Board 8 > Hearthstone Discussion Topic: Death Is Eternal, My Turn Is Not!

(+) Yeah! (+)

so yeah I spent a good day or so thinking about it and I think I will be stopping my "daily" arena runs, and probably quitting hearthstone all together. it's one thing to be in a position of hope, wondering if maybe the state of arena might be improved based on changes they could potentially announce in an upcoming update. granted, my expectations were pretty low. I imagined they would probably not announce any update or change to arena. my idea was that I'd simply stop playing until the synergy pool was removed. however, given what I learned yesterday, it has fundamentally changed my view of the game.

A. the best thing about arena right now, the heightened class diversity, is the DIRECT result of a harmful policy put in place to normalize all win rates as close to 50%. literally intentionally turning the game into a coin flip.

B. the worst thing about arena right now is not an issue that the HS devs have been thinking about how to fix. quite the opposite. it is a DIRECT result of a policy they intentionally implemented to make arena this way. and based on the comments in the developer interview they seem to think this is a GOOD thing and that it's working as intended.

no thanks. I'll be finding something else to play. I can't say for certain that I'll NEVER come back to hearthstone but this feels very much like an indefinite hiatus.
---

I'm kind of lost as to your point on the whole "the best thing about arena right now is the direct result of a harmful policy" part. What does that mean? The best thing is not actually a good thing? Or the harmful policy isn't actually all that harmful?

And, theoretically, even if they normalize the win percentage, isn't that only saying that an average player would have a 50% win rate? Or do you feel that no matter what, the most knowledgeable and experienced players cannot possibly hope for a win rate above 50%?


And also, in response to your comment earlier about "draft the good rare card, you auto-win, or draft the bad rare card, and you auto-lose": why are you drafting the bad rare card? I mean I get that sometimes you have three options for a pick and they're all bad, but it's not like drafting one bad card causes you to lose games, and it's not like even prior to this change there aren't circumstances where you're already forced to draft a bad card. That isn't changing. I mean in specific circumstances you can draw that conclusion, but I just get the feeling you're being narrow minded about it.
---

bng_mmmk posted...

I'm kind of lost as to your point on the whole "the best thing about arena right now is the direct result of a harmful policy" part. What does that mean? The best thing is not actually a good thing? Or the harmful policy isn't actually all that harmful?

it's a nuanced issue. the policy has created both good and bad results. the problem is that blizzard views the bad results as also being good and doesn't seem to have any plan or intention to fix them.

bng_mmmk posted...

And, theoretically, even if they normalize the win percentage, isn't that only saying that an average player would have a 50% win rate? Or do you feel that no matter what, the most knowledgeable and experienced players cannot possibly hope for a win rate above 50%?

this isn't actually the issue at hand. it's really complicated though and I'm not sure I even care enough to explain it at this point. if you're having fun with the game then enjoy yourself. it doesn't really bother me either way. I just personally am not going to be able to enjoy it anymore, so I will personally not play the game anymore.

I wouldn't advocate for anyone else to do something just because of my personal opinion
---

I'm not looking for your advice on whether I should play the game. I'm just trying to understand your stance.

Let's take Bonemare as an easy example.

We'll assume for the sake of discussion that Bonemare is drafed every time it's offered. We'll assume Bonemare has a 20% chance to be offered in any given arena deck.

We'll further assume that any deck with Bonemare has a 60% chance to win. Numbers pulled out of my ass.

Thus, with the new system, Bonemare's likelihood of being offered should end up being reduced, since it tends to be a card that's in the winning deck more than 50% of the time.

Prior to the change, if you draft a deck without Bonemare, then 20% of your opponents will have Bonemare and you'll probably lose to them. You peronsally have a 20% chance of having Bonemare, in which case you'll probably win, since your opponent probably didn't have Bonemare.

After the change, less than 20% of your opponents will have Bonemare. This means that if you don't draft a Bonemare, you'll lose fewer games as a direct result of "welp, he got Bonemare and I didn't". When you DO draft Bonemare, you'll have a higher chance to win than you did before, but it's less likely to happen.


