I think we agree on most things (in particular about abusing words).
The unsettled point is whether "uninteractive" should or should not be used to indicate grade ~3. You attribute "uninteractive" to mean exclusively grade 0. But we both agree grade 0 does not exist in the game (or in reality).
My point is that since grade ~3 is towards the lower pole, and a lazy approximation of "almost entirely uninteractive" (grade 3) into "uninteractive" (ideally grade 0) is still useful for discussion purposes, without falling into the abuse of words. Crucially, as long as people do not abuse it to indicate grade 5+ (which happens more often than what'd be good, but trying to balance it using "interactive" to indicate grade 3 does not help the confusion).
A different point would be using another keyword. Why not. But "interactive" seems quite established so far.
What I think is pointless is having a keyword meaning something closely related to what we need to express our issue, but being unable to use it because with no adjectives it would not indicate its grade 0.
"It's cold". Now cold means various things, not necessarily 0°K. It could also mean 0°C, and it would be useful to roughly understand temperature in a place, while being an approximation. What's wrong, because it is misleading, is if people use "it's cold" when it is 15°C. That's an exaggeration, (a selfish one, since one could just say "I'm cold" and be still understood). But we can't deny the usefulness of "cold" or "hot".
______
As for the real issue, I think "uninteractive" decks or grade 3 are perfectly fine in the game, but crucially, at the condition that they are consistently relegated to a small population in the meta, implying they have a wide spectrum of bad matchups. They are ok as "tech deck" in case the meta goes incredibly greedy. But that should be it, otherwise it's just frustrating for the average player (at least, with current game mechanics).
I am not sure of current numbers of Mecha'thun or Miracle Druid and similar decks, but I think they need to be kept under investigation, especially when they will fall into Wild-only: any more broken survival tool in their arsenal may lead into entirely broken meta.
So we agree. When people speak of a "deck being uninteractive" they should mean only the grade 3 or lower (independently of archetype). That is, an approximation of "extremely uninteractive" into "uninteractive". Any other usage ("heavily uninteractive" into "uninteractive"), is an exaggeration (or salt).
And no, i am not appropriating of words, I am trying to lead them into some meaning (ie removing said exaggerations or salt), in order to make things clear. My first paragraph might be badly expressed, but it follows the same logic I applied to my other posts. It is definitely not dumb or stupid.
PS: You repeatedly mentioned what you call 'grade 3' being still interactive on the sake of not being entirely uninteractive. I did not call it dumb or stupid, even if I should have, since it was the corruption of a word and its degrees of meaning. And a ridiculous sophism.
There is no extremely uninteractive, that is the whole point. Zero interaction is Zero interaction. There is no Extremely Zero, only Zero. Either it is interactive or it is not interactive. You cannot say it is very Zero interactive or little Zero Interactive, Zero itself is not modified. Or in an easier mathematical way: You cannot have 10 times more uninteractive because 10 x 0 is still 0.
Combo decks, by definition, are decks that allow lower interaction, when it comes to disruption. They allow the other kinds of interaction the same as other playstyles, they simply allow much lower disruption interaction, otherwise, the playstyle doesn't work, it is unplayable.
This is the most accurate way to express what you mean. Combo decks, decks with low level of disruption interaction.
By "extremely uninteractive" I mean your grade 3.
Nobody uses "uninteractive" by seriously meaning "grade 0". They typically mean 3+. You can call it an exaggeration (it is actually an approximation, within the domain of reality, unless they meant 5+ by the same word), but you cannot completely reverse a grade 3 and call it "interactive" by the abuse of opposites (and the removal of intermediate degrees).
Your grade 0 is beyond this discussion, and possibly beyond reality itself.
The uneasiness of a Combo deck against Aggro cannot fall under "uninteractivity" as felt by the Combo side: they can discuss (or complain) with another concept-word.
interacting != affecting (at least for discussion purposes on HS: anything ultimately interacts with everything in the universe, but that's beyond the point). Indeed the etymology of the two words remarks a subtle but fundamental difference. Inter- implies a dual relation, while ab- implies something that is forced upon.
SO, if Mecha'thun and Even Paladin interact with their opponents in different ways, then there must be a key concept to measure what's going on.
Please read my post in 1st page, in case you didn't. I tried to make it clear that we should understand (measure) "interactive decks" with various degrees, rather than a b/w picture of it (that would explain nothing and lead to no point).
That first paragraph is honestly quite stupid. What is this dumb appropriation of words? If a word is being used for it's meaning and is being applied correctly, then it is the word that should be word. I wasn't aware you were trying to compete for what certain groups can use as words and others cannot. Either a word applies or it doesn't.
Yes, Interacting is different from Affecting. Interacting is performing an action which affects something. You interact by performing an action that affects your opponent.
