Hearthstone

[Sir Bruce]

Random effects are not the dominant RNG factor in top tier Arena losses. Instead it's draft randomness and card draw randomness. Even with that the best Arena players average a win rate between 70-80% depending on class (and player) so it's not surprising that over hundreds of Arena runs they'll get some 0-3 runs.

Random card effects are way more important in top tier constructed where Pagle pulling 2 cards versus 0 can determine a match. Same with Tinkmaster.

[Gustaran]

Random effects are not the dominant RNG factor in top tier Arena losses. Instead it's draft randomness and card draw randomness. Even with that the best Arena players average a win rate between 70-80% depending on class (and player) so it's not surprising that over hundreds of Arena runs they'll get some 0-3 runs.

I agree on your assessment. Still, if you match a top SC2 player in a random mode, he would never score around 70%.

Random card effects are way more important in top tier constructed where Pagle pulling 2 cards versus 0 can determine a match. Same with Tinkmaster.

Other cards that come to mind:

- Ragnaros is a major one. How often did I face a Shaman with less than 8 health and a totem and it was an absolute coin toss?
- Arcane Missiles can impact the early game as well
- Brawl is a major luck factor card
- Sylvanas takes random control, though you might be able to play around that
- Mindgames: Getting a big legendary minion can decide the game at once

There are more examples of course which feel a little more balanced. Still, I hope we won't see more of these cards in future expansions. For example, it would be easy to make Nat Pagle "Draw a card every other turn" so he could be accurately balanced.

[sunrise089]

Gustaran, I'm not sure if you're really trying to argue that random card effects introduce more uncertainty than card draw, but while your examples are certainly all part of the game, there are like 20 instances of card draw in the average match. Obviously both factors play a role, but Bruce is just, IMHO correctly, pointing out that if we're upset over randomness removing random card effects will only get us so far.

With your SC2 example, no doubt you're right. It's just very unclear to me SC2 is the ideal target. A 70% win rate for the more skilled side seems roughly what people expect from sporting or other skill contest, or at least not wildly wrong.

[Sir Bruce]

I like random card effects but I agree they need to walk a fine line between AWESOME PAYOFF and OH GOD I LOSE. Tinkmaster could turn the critter into a 2/2 or 4/4 instead. Pagle could draw once for certain and then 50/50 after that. Actually those are the only 2 cards I'm worried about atm. Rag is actually in a nice spot right now. Yeah he will occasionally cointoss win games from 20% chance or whatever but there are so many interactions between board control and his ability that it keeps the strategy space complex enough to be interesting. Same with board strategizing against Sylvanas. Brawl is only annoying if you forget to play around it. Nothing else is game-breaking. Maybe Knife Juggler in Arena but it dies easily enough that usually not.

I don't know much about MTG but I understand they don't have many (any?) random card effects which I guess is the difference between physical and digital games. What are top player win rates against average opponents?

[Gustaran]

Gustaran, I'm not sure if you're really trying to argue that random card effects introduce more uncertainty than card draw, but while your examples are certainly all part of the game, there are like 20 instances of card draw in the average match. Obviously both factors play a role, but Bruce is just, IMHO correctly, pointing out that if we're upset over randomness removing random card effects will only get us so far.

Of course, card draw is even a more random factor, but you can't really get around that in a card game. There will always be some randomness involved. I am just wondering if it is really necessary to introduce even more randomness on top of that?
I would just prefer to have cards with clear effects. I don't mind cards like Mekkatorque which are obviously supposed to be fun, but other TCG games work very well without a large amount of random card effects aside from draw/discard.

With your SC2 example, no doubt you're right. It's just very unclear to me SC2 is the ideal target. A 70% win rate for the more skilled side seems roughly what people expect from sporting or other skill contest, or at least not wildly wrong.

Are you kidding me? We are talking about casual amateurs vs pro players here.
Just one example: I played Civ 4 casually until noble/prince level. If I were to challenge any of the top player in this forum (and I assume nobody here gets regular money for playing on streams) how many games would I win if I were to play 10 matches? None. How many matches could the average League of Legends silver/gold team win against a pro circuit team? None. SC2? The same.

Now of course I understand that in Hearthstone there is inherently some luck involved which I admit is part of the fun if you draw that perfect card just when you need it. However, I think the luck factor should be limited to drawing/discarding and not be increased by a lot of additional random card effects.

[Kuro]

Some luck factor is a good thing in keeping the game stale. In addition, as a card game the card draws means there will always be some element of luck and, most importantly, a bit of a hedge against both the best and worst players. Every game you play in Civilization IV, League of Legends or Starcraft 2 starts pretty much the same way, with the exception of starts. Every Hearthstone game will start with largely different opening hands with both players.

