Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ...
3
4
5
6
7
LastLast
  1. #81
    Not sure how the MTG Pro Tour is "rigged".

    Being "high variance" is not really a value judgment either. If every game in Hearthstone or MTG was preceded by you stacking your deck, variance would greatly decrease - and the games would also get worse.

  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahourai View Post
    Being "high variance" is not really a value judgment either. If every game in Hearthstone or MTG was preceded by you stacking your deck, variance would greatly decrease - and the games would also get worse.
    Not sure why you'd think that I'm saying the game would be better if everyone cheated.

    It's an extremely high variance game, that's just how it is. I didn't say there was some solution to that. Even top level players will tell you that you often only have control over the outcome of a fraction of your games.

  3. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by Bovinity Divinity View Post
    Even top level players will tell you that you often only have control over the outcome of a fraction of your games.
    Will they tell you this after they admit the Pro Tour is "rigged"?

  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahourai View Post
    Will they tell you this after they admit the Pro Tour is "rigged"?
    Yes, yes, "rigged" was a bit of a strong word.

    But the fact is that there have been several systems in place over the years to attempt to ensure greater consistency of results from prolific players. There have been several different names, several different programs, and several different methods, but in general the goal is to allow players who are highly prolific or visible to have greater consistency in their results. (Generally via a number of free wins in each tournament they attend)

    This isn't some secret thing or big reveal, it's simply how they do things.

    You see the same systems in Hearthstone. (In fact, Hearthstone has had even more blatant systems in place if I'm not mistaken) It's fairly common in games with high variance where producers and organizers still want to maintain an image of consistency and keep well known players visible.

    Where you don't see such systems are competitive environments where outcomes are fully in control of the players, like fighting games.

  5. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Bovinity Divinity View Post
    Yes, yes, "rigged" was a bit of a strong word.

    But the fact is that there have been several systems in place over the years to attempt to ensure greater consistency of results from prolific players. There have been several different names, several different programs, and several different methods, but in general the goal is to allow players who are highly prolific or visible to have greater consistency in their results. (Generally via a number of free wins in each tournament they attend)
    Professional MTG players earn byes based on past success via the pro points system (or whatever it's called now), which is not uncommon in competition. Professional American golfers can acquire sponsor exemptions or tournament eligibility based entirely on being former champions and not recent results, while players who are not champions must meet recent success qualifiers. CSGO teams who win a major tournament do not have to play the next tournament's qualifier rounds.

    There are events like the Invitational which are invite-only and not based on pro points but they're the exception, not the rule, and are basically just expensive show matches (which again are quite common in other competitive areas, i.e. in golf, Tiger Woods was invited to the Ryder Cup in 2018 over other higher ranked players on the basis of his fame and past success).

  6. #86
    The Patient
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    329
    To get back to the Topic: I played Arena for a while now and it is definitely better than Hearthstone. Hearthstone is pay to win. If you don't have the right cards, you simply can't do anything. Arena has a limited amount of cards compared to the real game, but enough to give you a lot of possibilities. The major point is how you get new cards. In Hearthstone, you really have to pay money or play insanely long time. In Arena, you get 2-3 booster with no efford and a Wildcard every time you get a card for the fifth time. In Hearthstone you can turn cards to crafting material, but the amount to craft a new card is way to high. In Arena a rare card to much gives you a rare wildcard.

  7. #87
    Arena has a worse economy than Hearthstone. The free to play rewards are worse than Hearthstone and the paid economy is more expensive. This isn't really debatable, not sure if you're trolling or what with "HS is pay to win".

  8. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahourai View Post
    Professional MTG players earn byes based on past success via the pro points system (or whatever it's called now), which is not uncommon in competition. Professional American golfers can acquire sponsor exemptions or tournament eligibility based entirely on being former champions and not recent results, while players who are not champions must meet recent success qualifiers. CSGO teams who win a major tournament do not have to play the next tournament's qualifier rounds.

    There are events like the Invitational which are invite-only and not based on pro points but they're the exception, not the rule, and are basically just expensive show matches (which again are quite common in other competitive areas, i.e. in golf, Tiger Woods was invited to the Ryder Cup in 2018 over other higher ranked players on the basis of his fame and past success).
    That's all true, but none of it affects performance in events.

    Tiger Woods might have qualified for an event based on a past win, but no one is saying, "Ok, lets knock 3 strokes off his score in every event." which is what you see in MtG (and similar) tournaments. (Or perhaps, "Free Eagle on first three holes" would be more of an apt analogy.)

    If you go back to the early days of the tournament scene and DCI and whatnot, these systems were created specifically because players didn't want to travel to events and get outdrawn or hit some wacky off-meta hard-counter and go 0-2 immediately. Because they wanted to encourage these visible/prolific players to keep going to events by ensuring they had more consistent results.

