Why isn’t Rainbow Mage, the deck I believe relies on RNG most, at the top of the meta? 
I mean, those are apparently the most powerful effects.
Probably because it has too much RNG. You do need some consistency, too. A backbone, if you will. Anyhow, I feel you’ve grasped my point and we’re just arguing semantics at this point.
Edit: Or perhaps it’s because it is teetering on the edge of “not competitive” because there isn’t enough OP RNG to go around. Heh, I dunno. I could speculate all I want, but ultimately you probably won’t like my answer.
1 Like
Maybe. Good talk, though.
That’s fine; we can agree to disagree. 
No problem. We are here to help.
I think that part of the problem with team 5 is treat the development of RNG during as progress considering old forms as “bad RNG”.
When in reality there are many other feelings people can have other than frustration.
One example being boredom caused by having “design formulas” rather than allow different experiences.
This happens because people got over obssesed with feelings to a point where they not even consider that maybe you should be allowed to feel bad to grow from it.
Just like in real life.
I not saying to utterly ignore it. Just that the actual approach does more harm than good.
To think feelings don’t matter, and I don’t mean in Hearthstone, is ridiculous. Believe it or not, you have feelings, and much of the impulses and decisions you make are based upon them.
Feelings ought to be considered even in real life. When dealing with a video game, that’s pretty much at the core of why players play: fun (a feeling).
Hmm, well, the issue with this reasoning is that not all card games have RNG outside of the deck shuffle, yet people still play those.
1 Like
That’s a good point, I didn’t think of that.
Well, I see what you mean; but if the game is making the player feel frustrated to a point they feel the game is unfair, there is a gameplay issue for them to address. You can’t just say to the playerbase ‘get over it’ or ‘grow up, it’s just a game’ or whatever. This is part of the gameplay experience and people ultimately want to have fun, even those playing competitively.
There are instances where that frustration is part of the experience, like with souls-like games. But these games are all about a difficult, but fair and learnable challenge to overcome. I think there’s little comparison here to that.
edit: unironically, if I were a dev I’d be very interested on this conversation. This is what I intended with my opening post. It quickly devolved into people spreading their usual general salt at the game, but this is the exact conversation I wanted to bring up, so thanks for this debate 
(It´s not like a dev will ever read this but still lol)
2 Likes
Essentially, we have to admit that Blizzard is heavily taking advantage of how addictive gambling is. Personally, I like HS because it’s overall quite simple. I don’t want to spend 10 minutes of turn 1 going off in modern Yu-Gi-Oh or spend a bunch of time building a board in Magic and then needing to go through tons of cards because you need 60 in your deck. It’s exhausting trying to build a good deck in Magic and keep it up, if you ask me.
One of the aspects of Magic that deterred me from playing consistently is that, as a new player, I spend my entire turn reading cards. Not that it’s a bad game by any means, I quite enjoy it, but getting into it fresh is tough (for me anyways).
Edit: Not to mention it can be quite expensive. Talking about Magic the Gathering: Arena here.
Yeah, that’s a big part of it. The deck building experience in Magic can be quite awful. At least in Yu-Gi-Oh you only need 40 cards and archetypes are so obvious. Once you get the hang of the game then you can venture out of archetypes and make silly decks. You can’t really do that in Magic. Yeah, you can use like any card, but you need to read all you have access to carefully to see how they synergize or you won’t get very far.
1 Like
This debate is actually a good one.
But to get to it people first need to snap out of the illusion that everything they not like/feel good from is bad design.
I would love to discuss at what point is feeling too bad but that discussion is impossible when people are so radical that they go screaming all the way around because a match they played got affected.
They have the right to feel bad , they have the right to discuss it, but no. They not have the right to do a design call based on a single experience.
1 Like
When the game stops becoming profitable. =)
How gambling relate to hearthstone and other card games is a good topic to get something new from.
Like…
In classic Magic open packs used to be not only part of the fun but a entire market due to not having ways to just craft the card.
So the “gamblers” are more concentrated on pack openning rather than actually playing.
When you give people acess to the cards as easy as hearthstone does you need to move those people somewhere else or you gonna make your game unprofitable.
Because let’s be fair.
You can not like gambling but those people gambling are the ones who always paid enough to card games possible since the start.
They’re even more important to card games foundation than the pro players for example. Because they’re the one putting the money in.
Like “Rarran” oppening more than 500 Bucks in FOL packs chasing a signature Tony some months ago.
This is an interesting topic.
I’ve been playing card games since I was incredibly little. You know, “Go Fish” as a child. Then at 10 I started Pokemon. Moved on to Yu-Gi-Oh, Rummy, Solitaire. Then back to Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon, then HS, back to Yu-Gi-Oh, then Poker and back to HS.
Physical cards also offer another reason to open: collection. Your real collection has so much personal value as well as physical value. A digital collection doesn’t elicit the same value or emotions.
Yes.
If someone really wants to make digital card games “the next step” i think this would be the final frontier.
Make collection not only possible but undependant from the game itself be online.
It’s probably already possible with blockchain technology but we didn’t see it done yet because the industry is afraid of losing control of the market in their own games.
Also that would have a decent amount of legal implications.
It will happen eventually.
It’d be really hard to ever be even a little bit the same, since cards that are erated digitally are forever changed, thus their value changes. You would need first edition cards and for when a card gets a change it doesn’t actually change in your collection. Then do you get a copy of the new version, too? Hmm… I guess you don’t have to do that. Point is, they could definitely try harder to mimic the physical experience.
Those are Minor topics but for that one about change .
Devs would just require you to update your card and if you don’t the card would be illegal/banned.
Like…
That stuff only really gains value when they get VERY OLD anyway so most people would just update.
Minami and I are referring to the exact same phenomenon. The reason why using randomness to vary the experience is effective is precisely because it provides new opportunities to demonstrate skill. In most games as randomness increases skill potential increases.
This is an anti-skill mindset that believes itself pro-skill. You are identifying the island of knowledge that you have as “skill” and clinging to that, unwilling to escape its familiar terrain. But skill is not your island. Skill is the unexplored, the tricks that you do not know yet; it is of the ocean. But the ocean is dangerous, you could make a mistake there. What your backbone actually represents is the fear of skill development via the fear of failure.
2 Likes
You love to make no sense. The mental gymnastics that go on in your head just make me sigh. It’s so exhausting at this point.