To me, this feels like a positive change, since on average I will experience fewer games where I walk away thinking "he got offered the best common, and I didn't. gg"

My chances of beating Bonemare without a Bonemare remain the same, but I'm facing fewer Bonemares. So it's less likely that I'll draft a better-than-average-but-lacking-bonemare deck and then go 0-3 to decks with Bonemare.
---

tl;dr

if the presence of card X in one deck causes the result of the game being predetermined, then that card won't show up as often


seems good to me?
---

certain cards are problematic and should not exist in the arena format. reducing the draft rate does not fix the problem. it only causes these cards to be even more impactful when they are drafted. they removed cards from the arena draft pool in the past before and it had a GREAT impact on the arena meta for a time. they tried the strategy of adjusting draft rates, apparently since july, and we've seen the effects. they have resulted in the incredibly frustrating and unfun high deck variance meta.

not sure how I need to say anything more than that. we can literally see direct evidence that this policy does not work. we're seeing it right now. I've seen it over the last 25 runs that I played. I continued to play, because I hadn't realize they had done this intentionally. I thought it was an issue that was on their radar and they might be thinking about how to fix it. now I know that is not the case. now I know they have done it intentionally and this is their idea of how arena should work. that's fine if they think that, but I disagree. I'm not going to play arena as long as it's like this. and if I'm not playing arena then I'm not playing hearthstone.
---

bng_mmmk posted...

tl;dr

if the presence of card X in one deck causes the result of the game being predetermined, then that card won't show up as often


seems good to me?

If the presence of a card causes a game to be predetermined, that card shouldn't show up at all.
---

As someone who has always preferred arena, but never followed the meta/pros/developer comments closely, tt's interesting to me that you feel that way. I recall from a couple years ago people talking about how certain classes (mage) were favored because their best arena cards were mainly commons and rares as opposed to epics and legendaries. And whenever new cards would be revealed, there would always be comments like "wow this card is awesome in arena but it's an epic so you'll never see it, fml". The approach they are taking seems like a way to balance the rarity of a card being opened in packs versus the problem of good arena cards being very rarely offered or offered way too often, or whatever.

I don't really get the mindset of how offering advantageous cards less often makes the situation worse. Like if I'm pissed off every time my opponent has a winning card and I don't, it's not upsetting me to see fewer opponents having that card. But I guess that's a personal thing we can just disagree about.
---

Camden posted...

bng_mmmk posted...

tl;dr

if the presence of card X in one deck causes the result of the game being predetermined, then that card won't show up as often


seems good to me?

If the presence of a card causes a game to be predetermined, that card shouldn't show up at all.

sure, but there is clearly some hyperbole at play here. no card gives you a 100% win rate.

like, do you want some deck variance based on the draft, or not?
---

What win % do you say a card should be totally removed?

If Bonemare wins 70% of the time and you cut it, will people start complaining about the 67% winning cards? Then the 63% winning cards? Will cards that aren't as good just increase in their winning % once you remove the top performing cards?
---

so the problem directly stems from the fact that hearthstones player base is big enough to create a situation where even with low offer rates, insane decks are being REGULARLY drafted and put into the arena match making pool.

95% of the time you will draft a deck in the 67-69 range

Some outliers will draft decks as low as the the 60-63 range
Some outliers will draft decks in the 73+ range, apparently as high as 80 or above in some cases

Okay so what does this mean exactly?

1. The opponent you face a 0-0 or the opponent you face at 6-2 are statistically likely to not be all that different. If most players in the pool have decks within the same range this makes every match from 1 to 12 feel exactly the same. There's no sense that matches get harder or that you're facing progressively higher decks. Except...

2. Player B, who drafts the 73+ deck, will now completely godstomp the rest of the field and walk to victory without stopping. This means progressively insane decks will PERSIST in the meta, while the average decks are killed off. Either through bad play or bad luck.

This means that your chance of facing an INSANE deck at 0-0 is relatively high, because of the high deck variance in the meta. I'm not likely to have an insane deck, but there's enough players out there that have one that it's reasonable that I might face somebody with one even at low wins. Furthermore, if you play with a high level of skill and progress, you won't see your opponents progressively getting more challenging. Instead what you'll see is a series of games that come down to draw RNG because of similar deck quality, where your skill MIGHT matter but only in cases where your draw RNG is relatively even. And, unfortunately, you'll just walk into a crazy deck and get slaughtered about 40% of the time.

That's not all. The 40% number is based off of my OWN statistics, and I'm an average arena player. For a more skilled player they will be going deeper into runs more frequently. This will make them even MORE likely to face insane decks as they get to higher matches. Rather than the steady curve of ramping up against opponents on a similar powerlevel you simply crapshoot against a field where your first and your last match have good odds to feel exactly the same, but you can additionally lose any given game along the road by pure dumb bad luck. And if you are a good player you are PUNISHED because you eventually will get fed to luckier players that just happened to draft insane decks.