    It's fine, it's just that it's laughable when people start harping on how the game is all (or even mostly) skill when anyone who is - or was - active in the tournament scene knows how extremely high variance it really is.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Mahourai View Post
    Arena has a worse economy than Hearthstone. The free to play rewards are worse than Hearthstone and the paid economy is more expensive. This isn't really debatable, not sure if you're trolling or what with "HS is pay to win".
    Yeah, Arena is a great concept but it's still far from being a superior product in any way.

    If WotC continues working on it and gives it a chance, I think it could be great, but considering that the economy is such a big part of the MtG experience for people I'm not sure that'll happen. People will still just be waiting on a new MTGO client.

  9. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Bovinity Divinity View Post
    That's all true, but none of it affects performance in events.
    CSGO Legends status is a bye for the qualifier rounds, the same as pro players in MTG receiving byes in a tournament on the basis of their pro points. No different than earning a bye in American football playoffs either, to go for a "real" sport.

    Tiger Woods getting automatic eagles or whatever would be like if Owen Turtenwald started games at 30 life. The MTG bye system is not "rigging" or notably shifty in comparison to other competitions.

  10. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahourai View Post
    Arena has a worse economy than Hearthstone. The free to play rewards are worse than Hearthstone and the paid economy is more expensive. This isn't really debatable, not sure if you're trolling or what with "HS is pay to win".
    I've been playing a slightly modified (dropped hybrid lands for better hybrid lands, replaced one big creature with a Planeswalker) version of the BW starter deck offered once you hit level 25 in MtG:A. It's a deck that, by design, is meant to be played by new/inexperienced players. I've only lost 3 games in ranked, with over 50 played, and all 3 were to Merfolk Aggro. Show me one pre-made deck "recipe" in Hearthstone that can pull that kind of winrate with only modifying 3 cards. MtG:A has worse free to play rewards because the cards they give you for free are actually useful.
    ☭Politics Understander and Haver of Good Takes☭Posting Is A Human Right☭
    Quote Originally Posted by TheGravemind View Post
    If I was in his boots (and forced to join the SS in 1939 or whenever he joined), I would have tried to liberate the camp myself or die trying. He did not. He traded his life for the life of thousands of people, thus he should face the consequences
    Quote Originally Posted by Proberly View Post
    Oh would you now? It truly is amazing how many heroic people we have wasting their time on internet.

  11. #91
    After playing both and hitting diamond in MTGA and rank 4 in HS, MTGA is better.
    VOTING IS MOB RULE AND MOB RULE IS MEDIA RULE AND
    MEDIA RULE IS CORPORATE RULE

  12. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahourai View Post
    CSGO Legends status is a bye for the qualifier rounds, the same as pro players in MTG receiving byes in a tournament on the basis of their pro points. No different than earning a bye in American football playoffs either, to go for a "real" sport.

    Tiger Woods getting automatic eagles or whatever would be like if Owen Turtenwald started games at 30 life. The MTG bye system is not "rigging" or notably shifty in comparison to other competitions.
    Not having to go through qualifiers isn't nearly the same as getting free wins within a given tournament.

    It's like the Capcom Cup winner. They're immediately qualified for next years Cup, but they don't get free wins credited to them or get to move up the bracket in that - or any other - tournament. They have to fight it out same as everyone else.

    There really is no analogy in other competitive games because other competitive games don't need to mitigate variance in the way that CCG's do.

  13. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    For years, MTG video games have come out. For YEARS. I'm talking since the 90s, when the card game was still brand new and had less than 400 cards released, there have been attempts at MTG games. With every single version of the game, a developer attempts to capture the essence of playing MTG (flinging spells, outwitting your opponent, the excitement of customization and collection, ect) in the video game space. With every single attempt, we end up getting something that is more like a demo of MTG than an actual game like the cardboard version.

    It's been a disappointment, rather than a blessing, to have any video game version of MTG. Even MTGO, which has been online since early 2000s, is as close to paper MTG as any dev has ever come. It has a vast card pool that streches back almost to the very first sets of the game (power 9 and other really good cards printed before 7th edition are not available because of the negative effects they would have on the game, not just in terms of playing with them, but the detriment to the secondary market). Nothing, not even MTGO, comes close to paper MTG on a table top. MTG arena, and any version of digital MTG before it, is basically just a slice of MTG. One or two blocks with some current mechanics and block deck ideas to play with.

    Nowhere close to what is possible in the real game.
    Anyone remember that weird MTG game on PS1. I'm not even sure how to describe it, but it had an interesting charm to it. I wasted many hours on that.

