Who is for and against the ridiculous high rolls?

Interested in who likes the ridiculous high rolls and who is against em.

When i say ridiculous high roll, i am speaking of the turn 2 or 3 sires or turn 3 or 4 drakefires and scourges or turn 4 or 5 balinda jnto tjrn 5 or 6 drakefires. That sort of stuff.

I for one hate these highrolls with a passion

6 Likes

I refuse to play the mage casino cards.
If I wanted to play a slot machine, I would go to Vegas.

3 Likes

I hate it. The way I see it, the devs’ “RNG is fun” mentality ruins a lot of the competitive aspect of this game. There will always be a degree of randomness and luck to any TCG, and RNG can be fun in moderation; but stuff like getting a Neptulon on turn 4 from a roulette spin is just nonesense.

It gives you a dopamine hit when you are the one playing it, and that is the reason why many players run things like thief rogue despite the deck being tier 3/2. But when you are on the receiving end, losing to bs like that really wears you down.

No one likes losing; that will always be the case. Many players excuse their own misplays with stuff like this (algorithm is RIGGED reee), but it is certainly true that losing should more often than not be a result of your own decisions. The more RNG devs put into the game, the less often that happens. No one will take HS seriously from a competitive point of view if the amount of RNG in the game keeps increasing.

7 Likes

I don’t think Hearthstone was ever intended to be a super serious competitive game, but they tried to force it because it generated revenue.

1 Like

It used to be have a little competitiveness, like when i hit legend the first time i felt like i had accomplished something. Not anymore, i would even feel like i accomplished something if i ended in the top 1000

1 Like

Every game mode is now high roll or die. These developers are poopy.

The standard variance of a ccg (card draw rng) is nothing compared to the rng a lot of hearthstone cards introduce. In most ccgs you win or lose based on the decisions you and your opponent make, but in hearthstone it’s just…no agency at all. It kinda feels like the game was designed to play itself.

1 Like

The RNG effects are so powerful entire decks are built around them: thief rogue and BSM. The latter is awful to play against as technically one rune can car twenty mana worth of spells and complement upend and incremental win.

2 Likes

This is topic is close to the claim that there is no skill involved in Hearthstone, and that wins and losses are the result of RNG. That’s refuted by the same players reaching heights (in rank, on ladder (and tournaments)) others never can, by those hardstuck in low ranks, and by players that put in the effort to improve that end up climbing upon improving.

(To be clear, RNG plays a role, often to a fault. But, it is simply incorrect to protect one’s ego by pretending skill is not part of the equation.)

Thing is, in nearly any other ccg you could show a game that you lost, ask what mistakes you made, and a better player will be able to tell you exactly what misplays cost you the game. In hearthstone the explanation is often just something along the lines of “well the better player wins most of the time, this is just one of those unlucky games where all you can do is go next”. Yes the better player wins more games out of 1000, but that only matters if you’re actually going to play 1000 games. Most players prefer whoever played better in any individual game to win that game (which is how it works in most other ccgs).

1 Like

To your first point, indeed RNG plays a role in Hearthstone, and every CCG ever. The degree to which RNG plays a role varies, of course. As to your second point, one can improve drastically in Hearthstone by analyzing their mistakes, more than I think you want to admit. It is furthermore disingenuous hyperbole to claim a player needs to play an upwards of 1,000 games to see any positive results from their conscious improvement.

Yup, and they usually do. That is why we see the same players reaching high legend every season. That’s also why we see the same players (like me) stuck wandering in low ranks.

To be clear, this is not a defense of the level of RNG we are seeing right now. Some RNG is inherent and necessary. Cards like Rune shouldn’t exist, IMO.

If you’re referring to card draw rng, I agree. Card draw rng is inherent and necessary. There’s no need for the card effects themselves to have much if any rng. Stuff like random targeting and randomly generated cards, just…why? Who ever asked for this?

Honestly, we need some RNG. Take a look at how boring the game becomes when there isn’t any. Look at the likes of Quest Warrior.

I agree with that. I wanted to avoid getting close to that claim in my previous post when I said this:

It is certainly true that there is agency in Hearthstone and that games are still determined by skill to a large extent. To a greater extent than most players realize. However, the more RNG exists in the game the more often you will end up saying: well, I lost that game because of a highroll and there was nothing I could have done about it. It happens to the best of the best in this game constantly. Heck, yesterday I saw a turn 4 Neptulon drop from a thief rogue on Pocket_Train’s stream. I assure you, there was no skill factor in the outcome of that game.

That kind of stuff is becoming more and more common in this game and that is not good, imho.

4 Likes

I have no idea how quest warrior is relevant, but somehow I get the sense that your dislike of it as a deck has nothing to do with rng or lack thereof.

I sense an attitude that’s unnecessary.

I don’t detest Quest Warrior, and apologize if I hit a nerve. My point is that we get a glimpse at how boring the game can be when we look at decks that have little to no RNG involved. RNG is a balancing act, wherein too much can cost agency, and wherein too little is entirely predictable and boring (and there might be an argument for that costing agency as well).

1 Like

People bad at the game are for the high rolls as its one of the only ways they win. People good at the game want stability and are against high rolling as their skill will bring them the wins.

2 Likes

I’m not good at the game, and don’t want high rolls (i.e. Switcheroo Priest).

Without the RNG decks the awful players would never win a game and the player population would plummet even more

No you didn’t hit a nerve, my text probably sounded different in your head than it did in mine. That said, I disagree with your main point about the better player always winning being boring. This is one of those complaints that only ever exists in the hypothetical. No one ever says “I get outplayed too often because there’s not enough rng to help me win, I’m quitting”. But somehow people often suggest that this would happen if there were less rng.

You don’t have to imagine the hypothetical, it already exists. Games with less rng exist, and in some of them the less skilled player does, in fact, lose nearly always. People don’t quit ccgs like duelyst or other game genres like chess because they’re too unskilled and always lose. They strive to improve. And also they get matched at their skill level and get 50% wins there anyway.

1 Like