So how can you guarantee a better success rate in this kind of arena meta? Actually... you can't. The only way to guarantee a high number of wins on any given run is to draft an insane deck. This will happen about 5% of the time, with no input from yourself. It just happens or it doesn't. Because the good cards are all locked behind reduced draft rates.
---

So for my ideal arena meta, if you're a good player, the challenge rating of your matches should be something like this

50/55/60/64/69/72/74/75/76/76/77/78

It's possible to go 12-0 but your matches will get progressively harder the further you go into the draft. The quality of your deck will sometimes prevent you from having a chance at making this kind of run, but in the end it's always going to come down to luck. In the runs where someone has a really good deck, this is the curve they should expect to see when going 12-0.


THIS IS WHAT THE CURRENT CHALLENGE RATING CURVE LOOKS LIKE

50/88/87/50/50/91/50/50/50/89/50/50

where those high numbers are arbitrarily placed and could just show up anywhere on the curve. sometimes you'll get fewer and will luck into a 12 win run with a mediocre deck. sometimes you'll get more and will luck into an early run termination despite having a really good deck.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

THIS IS WHAT THE CURRENT CHALLENGE RATING CURVE LOOKS LIKE

50/88/87/50/50/91/50/50/50/89/50/50

where those high numbers are arbitrarily placed and could just show up anywhere on the curve. sometimes you'll get fewer and will luck into a 12 win run with a mediocre deck. sometimes you'll get more and will luck into an early run termination despite having a really good deck.

This is simply wrong. Variance does not affect the mean.
---

thinking about it, it's far worse than what I described above. because of the high deck variance insanity, only players with absolutely top tier decks can thrive at 10+ wins. so while it might be possible to go 10-0 with an average deck, you will quickly get slaughtered down to 10-3. most of the decks at 10-0 and above are going to be THE top tier decks (IN TERMS OF QUALITY) competing against each other. this is completely independent of player skill. a low skill player with a top 5% deck will go 10-3 or 11-3 every time. a high skill player with a top 5% deck is the only one with good odds to go 12-0, 12-2, or even 12-1. this means that the skill gap is incredibly, incredibly narrow.

your draft luck: determines whether you fall in the 1-9 range or the 10-12 range
if 1-9: your draw RNG and who you get matched against determines how far you make it along this point. in the absolute luckiest case you can make it to 10-0 and then get pushed down to 10-3 mercilessly by opponents with deck quality that completely overpowers you. any match in the 1-9 range is just as likely to be an auto loss as an auto win. most of the time it will be simple curvestone.
if 10-12: this is the only place where the skill gap exists. IF you are lucky enough to draft a deck that has a chance to go 10-12 wins, then your skill determines where you fall along the 10-12 curve.

so in 95% of runs your placement is determined by draft or draw RNG. in 5% of runs your placement is determined by your skill, but only because you had a good enough draft RNG to get far enough to where it matters.

I've very often been a defender of hearthstone as a game where your skill will matter over a large number of games, even if there is a high level of RNG in one individual game. this is still the case in constructed. however, Arena has very clearly been broken. they actually changed the mode to make it so RNG will be the larger determining factor over a large number games. why they would do that, I have no idea.
---

dowolf posted...

This is simply wrong.

no it's not. it's an example based on experimental data gathered in 200 matches I just played in the current arena meta. unless you're saying reality is wrong then, no, it's not wrong. this is an accurate impression of the current arena meta as I've just experienced it.

dowolf posted...

Variance does not affect the mean.

cool? not sure how this relates to the part you quoted.
---

I don't think 10 wins is really that much of an absolute thing - I think that's much more around the 7-8 range these days, and also can vary a lot based on the class you're running (Rip arena warrior after the FWA change). Either way, your target is really 7 wins to go infinite, and you can still clean up on worse players even with an average deck.

Draft variance has been a bigger thing since Blizzard tweaked the rarity odds anyway, I don't think the microadjustments do all that much to hurt/fix that anyway, especially compared to synergy picks.
---

bng_mmmk posted...

What win % do you say a card should be totally removed?

If Bonemare wins 70% of the time and you cut it, will people start complaining about the 67% winning cards? Then the 63% winning cards? Will cards that aren't as good just increase in their winning % once you remove the top performing cards?

a card should be removed if it can single handedly defeat an entire deck, if it drives the winrate of a specific class so high that this class dominates the meta, if the card does not fit in the arena format due to logistical reasons, or if it significantly hampers the ability of a given class to perform in arena that it becomes unplayable in the meta

frost lich jaina is a good example of type A
forgotten torch was a great example of type B and this was handled correctly
quests are a good example of type C and were not included for this reason
dead man's hand is a good example of type D

as for your earlier question of how drafting ONE bad card can ruin a deck. it can't. the issue is that warrior for example has so many type D cards that in a given draft you're far more likely to pull a dead draw or multiple dead draws than with any other class. this makes warrior have a built in disadvantage against every other class in the meta. or, even before getting to dead draws, think of it similar to what makes Frost Lich Jaina difficult to play against. once her hero power has activated then any 1 health minion, or minion that can be traded down to 1 health, becomes unplayable. this hampers the draw RNG of the person playing against frost lich jaina and can turn their draws into dead draws before the cards are even played.

the effect here is similar. if warrior has more UNPLAYABLE cards than any other class, then they're more likely to get a choice between 2 cards instead of 3 cards, or even forced to pick 1 card because you're given 2 outright bad options. I don't think I need to explain at length why being given 2 good choices or no good choices is worse than being given 3 good choices.
---

The fact that top players get 10+ wins consistently more often than one out of every twenty tries flies in the face of your reasoning. As does the rarity of unskilled players making double digits.

You are starting with a conclusion -- that there is no skill in Arena -- and are throwing out pretty much meaningless numbers and stats to back that up. Heck, Blizzard playing with the numbers reduces variance: if cards that heavily impact win rate (both favorably, like Bonemare, and unfavorably, like ancient Watcher) are less likely to show up, then draft luck is less impactful on your overall result.

But that is irrelevant. Draft variance has always been a thing in card games, and always will be. RNG variance in terms of e.g. draws has always been a thing in card games, and always will be. If this bothers you, perhaps you shouldn't be playing card games.
---

dowolf posted...

You are starting with a conclusion -- that there is no skill in Arena -- and are throwing out pretty much meaningless numbers and stats to back that up.

no. I had bad experience with the game. this led me to the conclusion that I didn't want to play anymore. that's pretty much the end of the story. it's not anymore complicated than that. turbopuns asked me to elaborate on my thoughts and so I did. yeah, no fucking shit the numbers are meaningless. they are vague examples to demonstrate the overall point I'm trying to make.

you are the one who is incorrectly assuming that my conclusion is inherently derived from these arbitrary numbers. something that is obviously not the case. when I, myself, said that the numbers are arbitrary. I don't even know what the point of you jumping into this discussion is, honestly. like you somehow think if you """""prove"""" my """""math""""" wrong I'll somehow have to admit that I really did have fun with the game, even though I did not.

dowolf posted...

If this bothers you, perhaps you shouldn't be playing card games.

yes, the specific draft policy of this specific game bothers me. that's why I will not continue playing it. glad you finally caught up with, you know, the overall point of my entire post that I first made at the start of this very discussion.
---

My impressions of Hunter thus far are it's not bad but I have yet to actually use Deathstalker

Then again I haven't climbed much yet
---

my problem is when someone takes something they're struggling with and, rather than either choosing to get better or deciding that it's not worth their time -- which is fine! -- they decide to blame the game.

but whatever.
---

I just don't take the game seriously. Accept that it's really competitive dice rolling with some skill-based elements and decide whether you can enjoy that.

I'm mostly in it for the luls and the memes.
---

dowolf posted...

my problem is when someone takes something they're struggling with and, rather than either choosing to get better or deciding that it's not worth their time -- which is fine! -- they decide to blame the game.

but whatever.

I'm not struggling, though. I was doing fine in arena. better than have ever done before. I just had problems with certain aspects of arena. I was hopeful that blizzard might fix these issues. then I discovered that blizzard actually intentionally created these issues and does not see them as issues. obviously if the person designing the game and my idea of what I want a game to be are totally different then there's no reason for me to continue playing it. I don't know where you're getting the idea of "blame" from. if blizzard went back to the previous draft policy and my winrate went back down as a result then I would be happier. this has nothing to do with me "blaming" blizzard for me losing. once again you are completely jumping to conclusions here. stop projecting beliefs onto me for the sake of making yourself feel superior and read what I have actually posted.

trdl23 posted...

I just don't take the game seriously. Accept that it's really competitive dice rolling with some skill-based elements and decide whether you can enjoy that.

I can and did for quite some time! but the current draft policy seems to skew things more heavily in favor of rng over skill. past the point that I'm willing to deal with. the realization that this change was intentional on the part of blizzard, rather than my assumption that it happened accidentally because of the new cards, caused me to step away from the game.
---

trdl23 posted...

I just don't take the game seriously. Accept that it's really competitive dice rolling with some skill-based elements and decide whether you can enjoy that.

I'm mostly in it for the luls and the memes.

Dude you missed the funniest damn priest mirror. Razakus mirror being won by me playing two Memedictus was GOLD.