There are different avenues players can take to interact with their opponents, not all avenues are available to interact with all players. You don't interact with Odd Paladin in the same way you interact with a Mecha'Thun deck, but you can interact with both, you simply interact differently. This should not be surprising because they are different strategies, the ways you can interact with them are, therefore, different.
As for your first post, you are absolutely correct here:
Actually, "uninteractive" can also mean "whatever i dislike" for some... Since i've read people using the term as an argument against Odd/Even...
People use that word for anything they don't like, when the word itself means something different, and that is the problem.
The Interactive Action I don't see the point, and the Uninteractive decks is flawed by the fact that it doesn't consider the meaning of the word in the first place. There is no more or less uninteractive decks. It is a Black and White situation if you want to talk about Uninteractive because by default, if it is uninteractive, then it lacks any interaction. There exist no actions that can affect it, so there are no degrees of uninteractiveness.
Uninteractive means 0 Actions, you cannot "grade" zeros, there is nothing to grade per say, it is void.
What you can do, and should do, is grade the interactiveness of decks. All decks are interactive, even Combo decks. They are simply less interactive than others.
You can roughly grade them as:
Combo 3
Control 5
Aggro 6
Midrange 10
With 10 being the most interactive. An Uninteractive would be 0, no interactivity. This considers to all aspects of interaction, not simply the ability to disrupt their game plan.
Aggro might seem strange at first, but the lower score comes to the huge limitation created by RNG, the Card Draw order. This is extremely influential against Aggro.
So we kinda agree. When people speak of a "deck being uninteractive" they should mean only the grade 3 or lower (independently of archetype). That is, an approximation of "extremely uninteractive" into "uninteractive". Any other usage (ie "heavily uninteractive" into "uninteractive"), is an exaggeration (or salt). Sadly, language proceeds by approximations, but if we want to understand and discuss, we have to be as precise as possible.
That's why you are completely wrong about b/w. It is just an approximation of yours, and a bad one (ie an exaggeration), because it does not reflect the reality of things, and it leads to a dead end. My intermediate definition about Actions was exactly to explain the complexity of the matter, and clarify the concept of "degrees", as applied to "interactivity", which is lost in common discussion, with the current result of people being lost while abusing words.
And no, i am not appropriating of words, I am trying to lead them into some meaning (ie removing said exaggerations or salt), in order to make things clear. My first paragraph may be badly expressed, but it follows the same logic I applied to my other posts. It is definitely not dumb or stupid.
PS: You repeatedly mentioned what you call 'grade 3' being still interactive on the sake of not being entirely uninteractive (your grade 0). I did not call it dumb or stupid, even if I should have, since it was the corruption of a word and its degrees of meaning. And a ridiculous sophism.
My man, by that logic, hero powering is also interacting with your oponent, as for example you need to do 2 dmg more to kill a warrior, if he hero powers once. By your logic this game is interactive af, right now. But that is just arguing about the term "interactive", I don't think we need to argue about how the word describes a certain condition, but if you find that the game needs to get more interactive.
so my question, do you think the game should change in a direction? Because to me it seems like you are just covering your ears saying everything is perfect as it is. I personally can say i am not having much fun in hearthstone at the moment.
You mean by the logic of looking at words by their definition?
And yes, Hero Powering is Interacting with the Opponent, if that Hero Power affects the opponent.
You can argue whether decks are more or less interactive, because that is perfectly reasonable. Stating that decks are uninteractive, however, is just illogical. They are not Uninteractive, they simply allow provide less avenues for interaction, which is true. That is how Combo decks work in every single card game. By their definition and game plan, they will always provide less interaction options than normal decks. Their game plan depends on the player being able to combine certain cards and if your combination can easily be disrupted, your deck is completely unplayable.
Now do I think the game should change direction. Not exactly. It seems obvious to me that Blizzard has clearly been favouring Combo playstyle in this Year of expansions, where as last year it was more focused on Control, and Old Gods saw an Aggro focus. I don't mind this. I am certain that this 2019 year will see focus on something else, and that is fine. While I personally enjoy Combo the most, I understand their idea, rotating their focus each year. 2018 was good for people like me, and I am expecting Aggro to be the next focus, which will be very annoying for me, but I think that is fair, they shouldn't focus on the same playstyle all the time, rotating is good so players can take breaks and return if they don't enjoy the focus.
If "interactivity" is equal to "performing any action against your opponent", then the concept is useless for discussion purposes.
Sheer relativity into nihilism.
We want a meaningful definition of "interactivity", or another analogous keyword that contributes to the understanding of the 'uneasiness' we feel when facing some decks.
You should search for words that properly represent your concept, rather than try to force a different meaning to already existing words and concepts.
Do Combo decks allow for less interactions and avenues for them? Yes. Are they uninteractive? No.
