• 3

    posted a message on Battleground streaks?

    The easy way to design Battlegrounds: A straightforward system in which minions are offered completely at random, without regard to the player's rating or middle name or astrological sign.

    The hard way to design Battlegrounds: Some convoluted algorithm that -- for some reason? -- attempts to keep certain players from breaking through to higher rankings by denying them triples and making sure their unprotected power minions get sniped.

    Which one do you suppose Blizzard went for?

    One explanation for hitting a "ceiling" as your rating gets higher: The game is out to get you and make you sad.

    Another explanation for hitting a "ceiling" as your rating gets higher: At higher ratings, your opponents are better at the game, and maybe you are not actually the best in the world.

    Which do you suppose is more likely?

    Posted in: Battlegrounds
  • 2

    posted a message on How important is luck in this game
    Quote from debug4 >>

    Most of the time coin flip decides who wins.

     RNG haters like to say this a lot, and it's the main fallacy of their viewpoint.

    (I take it that "coin flip" here means "a single instance of a randomized effect" and not the actual who-goes-first coin flip.)

    Even when it seems like an entire game was decided by one crazy event, that's not really the whole picture. It is the culmination of dozens of other events and hundreds of other decisions that followed those events. To get to that point in the game where the outcome could seemingly hinge on random chance took plenty of skill, as did knowing when to trigger that random effect.

    So instead of saying, "That person got lucky," it would be more accurate to say, "That person skillfully navigated the game to a place where a difficult position could be turned around with a favorable result from a random effect." A less skillful player would be unlikely to even get to that point.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Present player card backs better

    I absolutely agree. This is something that has always annoyed me about Hearthstone. You only get to see your opponent's card back, and lets face it -- they usually have something terrible. Half of everyone is still using that dumb Mark of Hakkar one because they never bothered to change it after the game forced it upon them.

    They should give me the option to set my opponent's card back, for my own view only. They can set whatever they want, but I wouldn't have to see it if I've set it to something different.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on How is it possible?

    The details of the game, such as rules and interactions, are things you can control, and mastering those will help you win.

    You will never be able to control how other people act, and because they can't do any real harm to you in a video game, it's EXTREMELY foolish to get all worked up over their behavior.

    This is especially true when the so-called "bad behavior" is strictly limited to a tiny bit of time-wasting or an emote function that you have the power to squelch.

    As bad as the other person may be, you are just as bad as they are when you actually let them anger or depress you. Learn to control your own emotions and reactions, and you'll never be bothered by BM again.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Bronze Explorer's terrible flavor

    Think of it this way -- he makes the other Dragons look even more badass by comparison.

    It's all about perspective.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Let's change the rules of Casual mode
    Quote from Ascate >>

    I would prefere "only non-netdecks decks" rule, basically "fun mod" for people who are tired of facing the same five shit netdecks every game in ranked. Your rule is incredibly stupid as you play vs rank 20 and lower if you are ... well, rank 20 and lower. 

    But it is up to people as always since there is no way for blizard to enforce this as they are a small indie company.

     It is not up to Blizzard to enforce this. They have already given you the tools to enforce this yourself. It's called the Friends list.

    Create a network of friends who agree to use off-meta decks in friendly matches. You're welcome.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on Metas, complaints, and solutions

    I'm perfectly happy to admit that I underestimated the effect the Shaman nerf would have.

    I generally only complain when the meta consists of one or two decks that are way too strong.

    At the moment, there are plenty of viable options, and the only people complaining are the ones who don't want to change decks to adapt to the new environment.

    More than that, though, I think more blame should be placed on the players, not the game. The Shaman meta arose because a cult arose -- even before launch -- about how strong it was going to be. Free players and budget players bought into the hype and built a fairly expensive deck that did turn out to be powerful.

    The thing is, it wasn't as unbeatable as everyone was saying. I cruised swiftly up the ladder on a Hunter deck that nearly always beat most Shaman builds. But the free and budget players had locked themselves into this expensive deck, so they had little choice but to continue to play it. It wasn't until the dust rebate that some of them got the wiggle room (and the motivation) to pivot to a different deck.

    Of course, most of them chose Aggro Hunter because it is the cheapest, so the cycle continued. Luckily, this time around, there were enough people willing to try various ways to counter aggro that we ended up in a reasonably diverse place.