That's fair. Man, remember when Discover was a mechanic that was popular and beloved?
---

Discover is awesome
---

yep! I myself was pretty high on discover when it wasn't completely overused. I still prefer it over random generation a la babbling book/cabalist's tome/jeweled maccaw. I begrudgingly run the maccaw in my Hunter deck but what I'd honestly prefer is just some legitimate card draw. conversely, I actually like running stitched tracker because it feels like while there is a random element to the outcome of the card it's another form of "card draw" that leads to variance and decision making.

Karazhan saw the release of two of my favorite cards, Ivory Knight and Curator. Ivory Knight is probably one of the better examples of Discover that has existed. Curator is unrelated to the discussion but it's still probably my favorite card design overall.

I can honestly say I don't think I'm really fed up with Discover yet either. although there are some cases where it's implemented a bit poorly. Stonehill Defender is the prime example of this. not only is the pool of cards he has access to insanely large, but the pool varies based on which class plays him. and he has an obnoxious stat line that is good at slowing down games. particularly in arena, I consider this to be among the cards that is on the verge of being problematic. I wouldn't want it to get removed, though. more like, I wish it had just been balanced or designed differently.
---

what I'd do is give Stonehill Defender access to only the neutral pool of cards. this would prevent him from seeing play in constructed, but he already doesn't. and he would definitely still be played in arena because a taunt that generates other taunts is really, really good. and his statline is good to slow down games for control decks in arena.

this would have two effects
1. stonehill defender would be equally good in EVERY class
2. your ability to play around stonehill defender generation would be more refined, because the pool of cards he has access to would be smaller
---

Stonehill is fine when you consider you have to put a Silverback Patriarch in your deck in order to maybe get good RNG and even in some cases the Tirion/Tarim/whatever good taunt you get won't save you.

Like, Discover is still the best new mechanic because it allows flexibility against both blitzy aggro and greedy control on ladder
---

Discover is easily fixable. The card cannot find itself. Problem solved.

Coined out Geist on turn 5.

"Your opponent left."

Bro you got hit with a sideboard tech, don't be a little bitch. I literally 100% of the time give the well played emote when someone techs me. It's always a funny way to lose.

UltiXX posted...

Discover is easily fixable. The card cannot find itself. Problem solved.

Not exactly a big deal with Stonehill Defender. Shadow Visions and Primordial Glyph, yes, to an extent, because those are easy to replay and often thrive on decks that get side benefits from each time they're played. Stonehill Defender though? Meh, go ahead, go infinite. See where it gets you.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

but he already doesn't

Uh...
---

New brawl is great already


RAFAAAAAM, THE SEWPREEEME ARCHAEOLOGIIIIST
---

I now have pretty much no dust after crafting DK Shaman, so I have all of them but Druid. Going to make a terrible heavy-ass Evolve deck. Pray for my Bomb Lobbers and Moat Lurkers.

Edit: Three games in, 7/6/9 cards left in my deck and never drew into it. Trying to have some fun here, Hearthstone...
---

DK Thrall is notorious for not putting in an appearance.
---

I had fun in the two games I actually got to play Thrall, though I'm an impressive 0-9 right now with it.
---

azuarc posted...

UltiXX posted...

Discover is easily fixable. The card cannot find itself. Problem solved.

Not exactly a big deal with Stonehill Defender. Shadow Visions and Primordial Glyph, yes, to an extent, because those are easy to replay and often thrive on decks that get side benefits from each time they're played. Stonehill Defender though? Meh, go ahead, go infinite. See where it gets you.

It gets my quest done on turn 5 or 6, which should never happen.

I do want to say that cards that discover from your deck or your opponent's deck -- or, sweet God, Eternal Servitude -- are pure cancer. Having too specific of pools is also a problem -- it's why Stonehill Defender in Paladin is "add a random Wickerflame, Tarim, or Tirion to your hand."

You also shouldn't get free bonuses from your Discover since it's already a powerful mechanic. Looking at you, Glyph.
---

I don't know why, but I face so many more Jade Druids in the morning. 6/6 yesterday morning, 6/7 so far today. It's only something like 50% in the afternoon and evening.

Edit: Started the next game and it's aggro Druid. Finally something different.
---

So any first impressions about the nerfs in action? They did come today right?
---

Nope.
---

Oh, I thought they did maintenance last night and assumed that when they said "A recent update will bring the nerfs" I thought it meant last night. Oh well.
---

Small indie companies can't make changes that fast.

Edit: I also need a good name for my Fat Evolve deck. Chest Hair doesn't seem to fit.
---

I just played 10 Tirions in one game. My normal one, two from Redemption, two from Stonehill Defender, and 5 more from Nzoth.

I did that with my skill level.

Takes some skill to get a Tirion killed 5 times