This is specially important because the uneasiness felt varies with the person. Each person feels uneasy about different decks because they themselves play different decks. Combo players also feel uneasy about Aggro decks, you lose a lot of games because you draw your deck in a bad order and find yourself unable to perform any action to affect the opponent, but that is not because Aggro decks lack existence of those actions, it's just because the circumstances create that position for the Combo deck, and the same applies for any playstyle you play. Your predator strategy will always leave you with that uneasy feeling. Reality is, you are their prey, and you do feel extremely vulnerable, uneasy.
This is of course a typical pro team-5 comment (they are wise and if you don't get it you are to blame). Thinning out the conception of interaction to influence is fundamentally not the way interaction is suppose to be: give your opponent the chance to react in a skillful, meaningful way. A matchup against an OTK-deck is by that definition already an 'action affected your opponent.' That is totally missing the point.
It is an argument in line of: there's skill in the game, look every month the same people reach legend, so there must be skill in the game....... well playing a mindless deck better than your opponent is hardly a sign of skill, does it? The skill floor decides wether a deck is requires skill, not its ceiling.
The problem is of course the steepness of RPS: If you have an unfavorable matchup there is no point in playing on, conceding is the only right thing to do. That ladies and gentleman is the real problem. Lack of interaction is just a spin-off effect.
Finally a lack and sense of playing a game of skill is fundamental to any game. As it seems hearthstone is a 'honorable' exception. Glory for the target audience.
I'm not pro or against Team 5. I simply understand their design philosophy. I agree with some of their decisions, and heavily disagree with others.
No. In fact, you are trying to give Interaction some meaning that you want it to be. Interaction is not supposed to be disruption. Disruption is a possibility of an interaction, but reality is interaction is not limited to disruption, it involves any action that affects the opponent.
There is no problem with RPS. That model represents how a Strategy Card Game works if you remove RNG aspects and perfect players Technical Play. The real problem is players feel entitled to wins they don't actually deserve or earn. It is far easier to blame the model as opposed to understanding that the opponent was favoured and he played as well or even better than you. Many, very many players are incapable of realising that the opponent is playing well or even better.
(I'm not saying there are no undeserved or unearned wins from the opponents, there are, but the majority are not the case)
The uneasiness of a Combo deck against Aggro cannot fall under "uninteractivity" as felt by the Combo side: they can discuss (or complain) with another concept-word.
interacting != affecting (at least for discussion purposes on HS: anything ultimately interacts with everything in the universe, but that's beyond the point). Indeed the etymology of the two words remarks a subtle but fundamental difference. Inter- implies a strict dual relation, while ad- implies something that is forced upon.
SO, if Mecha'thun and Even Paladin play against their opponents in ways that do not differ simply on the mana curve, then there must be a key concept to measure what's going on.
Please read my post in 1st page, in case you didn't. I tried to make it clear that we should understand (measure) "interactive decks" with various degrees, rather than a b/w picture of it (that would explain nothing and lead to no point).
EDITED for clarity (again. I should stop posting before deciding the final version of my posts...)
If "interactivity" is equal to "performing any action against your opponent", then the concept is useless for discussion purposes.
Sheer relativity into nihilism.
We want a meaningful definition of "interactivity", or another analogous keyword that contributes to the understanding of the 'uneasiness' we feel when facing some decks.
Actually, "uninteractive" can also mean "whatever i dislike" for some... Since i've read people using the term as an argument against Odd/Even...
Imo, the best productive definition for "interactive", as applied to HS, should be something like:
Interactive Action: reaching the opponent's face, after going through the board.
Charge to face, weapon to face, spell to face all bypass the board, without going through it: they cannot be interactive. Since they ignore the board, they are uninteractive actions.
Removals and board clears are neither interactive nor uninteractive actions, they are neutral actions, because they stop on the board, without reaching the face.
Uninteractive deck: a deck should be defined more or less uninteractive based on the amount/degree of uninteractive actions required to build their main wincondition.
Mecha'thun decks are extremely uninteractive decks (so far), because they don't even need to touch the opponent's face to win.
Pirate Warrior is heavily uninteractive, because it is heavily (but not exclusively) based on charge, weapons and spells to face, ignoring the board as much as possible.
Odd Warrior and other classic Control decks are mildly uninteractive, because they are mostly focused upon neutralizing the opponent's board.
I think we agree on most things (in particular about abusing words).
The unsettled point is whether "uninteractive" should or should not be used to indicate grade ~3. You attribute "uninteractive" to mean exclusively grade 0. But we both agree grade 0 does not exist in the game (or in reality).
My point is that since grade ~3 is towards the lower pole, and a lazy approximation of "almost entirely uninteractive" (grade 3) into "uninteractive" (ideally grade 0) is still useful for discussion purposes, without falling into the abuse of words. Crucially, as long as people do not abuse it to indicate grade 5+ (which happens more often than what'd be good, but trying to balance it using "interactive" to indicate grade 3 does not help the confusion).
