They aren’t. That’s the root issue.
The thing about people who play “for fun” as opposed to “for work” or “for wins” is that “fun” is subjective while the other two aren’t. So if corners or throws or Akuma get you fast, and sometimes even easy, wins, then people playing to win will do those things because they win when they do them.
Furthermore, people playing for work will also be incentivized to do those things because losing is ostensibly interpreted as having inferior skill, even if that’s not necessarily the reason for the loss. Lower-skilled gamers don’t historically get as many views as “the big guys” unless they become fun to watch in others ways as compensation.
So basically this means “for funsies” people are in the distinct minority. However, within that camp, “most people” are either enjoying the game, or are otherwise not maldy enough to come to the forums about it. Those that do, are a minority-subset of a minority group of hearthstone gamers.
What that means TL;DR is they’re trying NOT to play “the meta” because they don’t like it. But the meta is forced upon them whether they play it or not. Hence the NaCl.
Bruh I don’t give a single crap about a streamer. I care about the players whose only audience is themselves.
Ironically you just proved the entire point of my post.
You don’t care about streamers… but they still exist. And their influence affects YOU, and the games you play, whether you want them to or not.
Well, I emphatically do not want, and I hope that everyone who is employed in the game design industry who does want gets fired, and that every game streamer who sees themselves as an “influencer” loses their entire audience.
Duly noted.
Slightly excessive.
I’m not going to debate you on this, as it’s entirely irrelevant anyway. But I do think you’re being hyperbolic and silly.
Suffice to say, I openly despise this attitude. Gaming should be an individual experience, not a parasocial one. But anyway…
I understand that fun and incentive are not the same concept, but a hallmark of good game design is that incentives point to fun. If the game is made for basically one kind of player, then the incentives (e.g. winning) should draw the player towards the kinds of things that player finds fun. If it’s made for multiple, mutually exclusive kinds of gamers, then there should be some “fork in the road” of competing incentives that include sufficient affordances to guide those types of players to the different areas where they have fun, effectively sorting them by their preferences. In other words, good game design unifies fun and incentive so that they are the same thing, and the very fact that you can write a post about how they are different in the context of Hearthstone indicates that the current design is flawed.
1 Like
On that much, I will agree.
I’ve seen many multiplayer/PVP focused games try to be “Jack of All Trades” regarding balancing competitive versus casual, and in all cases I can think of, something gives either way in the end.
The more different types of players a game attempts to accommodate at a single time, the more difficult the design challenges in making such a game. “AAA” game developers are probably under too much pressure to cater to too large of an audience. I believe gaming overall would be better served by smaller budget games with more modest ambitions that focus on more narrow audiences, allowing for greater specialization. The opposite of the “jack of all trades” principle.
The biggest problem with entertainment today is literally the “biggest” problem. Not everything has to try to be the biggest ever.
2 Likes
That’s so unreasonable that it points to jealousy. Streaming being watched is just a show. Yeah it might not be the greatest show in most cases but it’s a show some people like watching; sometimes it’s useful for gameplay as well; e.g. it’s interesting to see top 10 skill.
Exactly. It’s entertainment, not influence.
I didn’t pay much attention to that word, because I doubt anyone takes it seriously including those who are supposedly influencers.
They’re basically minor celebrities; they make money; it’s like a cheap tv show of the old.
I am in legend rank and I don´t “swipe card”. The first time I hit legend was with good old hunter and combo priest - none of those decks have a single legendary card.
Specialy for decks like combo priest goes this:
1 Like
This says more about you than it does about the game.
Consider a good chess puzzle. An extremely skilled player looks at one of those puzzles, and sees the answer pretty much right away. A moderately skilled player looks at it, sees a couple possible lines, follows some of those lines a bit with some thinking, and eventually works out the answer. A very low skill player just says “it’s impossible” and skips directly to the answer.
Skilled players literally see choices that are invisible to unskilled players. You’re admitting to us all that you can’t see a thing.
I assume you didn´t wanna respond to me…?
I wanted you to get a notification, so I quoted your quote of Vendetta.
1 Like
Yeah. Too many people said to me into face, that HS is just a pure RNG, but it´s just so not true. I can see on my self, how bad I played years ago, when I first started. Now I know, which cards to keep in hand, which situations are best for some spells, or combos, etc…
People who think it´s about cash and RNG don´t really know this game much, or scratched only it´s surface.
Well, here’s the way I look at that.
Imagine that you had two players who somehow had exactly the same skill level, and had them play against each other. They’d seize upon the same opportunities and fail to notice the same opportunities. Because there’s no skill differential, every game would boil down to luck.
Now consider the goal of a matchmaking algorithm that is trying to matchmake by skill. The better it is at it’s job, the more equal the skill of players matched with each other.
It’s difficult for people to believe in something that the system is literally trying its best to hide from them. You need to be able to think outside of the box to even consider it.
When they fail to do so, I’m not surprised. I’m just disappointed.
And you are confirming what you confirmed prior in another post, that you have your head stuck in a hole and all you see is Blizzards cringe which makes you cringe as well…Also that you have literally no clue what so ever to make a point, and all you do is say stuff that are 100% legit in any situation. What you are saying technically is the same as a football player that is more experienced will play the ball better which is a truism and you are trying to pass it as a revelation to everyone reading your pile of st3aming cr@p posts.
Extremely skilled players see choices that are invisible to unskilled players ? What does that even mean brother, you just play what you have to the best of your abilities, skilled players just take their time and try to see the best outcome, which most of the times it’s not even the best outcome but they pass it like they have a strategy for future turns.
Also I played this game at a higher rank than you will ever be, and I am not admitting anything, in worse case scenario in writing I can prove something, so at least get that right mister “pentium 1 brain”
My point still stands, swipe the card get as many decks as possible, cycle them so you exclude the rigged algorithm and get more favorable decks, get to legend and un-install the game.
You’ve been top 67 Legend?
Can you tell us in what season you were legend 67 ?