  14. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by Bovinity Divinity View Post
    Not having to go through qualifiers isn't nearly the same as getting free wins within a given tournament.
    You don't get "free wins" in MTG. You get byes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Priestiality View Post
    I've only lost 3 games in ranked, with over 50 played, and all 3 were to Merfolk Aggro. Show me one pre-made deck "recipe" in Hearthstone that can pull that kind of winrate with only modifying 3 cards.
    Well, you cannot realistically win 94% of a 50 game sample with any deck at any MMR in any game. Clearly examples like this, if they occur, should not be taken as representative samples. If I start Arena in Hearthstone and go undefeated 3 times in a row, I should probably not assume I will go undefeated every subsequent time and that Arena regularly returns 10x value in cards and gold and then talk as though this should be a point in Hearthstone's favor.

  15. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahourai View Post
    You don't get "free wins" in MTG. You get byes.



    Well, you cannot realistically win 94% of a 50 game sample with any deck at any MMR in any game. Clearly examples like this, if they occur, should not be taken as representative samples. If I start Arena in Hearthstone and go undefeated 3 times in a row, I should probably not assume I will go undefeated every subsequent time and that Arena regularly returns 10x value in cards and gold and then talk as though this should be a point in Hearthstone's favor.
    I don't expect it to be sustainable, but my point is that skill matters a lot more in MtG than it does in HS because people that can't pilot a deck in MtG usually don't live past turn 5 where in HS they can just run ZooLock or Face Hunter or w/e the current FotM never-trade-always-face deck is to single digit rankings.
    ☭Politics Understander and Haver of Good Takes☭Posting Is A Human Right☭
    Quote Originally Posted by TheGravemind View Post
    If I was in his boots (and forced to join the SS in 1939 or whenever he joined), I would have tried to liberate the camp myself or die trying. He did not. He traded his life for the life of thousands of people, thus he should face the consequences
    Quote Originally Posted by Proberly View Post
    Oh would you now? It truly is amazing how many heroic people we have wasting their time on internet.

  16. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Priestiality View Post
    I don't expect it to be sustainable, but my point is that skill matters a lot more in MtG than it does in HS because people that can't pilot a deck in MtG usually don't live past turn 5 where in HS they can just run ZooLock or Face Hunter or w/e the current FotM never-trade-always-face deck is to single digit rankings.
    I dunno, man. I consider those people who can't pilot a deck to be mono red players.
    Just don't reply to me. Please. If you can help it.

  17. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    And have you also watched, oh, say the final game of the final Pro Tour?

    Again, I'm not saying skill isn't a factor - but to say MtG is SOLELY decided on skill is simply fallacious.
    Just because what you got on the top of your deck isn't ideal (or exactly what you wanted), doesn't mean RNG is this thing that ruins your game, to the point of needing a major overhaul to the way the game is designed and played (which is the implication of most who mention land screw as a thing in their lives). Hundreds of playtest games before tournaments usually end up with an overwhelmingly large number of games that produce ideal results, right? To the point where you remember with unmistakable clarity when you have a match in a round that doesn't. It's a sort of confirmation bias.

    It's just as much a matter of choosing the right cards in your deck as it is a matter of skill to play them when you see them. So to say that regardless of skill, RNG will decide games for you from time to time... is true, but it's not what happened in this one instance of play that really matters. Because there's always next game. And the next game might be different.

  18. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    Just because what you got on the top of your deck isn't ideal (or exactly what you wanted), doesn't mean RNG is this thing that ruins your game, to the point of needing a major overhaul to the way the game is designed and played (which is the implication of most who mention land screw as a thing in their lives). Hundreds of playtest games before tournaments usually end up with an overwhelmingly large number of games that produce ideal results, right? To the point where you remember with unmistakable clarity when you have a match in a round that doesn't. It's a sort of confirmation bias.

    It's just as much a matter of choosing the right cards in your deck as it is a matter of skill to play them when you see them. So to say that regardless of skill, RNG will decide games for you from time to time... is true, but it's not what happened in this one instance of play that really matters. Because there's always next game. And the next game might be different.
    I feel we can't continue discussing things until you take the time to look up what the word "solely" means.

  19. #99
    I'm enjoying Arena much more than I ever did Hearthstone, but then I feel that Magic is just a superior game in general anyway. The only thing the online version, MTGO, was lacking was a good interface with the bells and whistles that make the gameplay feel more dynamic. They really learned from what Hearthstone did right.
    Shut your goddamn mouth, Gene!

  20. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    I feel we can't continue discussing things until you take the time to look up what the word "solely" means.
    Because it's not what you drew that matters. It's how you played it. That's solely skill. You aren't robbed of your chance to display skill because you didn't draw the thing that you thought would be a silver bullet.

    RNG only really matters when you want to make it the reason you lost.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •