When the mulligan/opening draws determines whether you win or lose? I mean I know the answer is to accept it and move on, and I know that some people will say some things but ultimately, make no difference or maybe would have changed 1 in 1000 games had you not just conceded turn 5 or whatever, but I mean philosophically what are you supposed to do? What are you supposed to think? Is it intended for the game to simply decide you win or lose because it gives you a hand, which is bad, then you mulligan for a hand, which is bad, then you draw a few turns, and they are all bad (this is for a non-bad regular/good deck btw, not something weird or expected to be an outlier), is this good gameplay? What happens when this doesn’t just happen for one game, but multiple games, what are you supposed to think? Because Hearthstone is supposedly a game with at least a little bit of skill attached, right? But this sort of experience is a 0 skill game, if it simply decides “you lose” in the first few turns despite doing everything you can and are supposed to and nothing you could have done about it. How do you view this sort of experience?
Think about all the other games when that didn’t happen?
It’s curious how people here take wins for granted, but when they lose a couple in a row, suddenly the game sucks and matchmaking is rigged.
Even more curios how the deniers almost exclusively use such bad faith tactics like these really obvious strawmen.
It shows how much powercreep has overtaken the skill factor in the game. In the old days, a bad mulligan wouldn’t be the end of your game, in theory it would be possible to recover. In theory, one could just concede to start over, but the ban happy mods who bots with their cut/paste responses don’t really allow for players to do that any more. So welcome to clockwork orange hearthstone, microsoft edition,…where you will be forced to sit through those games with bad mulligans so your opponent can stomp you with whatever version of their overpowered deck they are running.
And no matter what the devs tell you second hand, it spin, because if they were serious about fixing the game, the wouldn’t have made the cards in the first place, in spite of all the feedback they were given beforehand.
Well…that is supposed to be the norm, no? Why would I look at what is supposed to be happening and think something or another about it?
I didn’t say or insinuate such a thing, merely asking questions
What do you mean “it’s the norm”? When mulliganing you have 67% chance to hit 1 copy of a card you’re looking for (and that’s only with a coin, less when you go 1st, but when you go 1st you have other advantages)
That means 33% of the time you won’t hit that one card you’re hard-mulliganing for. However, since we don’t usually hard-mulligan for one specific card (except for example for Speaker Stomper against Shaman), that means we get our curve even more than 67% of the time, but the rest 30-ish%, or 3 out of 10 games, we won’t.
And that’s completely normal.
Trouble arises because of the nature of probability - sometimes it won’t happen 3 in 10 games, but 0 in 20 and then 6 in 20, and that’s when the thin-foiled hats go nuts:
“OMG I got nothing to play for 6 games in a row, game rigged, sue them on court of law”
Yes, you do just lose.
Even if you have a good hand, you might be against a class designed to rock-paper-scissors you.
If your objective is to climb the ladder then maybe switch to a less conditional, less high-roll deck. If you seek fun with the deck you chose then hit concede and save yourself time.
There is much truth to what you are saying. When I am facing Beast Hunter and I do not have Threads of Despair in my first 4-5 cards I know I can concede. When I get it I am still unfavoured but at least I have a shot. And there is stupid crap like Painlock that does not allow for any response. So yeah, just make more busted cards so people spend more money on them, rinse and repeat.
At least quote me correctly or don’t at all, I wrote “that is supposed to be the norm” not “it’s the norm” to me the norm is you should at least get a chance in 95% of matches, that could be a as low a chance it doesn’t matter to me, but at least you should get a chance. I am speaking about when the game gives you 0% chance. That is not the norm. Then I ask, the game gives you 0% chance across multiple games, what do you think?
Thank you, exactly. I accept that. I wonder how many games do you “just lose” in a row or in a stretch of games before you start to think what is going on? Again, this is in theory using a “decent/good” deck or whatever, the one you know wins 50% of matches (in theory) except then there’s these 0% win chance forced on you and again, this is speaking to the lack of player agency/lack of choice/lack of even a 5% chance to even play the game or comeback or whatever.