A different point would be using another keyword. Why not. But "interactive" seems quite established so far.
What I think is pointless is having a keyword meaning something closely related to what we need to express our issue, but being unable to use it because with no adjectives it would not indicate its grade 0.
"It's cold". Now cold means various things, not necessarily 0°K. It could also mean 0°C, and it would be useful to roughly understand temperature in a place, while being an approximation. What's wrong, because it is misleading, is if people use "it's cold" when it is 15°C. That's an exaggeration, (a selfish one, since one could just say "I'm cold" and be still understood). But we can't deny the usefulness of "cold" or "hot".
______
As for the real issue, I think "uninteractive" decks or grade 3 are perfectly fine in the game, but crucially, at the condition that they are consistently relegated to a small population in the meta, implying they have a wide spectrum of bad matchups. They are ok as "tech deck" in case the meta goes incredibly greedy. But that should be it, otherwise it's just frustrating for the average player (at least, with current game mechanics).
I am not sure of current numbers of Mecha'thun or Miracle Druid and similar decks, but I think they need to be kept under investigation, especially when they will fall into Wild-only: any more broken survival tool in their arsenal may lead into entirely broken meta.
By "extremely uninteractive" I mean your grade 3.
Nobody uses "uninteractive" by seriously meaning "grade 0". They typically mean 3+. You can call it an exaggeration (it is actually an approximation, within the domain of reality, unless they meant 5+ by the same word), but you cannot completely reverse a grade 3 and call it "interactive" by the abuse of opposites (and the removal of intermediate degrees).
Your grade 0 is beyond this discussion, and possibly beyond reality itself.
So we kinda agree. When people speak of a "deck being uninteractive" they should mean only the grade 3 or lower (independently of archetype). That is, an approximation of "extremely uninteractive" into "uninteractive". Any other usage (ie "heavily uninteractive" into "uninteractive"), is an exaggeration (or salt). Sadly, language proceeds by approximations, but if we want to understand and discuss, we have to be as precise as possible.
That's why you are completely wrong about b/w. It is just an approximation of yours, and a bad one (ie an exaggeration), because it does not reflect the reality of things, and it leads to a dead end. My intermediate definition about Actions was exactly to explain the complexity of the matter, and clarify the concept of "degrees", as applied to "interactivity", which is lost in common discussion, with the current result of people being lost while abusing words.
And no, i am not appropriating of words, I am trying to lead them into some meaning (ie removing said exaggerations or salt), in order to make things clear. My first paragraph may be badly expressed, but it follows the same logic I applied to my other posts. It is definitely not dumb or stupid.
PS: You repeatedly mentioned what you call 'grade 3' being still interactive on the sake of not being entirely uninteractive (your grade 0). I did not call it dumb or stupid, even if I should have, since it was the corruption of a word and its degrees of meaning. And a ridiculous sophism.
The uneasiness of a Combo deck against Aggro cannot fall under "uninteractivity" as felt by the Combo side: they can discuss (or complain) with another concept-word.
interacting != affecting (at least for discussion purposes on HS: anything ultimately interacts with everything in the universe, but that's beyond the point). Indeed the etymology of the two words remarks a subtle but fundamental difference. Inter- implies a strict dual relation, while ad- implies something that is forced upon.
SO, if Mecha'thun and Even Paladin play against their opponents in ways that do not differ simply on the mana curve, then there must be a key concept to measure what's going on.
Please read my post in 1st page, in case you didn't. I tried to make it clear that we should understand (measure) "interactive decks" with various degrees, rather than a b/w picture of it (that would explain nothing and lead to no point).
EDITED for clarity (again. I should stop posting before deciding the final version of my posts...)
Well, if anybody uses different and variable degrees of hyperbole, non-colloquial discussion is pointless.
I agree. I actually tried to give an even more precise definition of interactive and uninteractive (in the first page).
I was referring to those who say anything is interactive, in a way. And that's useless sophism.
If "interactivity" is equal to "performing any action against your opponent", then the concept is useless for discussion purposes.
Sheer relativity into nihilism.
We want a meaningful definition of "interactivity", or another analogous keyword that contributes to the understanding of the 'uneasiness' we feel when facing some decks.
Actually, "uninteractive" can also mean "whatever i dislike" for some... Since i've read people using the term as an argument against Odd/Even...
Imo, the best productive definition for "interactive", as applied to HS, should be something like:
Interactive Action: reaching the opponent's face, after going through the board.
Uninteractive deck: a deck should be defined more or less uninteractive based on the amount/degree of uninteractive actions required to build their main wincondition.
______
EDITED FOR CLARITY