    This is all just a theory, mind you, but I think it's a reasonable one that explains a lot about what just happened.

    tl;dr: Blame the playa, not the game.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on Nothing for Christmas?
    Quote from killanator6000 >>

    just thought it would have been nice and giving out a free pack even from an earlier expansion would have been cool. i think it would have been a nice gesture as kind of a thank you for still playing our game. let's be real here giving out 1 free pack to every player would not hurt blizzard's wallet in any way. and i'm not saying i expected it or anything it just would have been a nice pleasant surprise for everybody. so everybody saying i'm greedy or asking for thanos must hate themselves. you would have gotten a free pack too. imagine if all company's actually spread some joy for once instead of being all about the money. 

     EVERY giveaway impacts the bottom line. Every single one.

    The only time a giveaway is justified is when trying to drum up hype for a new expansion. Christmas hype will fade long before then.

    Is the "joy" you gain from your 40 dust now going to be remembered in April? Will you look back fondly and say to yourself, "You know, these guys were really nice to me at Christmastime. I think I'll return the favor by buying two packs more than I normally would."

    So maybe I won't call you greedy (though if you claim a free pack will bring you joy, you might want to look inside yourself a bit harder), but I will say that your assumptions about Blizzard's wallet are incorrect and the whole "Christmas spirit" angle is pretty naive.

    Posted in: General Deck Building
  • 1

    posted a message on Nothing for Christmas?
    Quote from DiamondDM13 >>

     That's a false premise, same as with Piracy it was always a false premise. Most people who pirated games wouldn't have bought them regardless, there was no loss in sale because they wouldn't ever do so. Better way to go about it, in that case, would be to seek a better price point, because that would more likely solve the problem. (By the way, I'm not justifying piracy, far from it, if you create something and wish to sell it, then you should be allowed to, and people have no right to your product, not unless you agree to part with it)

    But when it comes to this specific instance of digital, infinite content, a product that once created does not require any additional resources to continue producing it, then there is no reason to restrain from giving it away for symbolic gestures of good will.

    Once Blizzard is finished producing a Set, they require no additional resources, specially from the creative team and so on, to continue producing. The item is digital and infinite, every pack they sell from the moment their sales have covered the production of the Set is purely profit, they don't have any costs. (Obviously, there is still server cost, but that is not something inherent to the production of the packs, those are created already.)

    Typically companies will want to give away some stuff, preferably timed to coincide with real world events, to create the image of good will, good intention, in their consumers, or even to seriously have a good impact on the society. Still, you will be restrained by the amount of resources you can spare. A lot of that is usually accomplished by covering that expense of resources by forgoing profit from previous sales before the events. (Even though in general people don't look at it that way and see it as companies taking a loss, negative balance, for good will)

    But in this case, there isn't even an expense for resources, truly no reason not to do it and get credit for good will, even if they were to do it cynically, there is no reason. You just end up looking absurdly greedy.

     You have conveniently ignored the basis of the entire Hearthstone economy in order to make your specious point.

    Giving away packs in this game is the same as giving away dust, and dust can be used to create product. Not just present product, but future product as well.

    So yes, every giveaway does in fact cut a chunk out of future sales. It doesn't matter if you are a free player or a paying one; the more dust you have, the more cards you can get without paying when the next expansion drops. That means it is harder for the company to recoup production costs, leading to reduced profits. When the game doesn't generate enough profit, the shareholders question the value of their stock, and the game gets canceled.

    Since profits are the ONLY reason any for-profit company exists, there is definitely a huge opportunity cost in generating goodwill through giveaways, especially in this case.

    Posted in: General Deck Building
  • 3

    posted a message on Let's change the rules of Casual mode

    If you play Casual, the MMR matches you against people with similar skill level, so you are already playing against people who suck as much as you do. Further artificial tinkering with that formula will not change anything.

    By design, your Casual win rate is and always will be around 50 percent overall. If you don't like that, you are a bad sport. You need to learn that it's OK if the other person wins half the time.

    If you think you should be able to do better than 50 percent, then you have a competitive mindset and should be playing Ranked.

    If you are competitive but are unwilling to use and play against the "same old meta decks," then you don't understand what it takes to be truly competitive.

    If you are of a competitive mindset but cannot afford the cards needed to play Ranked, you are out of luck. Hearthstone is not a great game for competitive players who cannot or will not spend money. It's not pay to win, but it's definitely pay to compete.


    Posted in: General Discussion
  • To post a comment, please login or register a new account.