Exactly, now imagine you not only didn’t get Threads, but you didn’t get anything to play on turn 1, 2, 3, or 4. Now imagine this happens to you across multiple games, the hand it gave you was bad, the mulligan you did was good, but it returned bad, and then you draw bad. It is an interesting sinking feeling
There’s never 0% chance. If all else fails, there’s always a chance your opponent will get dc-ed.
Okay I will admit, I laughed at this one, Well Played
This is an over simplification. I am skeptical of the ability of any player that attributes their losses to factors other than their shortcomings. This isn’t to say RNG doesn’t play a role, but so does skill. If you don’t believe skill exists in Hearthstone, why are you playing?
Mulligan smarter. Skill starts before turn 1 starts. Most players severely neglect mulligan strategy.
Boredom, shinier than real life coin flipping, the illusion of fun, sunk cost fallacy, addictive personality, for the lols, I mean take your pick, I play for the same sort of reasons any of us play. I also didn’t say skill doesn’t exist, I said I was wondering why a game where skill supposedly does exist, would screw a player over to 0% win or 100% loss scenario, and then I also wondered why it would do that multiple times in a row/sequence or given number of games (and even further as a pattern over days/weeks, though I don’t really remember all my history so I can’t say, but it’s definitely a thing I have noticed happening)
I too am skeptical of those claiming a game is unwinnable or that there was some sort of skill or choice that could have been made, I am talking about games that are not that (see my above comments for further clarification)
In most cases the answer is cognitive dissonance. Unfortunately.
Initial bias: I am a good player.
Contrary experience: I lose games.
Rationalization to protect identity: It’s not that I’m bad, it’s that there is no skill.
Paradox: They now think that they’re a “good player” in a game that has no skill.
2m Edit: I am not speaking for Cuddles specifically here. I’m just saying lots of people like this.
This is not what I am talking about. Please read the rest of the thread for further clarification
If you throw the game during the mulligan, then nothing can save the game short of a time machine.
This is also not what I am talking about.
Still no…please read the thread before replying, thank you
Look man, what you’re talking about in the opening post is really close to not existing. If a game is unwinnable more than one game in 50 or so, then either your deck is bad, your mulligan strategy is bad, or your opponent is playing a hard counter.
Good players “solve” that problem by simply not letting it happen to them in the first place. At least not often.
Dunning Kruger: still believing this when they’re about to (supposedly) make big QOL changes proving this “GIT GUD SCRUB” mentality is wrong.
I know it. YOU know it. And anyone who did a good faith read of you posts knows it.
But some time in recent history our man scrot went off and decided to attack the players, calling those who are still wanting a better game addicts for daring to criticize the way things have been of late.
The level of cognitive dissonance required to maintain that mindset when even the company says they screwed up is larger than the usa’s national debt…or maybe he thinks they’re all addicts too.
The funny part is, even pros concede to bad mulligans. Especially in the current state of the game.
I think you believe you’re disillusioned, but wrongly so. Skill exists, and if you’re implying it doesn’t - which is fine - that contradicts conversations we’ve had in the past. Of course, elements of RNG play a larger role than they should. Nevertheless, skill does exist. Perhaps, we should define skill if this is unclear. Although, I think you should have an elaborate idea yourself that we shouldn’t need to have such a discussion.
Yeah… Many factors play into why players play. That doesn’t eliminate the fact that skill exists. It should probably be added that skill varies, whether between deck, and or between metas.
Hopefully I misunderstood your comment.
(Edit here, but Scrotie, I have to say, man, you gotta work on your people skills. I feel for you, but my man, if you act like this in life, you shouldn’t. I don’t know if this is your internet persona, per se, wherein we express ourselves more than we otherwise would, but… You seem to want to be contrary, “right” (whether factual or not), condescending, And frankly insulting. What the heck, bud? I’d love to be your friend, but you make it so hard to want to be around you, or to get to know you. Sorry to get personal, but it’s a very consistent pattern.)