On the subject of Civ IV, I could see you winning matches if you got a particularly great start/leader combo and your opponent, say, got a tundra iceball start and Wang Kon or something. Especially if it wasn't Duels and was a multiple player game as most of these games are. Maybe with AI opponents aside from you two for fairness in the %.

As another way to think of it...in sports, winning 70% of your games is what the elite teams do. It is hard, in a lot of things, to win so much even when you are very good at what you do, and great teams drop to bad teams all the time.

Finally, I imagine that Trump would have a much higher record if he played first to 12 wins or 3 losses with his Constructed decks against the same people. Arena has a large factor in it's Drafting, after all, that's why it is so fun and also why Arena isn't the primary mode for seeing someone's skill in playing or even card picks in a way. Plus, IIRC, he missed lethal at least once during the 0-3 Priest run (I saw it yesterday), which would mean at least in part him going 0-3 was his own mistake in missing it.

EDIT: Also, on the bit of other TCGs working without randomness: Most TCGs introduce a good amount of cards with a luck factor. Magic even specifically has a good deal of "discard randomly" stuff in Red. In addition, Hearthstone probably has a good amount of more luck based cards being good due to a small card pool at the moment, so there are less good option available.

[SevenSpirits]

Gustaran, I'm not sure if you're really trying to argue that random card effects introduce more uncertainty than card draw, but while your examples are certainly all part of the game, there are like 20 instances of card draw in the average match. Obviously both factors play a role, but Bruce is just, IMHO correctly, pointing out that if we're upset over randomness removing random card effects will only get us so far.

Of course, card draw is even a more random factor, but you can't really get around that in a card game. There will always be some randomness involved. I am just wondering if it is really necessary to introduce even more randomness on top of that?
I would just prefer to have cards with clear effects. I don't mind cards like Mekkatorque which are obviously supposed to be fun, but other TCG games work very well without a large amount of random card effects aside from draw/discard.

M:TG, the most successful TCG by far, has more randomness. Its randomness is mostly in the form of needing to draw a reasonable balance of lands and spells, and winning the coin flip to go first. IIRC, the very best M:TG players have something like a 60% game win rate in the tournaments they attend, which translates to a 65% match win rate in the typical best of 3 format.

M:TG's design team has steadfastly refused to reduce the randomness in the game as they claim that it's important to keep the game appealing to newer/worse players. It's no fun to lose all the time. I agree.

Hearthstone, oddly, has less randomness despite being much less complex and aimed at a broader audience. I imagine they think they can pull it off, in part, because they have great matchmaking. I'm sure though that the randomness they do have in the game is intentional and will not be removed.

[Jowy]

Not everything has to be an eSport

[Krill]

I don't even know how to compare Hearthstone and CIV. Is there even a single level that they can be compared on?

[sunrise089]

With your SC2 example, no doubt you're right. It's just very unclear to me SC2 is the ideal target. A 70% win rate for the more skilled side seems roughly what people expect from sporting or other skill contest, or at least not wildly wrong.

Are you kidding me? We are talking about casual amateurs vs pro players here.
Just one example: I played Civ 4 casually until noble/prince level. If I were to challenge any of the top player in this forum (and I assume nobody here gets regular money for playing on streams) how many games would I win if I were to play 10 matches? None. How many matches could the average League of Legends silver/gold team win against a pro circuit team? None. SC2? The same.

Let's not get carried away. First of all, the skill difference of a pre-release "pro" Hearthstone player versus an Arena player is nothing like the skill difference in even professional bowling, much less something like professional basketball. We saw that in LoL where the "OMG top players" from the early days are easily outclassed by other players in the game's more mature state. And I'm not at all convinced even mature titles the pro gaming world does anywhere near as good of a job discovering talent than more mature sporting industries.

CivIV is a tricky example because it's many games in one. When played for 400 turns on a balanced map you're probably right. When played for 100 turns on a random map the inferior player stands an excellent chance. And while not the only factor, that increase in iterations is vitally important. It's a huge reason why winners of tennis or basketball tournaments can be predicted much more easily than golf or American football. Golf is an incredibly popular game, but it's absolutely possible for a true amateur to beat a top player - witness Tiger Wood's 79 round from earlier this month. When a sport or game makes athleticism less important, has few iterations of play in a match, and involves random luck bounces (either via RNG or via physical game mechanics) the ex-ante best player won't always win, and that's not a problem that necessarily needs solving.