Cats and dogs eat frogs so…
2 Likes
Not much to complain about, really. The card stinks. Doesn’t function properly either. Bleh!
The data can tell us something about what is fun. There are, broadly speaking, two causes of deck popularity: perceived power, and fun factor. So if we look at the data intersection of “popular archetype” and “terrible winrate,” what we find there are going to be some of the funnest decks in all of Hearthstone.
One of the archetypes that has been in that Venn diagram intersection for the longest time is Thief Rogue. Yeah, for a bit there in early Alterac it was genuinely powerful, but then it got the nerf bat in part due to its overwhelming popularity — it was both very fun AND pretty darn powerful so it was everywhere on the ladder. But then post-nerf it was just this continuous staple of lower Tier 3 to upper Tier 4, at multiple different ranks. Time tested, empirically verified, officially certified fun.
What does the deck do? Almost exclusively Discover or otherwise create cards, especially from the opponent’s class.
This is such a warped take. I mean, there have been decks that actually have something like griefer mechanics. Like burning cards from the opponent’s deck, or destroying the opponent’s mana crystals all at once. But you’re talking about generating random cards as if that very process makes you a victim. That’s pathetic.
100%. Reminds me of LimeBeast. Who coincidentally stopped posting around the same time Neon started.
2 Likes
but the card they nerfed was the well stated minion you could mana cheat not the card generation
2 Likes
Of course. Why would you nerf the fun cards?
2 Likes
The card functions fine. The people complaining about “zephrys rng” are unironically just unable to predict basic patterns, as the card is literally deterministic and predictable.
You mean because everyone who didn’t play it actively despised it?
And the rogue deck deserved every nerf and more. Replaying the same stuff for giant mana discounts was just brutally uninteresting to everyone who didn’t like drowning cats and kicking puppies.
No, it really can’t. It can tell us what people are playing but it won’t tell us if they are having any fun until we survey them about fun. You’re making a major assumption that people are having fun climbing the ladder, and I’m not sure that’s as universal as you think it is.
We don’t have data that tells us: What deck do you play when you reach your monthly plateau and you stop actively trying to climb? We might have that for legend players, but we certainly don’t know who plays what at gold 5 or platinum 10.
Considering there are a great number more players at these lower ranks than at the higher ones, it seems like this sort of survey would be much more interesting… oh, wait, you would not take their data because that’s not how any of this is done according to you.
You want us to make choices on false assumptions and the misuse of data.
And yet people complained.
2 Likes
No, I am absolutely not. Scrub away the cognitive dissonance that’s clogging up your brain and reread please.
1 Like
It functions properly, usually. I can give you that. It’s happened many times to many people , and in online videos, where he does not offer what he should, from the classic set. Maybe this was a problem in the past, though I watched a wild streamer last week get screwed by the card.
It doesn’t bother me though, I stand by my original statement. The card stinks.
1 Like
You’re right. Control Priest should be able to discover 50 or 60 cards if they want. I mean it’s fun for them so why would anyone get rid of it?
Discover is out of control. Has been for a while but it just seems to be getting worse. The more we complain about it the more they add. As it stands almost every turn one player or the other is discovering something. Why even bother build a deck? Just bring the most discover cards you can and spin that wheel!
3 Likes
So I just double checked HS replay and VS to make sure I didn’t miss anything, but they report zero data on “fun rate” or “rate of fun” or anything related to qualitative impressions of decks.
If you make any extrapolation about player intent, enjoyment, or likeability from HS replay or VS you are doing so based on the assumption that people are having fun.
You could just as easily assume that these people are miserable and they are playing these decks to make other suffer. It’s equally valid as your assertion without evidence to support your claim or this one.
So I repeat, you are making an assumption that people are having fun when they play these decks.
I just shredded your position, but I must have a cognitive error, lol. Rich.
Right? There aren’t two players involved in the process, so whatever one player likes the other can just quit the game if they don’t like it. /s
It seems like they just started slapping it on everything when they didn’t have an other ideas.
“Hey, what do we do about these classes that we haven’t worked on yet? The deadline is coming up really fast.”
“Um, stick new art on their old stuff and slap a bunch of discover and copy on it.”
Do you imagine that when someone is playing a “troll deck” or griefing, or whatever you want to call it, that they’re NOT having fun? Or do you just imagine these players with a permanent frown on their faces, talking like Eeyore to themselves as they spread their misery around? Personally, I think they’re laughing their butts off.
Not really. Perhaps where you’re getting caught up is semantics. So let’s define our terms. Earlier I said that there are essentially two different reasons why a deck can be popular; let’s make it so there are ONLY two categories. The first is rational reasons, and the only rational reason is to maximize winrate with the resources available. Therefore, the only two factors that contribute to rational motives are winrate and dust cost. Everything else gets tossed into the irrational category. Playing Druid because you like Guff’s voice acting? Irrational. Being a Mage main? Irrational. Thinking that a deck is powerful when it doesn’t actually win as much as you think it does? Irrational. Fun? Irrational.
Now, according to the terminology outlined above, we have, objectively in the data, the popularity of all decks, and we have, objectively, the winrate of all decks, and we have, objectively, the dust cost of all decks. So it is therefore possible to qualify, objectively, the total factor that irrational motivations contribute to deck popularity — it’s what’s left over after we subtract the rational factors. Maybe a particular deck has a negative irrational motivation, meaning that it’s so generally distasteful to play as that the only reason anyone plays it at all is because it wins so much at its particular dust cost. But the point is that you can plot all the decks according to winrate, dust cost and popularity, and we can thereby KNOW that the irrational motivations to play some decks are higher than other decks.
Me personally, I don’t differentiate “desire to troll” from fun the way that you apparently do. But let’s just skip that argument, classify both as irrational motivations, and just say that the best decks from a game designer perspective are the decks with the most irrational motivation to play them.
2 Likes
Oh, so if I accept all of your assumptions then your argument, which is factually based on your assumptions, is sound?
You are using assumptions to define the terms and frame the argument.
In order to concede your point, one must also agree to your assumptions. I don’t agree to them because I don’t have any evidence that you are correct.
As empirically as you like to represent yourself, you’re on the feelings side here, my dude. Your feelings are driving your argument, not data.
I don’t know why everyone plays what they play. I know there are days I don’t play something particularly fun because I choose to play something expeditious or other days smooth brain simple just to eat ranks and get loots each month.
You’re also assuming you’re typical. I don’t know that you are remotely close to that.
It’s not really feelings based to say that you’re either playing the metagame optimally, or you’re not. I get that it can be (very) difficult to know whether you’re playing the metagame optimally, but knowing what you are doing is not a requirement for doing. Either you are or you are not, no feelings there.
Another baseless accusation.
2 Likes
optimally?
This discussion was you determining fun from popularity, not optimal play.
You are using low win rate decks with high play rates to suggest fun, and nothing in the data you are taking your information from even remotely speaks to the qualitative factors that drive selections. It’s a misuse of the data to assume what you’ve said.
Yes. And
Total popularity = popularity from optimal metagaming + popularity from irrational motivations.
This isn’t an opinion, it’s a fact.
3 Likes
You made up a formula, dude. This is all in your brain.
You are assuming that formula means something. It’s based on assumptions.
I don’t agree with your assumptions because I am not you, and you are not normal.
It all makes perfect sense in your brain because you accept your own assumptions without question, but that doesn’t translate into you’ve made a fact.
Jebus, dude.
You can’t make determinations about why people play the game from play rates and win rates. The world just doesn’t work like that and data most assuredly doesn’t work like that.
It isn’t a binary thing and making it binary, collapsing the responses, makes your data less accurate, not more.
It is not collapsing the responses, because of the definition of “irrational” being used here. It is obvious that nothing is being lost here if we rephrase it this way, which means the exact same thing btw:
Total popularity = popularity caused by X + ALL popularity NOT caused by X
2 Likes
You’ve obviously never learned anything about statistics.
Dude, the data does not tell us anything about the motivations of players. It just doesn’t.
The categories are arbitrary and you made them yourself. You created the definitions, parsed the data after the fact, and then assert that it proves something it was never intended to measure.
It’s not how data works. It would (should) get you fired from any sort of serious data analytics position because it’s that bad.