one will need to listen to the bullshit anymore. Anytime someone talks shit about "low skill" just ask them to link their latest tournament results and replays. If they don't have any, why would you listen to them in favor of those that do?
Moronism is quite a thing reading all the pro- staus quo comments like this one.. It is about the average level of skill floor which is linked to card design. If all the cards tend to create decks are low skill, one might be succesful playing low skill, even in tournaments, The result remains low skill. This is the beating heart of HS' success. Serving the mindless fanboy. On the contrary, skill begins when you raise the (current) skill floor.
So listening to people who are succesfull in playing mindless decks and give them credit is the worst thing you can do. Succesful moronism has nothing to do with skill. You just show that you as them are still trapped in the card design Matrix of HS.
I just hate ONE turn kills. I mean decks that draw cards until they kill you and you have no chance to stop it. Thats non interactive to me. Yes they clear your board, but their win condition is unstopable once drawn. You can kill them before they get it. But i dont really consider that interaction.
There are 3 types of "otks"
1. 2 turn set up kills. This is how otks should be imo. Examples of this are, play alexstrasa or malygos raw. Next turn that player will win if you dont deal with it. That is telegraphed Otk. This is interactive otk and the most fun version imo.
2. Set up otks, but still 1 turn. This is an otk that requires set up but the kill is unstoppable if drawn. Examples of this are emperor thaurisan or mechathun otks, Or quest mage. These are telegraphed otks you know they are coming at some point in the future. But the otk itself is unstoppable. You can delay them (mechathun) but they cant be stopped. Im iffy on otks like this. Sometimes i feel bad and other times i think its bs.
3. The sudden and unstoppable otk. This is an unstoppable untelegraphed kill turn. These otks are problematic imo. Examples of this is release shudderwalk, partially clone priest and shadow madness inner fire combo. Cloning gallery priest combo when done with gallery is like this. It feels dirty, it feels unfair and its unstoppable. Shudderwalk won you the game on release. Granted you knew it was coming, but the turn he came down the game was over. These otks must be avoided at all costs as they are completly unfair to the losing player.
Note: Im not saying anything aboit these decks. Im only talking about the win condition
#1 are not OTK decks. The moment you require a setup from the previous turn, it becomes a TWO turn kill, not ONE.
#3 Do not exist. There is not a single deck in the game that you cannot see their Combo coming. You need to be extremely unaware of the Game State to be completely obvious to what deck you are facing, specially against an OTK deck, which tends to play around 20 turns before they kill you. It is almost literally impossible for you not to understand what you are facing after all those turns.
So, having gone through all the comments up to this post, this is the first one that gave me a new idea to think on.
Is an OTK deck on it’s face non-interactive. According to the post above, the answer is no. You can always interact with the opponents hero in an OTK deck, it claims. That is not always true. Control decks are designed in to interact with the board and not the opponents hero. The control deck has to set up plays over time to effect the opponent hero, which the OTK deck will then disrupt since that is part of their design as well.
The end point here is that no deck on its face is non-interactive, but many match-ups are. Control v. OTK lacks interaction because the control deck does not have the tools to effect the OTK deck in any meaningful way. Many OTK v. aggro match-ups lack interaction because the OTK deck does not have the consistent tools to survive against a strong early game.
In these cases, I feel like the most meaningful interaction is not between the decks but between the player and their own knowledge of what they are facing. “How many turns before the combo goes off? How much damage can I do in that time? Can I afford to play into a board clear?”
To cut the ramble short, if you are playing a deck and you are consistently playing against non-interactive match-ups, then you are playing the wrong deck for the meta that you are in, and the best thing that you can do for the sake of your sanity is to stop playing that deck
It doesn't matter if Matchups are Interactive. All that matters is whether the Decks themselves are Interactive. You don't need to face a Combo deck to have an Uninteractive Matchup in the way you are thinking. That can happen with pretty much any playstyle. That doesn't make either deck of the Matchup Uninteractive, it just makes that Matchup, which is perfectly fine. In order to have a wide variety of strategies, that means you have to accept that some strategies will clash in very hard circumstances.
There is no single deck that is meant to be capable of winning against the entirety of all the other decks the game allows.
Blue pill
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Amazing to watch the succes of Blizzard in convincing people to believe the game is interactive. Amazing to watch fakenews converted into the real thing. Amazing to watch people debasing themselves just for an uninteractive mindless winfix. Amazing amazing then when their mindless agressive playstyle or OTK is considered to be interactive and full of skill.
The succes of devs = the 'mindlessification' of the masses. Good for you.
You know nothing if you really think Blizzard is "mind-controlling" people. For example, most aggro players have considered their beloved playstyle interactive and full of skill since the release of the game, this is nothing new. At least inform yourself a little before posting...
You just proved my point.
WTF? How?
"For example, most aggro players have considered their beloved playstyle interactive and full of skill since the release"
The very fact that aggro players consider their playstyle interactve and full of skill proves how Blizzard is able to let them think just that. Only those who have been freed from 'The Matrix' of the Aggro world see that. Remember this guy?
That's a pretty naive assumption to make. If you somehow don't think that aggro decks require knowledge of the game and good decision-making skills to pilot with consistent success... well, then that's your own misunderstanding at work, really.
Really...?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Amazing to watch the succes of Blizzard in convincing people to believe the game is interactive. Amazing to watch fakenews converted into the real thing. Amazing to watch people debasing themselves just for an uninteractive mindless winfix. Amazing amazing then when their mindless agressive playstyle or OTK is considered to be interactive and full of skill.
The succes of devs = the 'mindlessification' of the masses. Good for you.
You know nothing if you really think Blizzard is "mind-controlling" people. For example, most aggro players have considered their beloved playstyle interactive and full of skill since the release of the game, this is nothing new. At least inform yourself a little before posting...
You just proved my point.
WTF? How?
"For example, most aggro players have considered their beloved playstyle interactive and full of skill since the release"
The very fact that aggro players consider their playstyle interactve and full of skill proves how Blizzard is able to let them think just that. Only those who have been freed from 'The Matrix' of the Aggro world see that. Remember this guy?
For me there are two low skill playtypes. Some say brainless types ... This does not mean they are not enjoyable for a good number of players..
One is aggro where you should know your mulligan but otherwise throw all down/face hoping to kill around T5.
The the other type are decks that have like 20 card draw pieces , 3-5 OTK combo pieces and 5-7 boardclears ... Skillless draw your combo as fast as possible. Only skill is to know when to clear the board.
As long as a well played midrange/value based deck beats those decks reliable i am fine with that. Otherwise the game degenerates.
The point is those decks just have a well constructed hard time (by devs) to do just that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Amazing to watch the succes of Blizzard in convincing people to believe the game is interactive. Amazing to watch fakenews converted into the real thing. Amazing to watch people debasing themselves just for an uninteractive mindless winfix. Amazing amazing then when their mindless agressive playstyle or OTK is considered to be interactive and full of skill.
The succes of devs = the 'mindlessification' of the masses. Good for you.
You know nothing if you really think Blizzard is "mind-controlling" people. For example, most aggro players have considered their beloved playstyle interactive and full of skill since the release of the game, this is nothing new. At least inform yourself a little before posting...
You just proved my point.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Amazing to watch the succes of Blizzard in convincing people to believe the game is interactive. Amazing to watch fakenews converted into the real thing. Amazing to watch people debasing themselves just for an uninteractive mindless winfix. Amazing amazing then when their mindless agressive playstyle or OTK is considered to be interactive and full of skill.
The succes of devs = the 'mindlessification' of the masses. Good for you.
Well that's just yet another thing you keep being wrong about – thinking you know what others like or want. I never said I don't like combo decks, or that the archetype should not exist, because that is not true. A healthy meta should have room for every archetype to have viable decks.
Writing long rants does not make you less wrong, it just makes others care less about what you're trying to say.
I do know what others want. They make it very clear anytime the discussion goes long enough. It always starts with how they find it uninteractive, and it ends with what should be done to prevent it from existing.
I only write long "rants" because I can detail what I have to say. You might not care, others might not care. I don't write it for people to care, I write it because it's true, and that is what I care about, the truth.
Now I'll do as I stated before but failed to act, not bother further, have a nice day.
The downside of teleological reasoning as what can be observed here is that explanations must be in line with a a goal. That goal in this case is that any explanation given must be in line with card design and explanation given by T5. So if there are a lot of OTK decks in the meta it must be good because T5 willed it. Anybody doesn't agree must be wrong then.
This kind of 'The-boss-said-so-so- I- say-so' - kind of reasoning comes with an annoying deconstructive twist (not in a Derridarian way). If someone makes an unwelcome statement, deconstruction follows in the form demonstrated in this discussion: derail, change the subject, nitpickery, confuse. It is a well known discussion technique to protect the boss.
Of course if you work for the Boss it is understandable. But doubtful that is the case. So what is wrong here, Why why mr. Anderson, why...is it out of love? Love for T5 that you can't be a freethinker and be objective and exhibit healthy critical attitude? Because that makes you more believable.
Apologies, I should have specified that they're interchangeable for the sake of this specific discussion. Context is important.
What's illogical is attempting to refute common uses of language. Your pragmatic difficulties are baffling!
It is illogical to continue making the same mistake even after having that mistake pointed out to you. We all make mistakes when we don't know better, but continue to make the same mistake even after knowing better, that is completely illogical.
You should really listen to your own advice there, champ! It's good stuff!
Let's leave it at that. It is obvious that you are only here to derail the conversation with irrelevant nitpickery and not discuss the actual topic of the thread.
Been there, done that. Debating someone who considers himself a fellow-traveller on the bandwagon of team 5 and emissary on behave of Ayala and consort, is a sobering experience.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
In this context, "not interactive" means devoid of meaningful interaction, and it is very useful in this discussion. That should not be too hard to understand. Pretty much everyone but you seem to get it.
So what is the point of your ranting? How does that further the discussion?
Devoid of meaningful interaction? You seem to be confusing meaningful interaction with disruptive interaction.
Meaningful interaction is about as broad a term as you can use. Combo decks allow plenty of meaningful interaction, but funnily enough meaningful interaction for you only matter if you are a Control deck and capable of disrupting the Combo and removing their ability to win the game.
However, if you are an Aggro deck, meaningful interaction is any Interaction because the Aggro deck is not looking to disrupt the win condition, they are looking to kill them. Their meaningful interaction is killing the Combo deck.
This is why meaningful interaction is stupid, you change deck and suddenly meaningful interaction becomes a whole different thing.
What you state as "Not Interactive" simply means a deck hard to disrupt or interact with as a Control deck, nothing more. An Aggro deck finds a Control deck to be far less interactive than a Combo deck.
This is to say, your "Not Interactive" is not actually Uninteractive by definition, it is simply a deck you, as a Control player, find hard to perform disruptive interactions.
If it were Uninteractive, it wouldn't change based on the deck you are playing. Interactiveness is based on the mechanics of the game, not the deck you are playing with.
The point is to hopefully lead people away from illogical discussion and into productive discussion. Mislabelling Combo decks Uninteractive doesn't yield productive conversation, all it creates is a hole where everyone complains about their hatred for Combo as Control players. There is nothing productive to discuss because if Combo decks were Uninteractive, the logical course of action would be to remove them from the game. (Hence why the most common sight is comments stating this, that they think it's absurd that these decks exist, since they hate them and that means they shouldn't exist.)
Meaningful interaction is broad for a reason, it's any interaction with your opponent that has the potential to influence the outcome of the game. So any matchup where either player has very limited options to do that is un-interactive. It's that simple, and certain decks have many such matchups. The type of deck you play is irrelevant, and your baseless assumptions about my deck archetypes are just plain wrong.
Most intellectuals are able to grasp the dynamics of language and glean the subtle nuances in the meanings of words from their context – strictly adhering to literal interpretations is not necessary or useful. and your ranting and getting bogged down in definitions is disruptive and irrelevant to the topic being discussed.
Well said.
Maybe it helps when connecting interactiveness to win condition. Decks that that for their win condition don't really care about the board are un-interactive. Also decks that just stall the board till they reach their win condition (OTK) are also to be considered un-interactive. The two are connected through the observation which I call: damage-out-of-hand. It comes down to watching the opponent do their trick.
When it comes to debating topics on this forum make a distinction between those who actually want to analyze and think and those who feel themselves obliged to defend T5. With the first you can reach some understanding. The latter is talking to deaf ears.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Looking and reading your way of reasoning I can understand why we will never agree on anything. Your reasoning is bandwagon bound. You simply cannot reason outside that box set for you by T5. They forbid it. Thats why you aren't able to exercise critical thinking.
That is exactly what I want. Strategies that serves a mindless target audience should be dismantled in favor of skill being a decisive factor of winning.
I don't care about control or any other type of gameplay. I don't think T5 will change the current card design philosophy in favor of preferred audience.
Tell me something new. By the way your style of reasoning here: water is wet because it is liquid. Or otherwise: 1+1 = 2 because 1+1 = 2. Who do you think you are talking to?
Think again. This is simply not true. Polarizing meta = proof of poor card design leading to imbalances = exclusion of diverse win conditions = less different strategies = politics of card design.
Playing the same game here? Dominance of polarizing strategies means other strategies suffer to be of importance. Simply pushed out the meta to serve the need of the target audience that can't handle shallow RPS = would mean the skill floor would rise.
TLDR. If T5 would come up with more skill intensive diverse strategies with more diverse win conditions, you would change you way of reasoning to get in line with the new situation. This is because you can't think independently. You should free yourself and jump of that bandwagon. Try to get a spine.
The right answer to my question: A shallower RPS, would mean rising of the skill floor, more diverse win conditions and that is exactly what is a skill based game is all about.
The thing is my reasoning is not stupid. I know 2+2=4, I've examined why this happens, I verified it to be fact, so I don't question it any longer. I don't need to question something I already took the time to verify it as a fact. Unless you can provide me conflicting evidence that questions that, why would I question?
You can tell me 2+2=10 and that I only believe it is 4 because X entity defined it and that I follow the entity instead of thinking for myself, but in reality, you are just being dumb and trying to be contrarian just for the sake of feeling unique.
Being unique is not special or good unless what makes you unique is good. You can be the only person in the world that believes the Earth is flat. You certainly are unique, but your uniqueness is not good.
I know you want to remove strategies from the game, but that is the wrong decision to make if you are designing the game and intend on widening your player base. Giving players more strategies they can use is better. Hell, this is how it works in most areas. It is far better to have a large variety of products to buy and choose, rather than have that selection limited for arbitrary reasons.
The difference between me and you is simple:
We both have preferences, we both have things we like and things we don't like. I want to have the things I like to exist and be available to me, and I also want the things I don't like to exist and be available to me, but more importantly, for the people that like them. I don't like them, but my personal perspective shouldn't stop others from having that option for themselves.
You however, you want the things you like to exist and be available to you, but you do not want the things you don't like to exist at all. It's either your way, or not way at all.
You should consider changing that mindset. Live and let live. If you don't, you risk ending up being on the losing side in the future.
I don't think answering the rest is productive because your mindset is both closed and flawed, and that is an unworkable combination. I won't bother further.
Therefore let it be known that there is no reason at all why the meta should be polarized as a sign of good card design.
Let it be known then that you have no sufficient reasons to defend the current politics of card design.
Let it be known then that bandwagon-argumentation only serves the purpose of getting upvotes.
Let it be known there is no defends as you seem to do for unethical card design.
The lack of skill based card design is nothing more then to serve a target audience.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Now here's my question: what would happen if RPS was shallower than it is now? What would happen to the meta, skill level, experience of fun and overal diversity?
You cannot make the RPS shallower without removing strategies from the game. It is because we have various different strategies that don't all play the same way and that interact differently with each other that we have a steep model, and the more you add, the steeper it tends to be.
You might not be having as much fun in the current Combo focused year rotation, but soon enough you will have a different focus and that will possibly skew it for something you enjoy more, Control.
I'll use the Control Warrior v Freeze Mage example again, because this is one of the most polarised matchups that has ever been part of the game.
The reason this matchup is so polarised is because their strategies are almost polar opposites. Freeze Mage is a limited damage burn deck, which lacks any significant minion threats to increase it's damage output. The minions are a laughable excuse and they don't deal chip damage, that means the Mage is limited to the Burn it has in the deck.
Control Warrior has a main condition of outlasting the opponent by increasing it's health. All the Warrior needs to do to win the Matchup is increase the Health past the limit of Burn the Mage has, and the matchup is won.
Their strategies clash in this way, Freeze Mage decides not to rely on minions for damage, which is fine against other decks, but against Warrior that can increase it's health, the fact that they don't rely on minions completely turns the matchup into a near impossible feat.
If I were like most people here, I would be complaining that Warrior shouldn't be able to increase their health past my Burn limit because it makes the matchup almost impossible and too polarised. I obviously would never do that, because I myself decided to use a strategy that is completely destroyed by the Warrior. I can make a large variety of strategies that can beat the Warrior if I want to, but if I want to play this strategy, I have to accept that when I face a Warrior, I will almost inevitably lose, and that is perfectly fair, fine and acceptable.
The more different strategies the game has, the more likely you are to have two strategies that clash into extremely polarised matchups. If you don't want polarised matchups, all you can do is prevent these strategies from existing and people can only play boring minion bland strategies. I hope the game never goes in that direction.
Edit: You should try and play a Strategy that doesn't clash with other strategies in such a polarising manner. I can understand that you don't like polarising matchups, but you are the one that is deciding to play strategies that possess polarising matchups. You shouldn't try and remove the option for other players to play strategies they enjoy, that is a very bad attitude to have. Instead, you should change your own strategy so you avoid polarised matchups, or you can just continue playing the same strategy and accept that your strategy will face polarised matchups and that is perfectly fair, fine and acceptable.
Looking and reading your way of reasoning I can understand why we will never agree on anything. Your reasoning is bandwagon bound. You simply cannot reason outside that box set for you by T5. They forbid it. Thats why you aren't able to exercise critical thinking.
You cannot make the RPS shallower without removing strategies from the game.
That is exactly what I want. Strategies that serves a mindless target audience should be dismantled in favor of skill being a decisive factor of winning.
You might not be having as much fun in the current Combo focused year rotation, but soon enough you will have a different focus and that will possibly skew it for something you enjoy more, Control.
I don't care about control or any other type of gameplay. I don't think T5 will change the current card design philosophy in favor of preferred audience.
The reason this matchup is so polarised is because their strategies are almost polar opposites.
Tell me something new. By the way your style of reasoning here: water is wet because it is liquid. Or otherwise: 1+1 = 2 because 1+1 = 2. Who do you think you are talking to?
The more different strategies the game has, the more likely you are to have two strategies that clash into extremely polarised matchups.
Think again. This is simply not true. Polarizing meta = proof of poor card design leading to imbalances = exclusion of diverse win conditions = less different strategies = politics of card design.
You should try and play a Strategy that doesn't clash with other strategies in such a polarising manner.
Playing the same game here? Dominance of polarizing strategies means other strategies suffer to be of importance. Simply pushed out the meta to serve the need of the target audience that can't handle shallow RPS = would mean the skill floor would rise.
TLDR. If T5 would come up with more skill intensive diverse strategies with more diverse win conditions, you would change you way of reasoning to get in line with the new situation. This is because you can't think independently. You should free yourself and jump of that bandwagon. Try to get a spine.
The right answer to my question: A shallower RPS, would mean rising of the skill floor, more diverse win conditions and that is exactly what is a skill based game is all about.
As RPS is too steep right now , you will have no way of winning the game. If RPS was more shallow, less steep, you would have a greater chance of winning the game based on skill. Now please concede. Fun isn't it? Dirty rat was a poor way of even the odds. Is it really that hard to keep RPS in place, but don't let it devolve in a polarized frenzy?
No it isn't.
Even if you play it poorly, right now a non- aggressive deck stand no chance.
The rest of your post I consider T5- emissary reasoning. You know this guy?
You still seem to fail to realise that there is nothing wrong with a steep RPS model, if you perfect player technical play, that is what you attain. I'm not saying players out there play perfectly, I'm just telling you that you interpret RPS steepness as a problem when in perfect conditions, that is exactly how a perfectly balanced Strategy Card Game operates. If players of this game played perfectly every game, it would be fully RPS, not steep, but full on RPS.
You still have a chance to win unfavoured games not matter how unfavoured your strategy is, but it doesn't depend solely on your skill. You need to play nearly perfect in most of these matchups, and you need your opponent to ALSO make mistakes. You can play perfectly as much as you want, if your opponent is playing as well or better than you, you will not win, nor should you. (In case he has a favoured strategy).
What you want, and is essentially impossible to accomplish without fully breaking the game, is to remove strategy decisions from the matchup deciding factors. That will not happen when you are playing a Strategy Card Game. The Strategy is not there by accident, Strategy is an extremely important part of the game, and it also happens to be a decision the player makes. Decisions in this game matter both during and before the game, not only during the game. You want to remove the impact of decisions before the game.
No, right now, a low level player stands almost no chance of beating a very unfavoured matchup. High level players can still beat very unfavoured matchups, but it will require them to play nearly perfect and have the opponent make mistakes that they can abuse. If the opponent doesn't make those mistakes, they cannot win.
It shouldn't be a surprise that it works this way. A favoured matchup is your matchup to lose. It is the favoured player that stands to lose the matchup because they are naturally favoured, if they don't make mistakes, they will almost never lose. You might not like this, because if you are standing in the unfavoured position, your only chance to win is to play perfectly and hope the opponent fails, it doesn't depend that much on you, aside from playing perfectly, which is entirely on you, and maybe induce the opponent in error, which can be done but is not that easy, specially against high level players.
I guess this is essentially the whole hopelessness feeling you feel, you feel like playing perfectly in an unfavoured matchup is not enough to win, and that is how it is meant to work. You are doing your job, playing perfectly, but in an unfavoured matchup, this alone is not enough, you are still waiting for your opponent to make mistakes, which you don't control for the most part. You are for the most part, helpless unless they decide to fuck up, or by miracle you find a way to force them to fuck up.
Now here's my question: what would happen if RPS was shallower than it is now? What would happen to the meta, skill level, experience of fun and overal diversity?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
To Swaodrisnes (whatever it's spelled).
No further elaboration needed. The non-fanboy understands me perfectly. But I bet you don't understand core difference between floor and ceiling.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Apart from my spelling errors in mentioned post dear moderator, I assume you realise that polarization is quintessential to mindlessness. Deliberate constructing polarization through card design is a important mechanic to define the low skill floor. Albeit if you raise the skill floor, by design automatically avoid polarization. You make it harder to win games, you must think harder, plan better, outwith, outmanoeuvre your opponent. Also a nice result: a better diversified meta, where creative decks can blossom. A HS I'm looking for. A HS that is denied by the fanboy.
Another aspect of mindlessness is to steep RPS. Shallow it up, means skill gets a better chance to win in a unfavourable matchup. It all comes down to what devs want the meta to be. They steer through card design and steer low skill. And as is well esthablished: the meta is defined by devs, the community - infested by the plague called fanboy - is just its executioner.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Moronism is quite a thing reading all the pro- staus quo comments like this one.. It is about the average level of skill floor which is linked to card design. If all the cards tend to create decks are low skill, one might be succesful playing low skill, even in tournaments, The result remains low skill. This is the beating heart of HS' success. Serving the mindless fanboy. On the contrary, skill begins when you raise the (current) skill floor.
So listening to people who are succesfull in playing mindless decks and give them credit is the worst thing you can do. Succesful moronism has nothing to do with skill. You just show that you as them are still trapped in the card design Matrix of HS.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Blue pill
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Really...?
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
The very fact that aggro players consider their playstyle interactve and full of skill proves how Blizzard is able to let them think just that. Only those who have been freed from 'The Matrix' of the Aggro world see that. Remember this guy?
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
The point is those decks just have a well constructed hard time (by devs) to do just that.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
You just proved my point.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Amazing to watch the succes of Blizzard in convincing people to believe the game is interactive. Amazing to watch fakenews converted into the real thing. Amazing to watch people debasing themselves just for an uninteractive mindless winfix. Amazing amazing then when their mindless agressive playstyle or OTK is considered to be interactive and full of skill.
The succes of devs = the 'mindlessification' of the masses. Good for you.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
The downside of teleological reasoning as what can be observed here is that explanations must be in line with a a goal. That goal in this case is that any explanation given must be in line with card design and explanation given by T5. So if there are a lot of OTK decks in the meta it must be good because T5 willed it. Anybody doesn't agree must be wrong then.
This kind of 'The-boss-said-so-so- I- say-so' - kind of reasoning comes with an annoying deconstructive twist (not in a Derridarian way). If someone makes an unwelcome statement, deconstruction follows in the form demonstrated in this discussion: derail, change the subject, nitpickery, confuse. It is a well known discussion technique to protect the boss.
Of course if you work for the Boss it is understandable. But doubtful that is the case. So what is wrong here, Why why mr. Anderson, why...is it out of love? Love for T5 that you can't be a freethinker and be objective and exhibit healthy critical attitude? Because that makes you more believable.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Been there, done that. Debating someone who considers himself a fellow-traveller on the bandwagon of team 5 and emissary on behave of Ayala and consort, is a sobering experience.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Well said.
Maybe it helps when connecting interactiveness to win condition. Decks that that for their win condition don't really care about the board are un-interactive. Also decks that just stall the board till they reach their win condition (OTK) are also to be considered un-interactive. The two are connected through the observation which I call: damage-out-of-hand. It comes down to watching the opponent do their trick.
When it comes to debating topics on this forum make a distinction between those who actually want to analyze and think and those who feel themselves obliged to defend T5. With the first you can reach some understanding. The latter is talking to deaf ears.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Therefore let it be known that there is no reason at all why the meta should be polarized as a sign of good card design.
Let it be known then that you have no sufficient reasons to defend the current politics of card design.
Let it be known then that bandwagon-argumentation only serves the purpose of getting upvotes.
Let it be known there is no defends as you seem to do for unethical card design.
The lack of skill based card design is nothing more then to serve a target audience.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Looking and reading your way of reasoning I can understand why we will never agree on anything. Your reasoning is bandwagon bound. You simply cannot reason outside that box set for you by T5. They forbid it. Thats why you aren't able to exercise critical thinking.
That is exactly what I want. Strategies that serves a mindless target audience should be dismantled in favor of skill being a decisive factor of winning.
I don't care about control or any other type of gameplay. I don't think T5 will change the current card design philosophy in favor of preferred audience.
Tell me something new. By the way your style of reasoning here: water is wet because it is liquid. Or otherwise: 1+1 = 2 because 1+1 = 2. Who do you think you are talking to?
Think again. This is simply not true. Polarizing meta = proof of poor card design leading to imbalances = exclusion of diverse win conditions = less different strategies = politics of card design.
Playing the same game here? Dominance of polarizing strategies means other strategies suffer to be of importance. Simply pushed out the meta to serve the need of the target audience that can't handle shallow RPS = would mean the skill floor would rise.
TLDR. If T5 would come up with more skill intensive diverse strategies with more diverse win conditions, you would change you way of reasoning to get in line with the new situation. This is because you can't think independently. You should free yourself and jump of that bandwagon. Try to get a spine.
The right answer to my question: A shallower RPS, would mean rising of the skill floor, more diverse win conditions and that is exactly what is a skill based game is all about.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Now here's my question: what would happen if RPS was shallower than it is now? What would happen to the meta, skill level, experience of fun and overal diversity?
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.