Tired of waiting?... Play Hearthstone!

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Your search did not yield any results. Please consider loosening the search criteria.

Mmkay, any CCG that doesn't have like 90% cards that are moderately broken and/or create other cards which you don't suppose to have in your deck firsthand which in turn create other cards which... OH SHI.

Also, what Bobby Kotick did to Jaina's boobies can't and shouldn't be forgiven.

"

dW2005 wrote:

Also, what Bobby Kotick did to Jaina's boobies can't and shouldn't be forgiven.

I literally have never noticed Proudmoore's knockers. I mean, I of course presumed she had milkers of some kind, but it simply never occurred to me to look.

I still haven't.

"

dW2005 wrote:

like 90% cards that are moderately broken and/or create other cards which you don't suppose to have in your deck firsthand which in turn create other cards which...

This might seem like a non sequitur, but I don't think it actually is:

Are you a Timmy, a Johnny, or a Spike?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Are you a Timmy, a Johnny, or a Spike?

A mix of all three. I'm generally okay with virtually any type of decks, except these heavy control/attrition ones which have a win condition of your opponent dying of boredom. While playing, i value some level of strategy and logic (don't offer me to play chess, mmkay) and some balance (sitcom-like laughter in the background). Sometimes i play silly decks too, like that randuin of old, just for fun.

As for the cards with random outcomes, i'm not that allergic to them, but in my opinion they should be like IRL lottery - mostly having mediocre/bad outcomes, sometimes a good one, and very, very rarely something so good it straight wins you a match. Blizzort made it exactly the opposite with that discover mechanic and their general power creep level.

if I need some shit rng in my life between leagues there's always candy crush saga.

"

dW2005 wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Are you a Timmy, a Johnny, or a Spike?

A mix of all three.

Uh-huh. *rolleyes*

"

dW2005 wrote:

Sometimes i play silly decks too, like that randuin of old, just for fun.

As for the cards with random outcomes, i'm not that allergic to them, but in my opinion they should be like IRL lottery - mostly having mediocre/bad outcomes, sometimes a good one, and very, very rarely something so good it straight wins you a match. Blizzort made it exactly the opposite with that discover mechanic and their general power creep level.

So you have a bit of Timmy to you, but you have some self-loathing for that part of yourself as well — you don't want to be happy that way too often.

I think Rosewater gets the psychographics wrong a bit due to bias; being a Johnny himself, this is particularly true about his take on Johnny. The way I like to think of the three is this: Timmy plays to make the YouTube highlights reel, Spike plays to pilot optimally, and Johnny is the metagame guy whose dream is to invent his own deck archetype. I don't see Johnny so much as a "combo player" as much as someone who wants to see a deck list translate as directly as possible to an expected game state, such that, by properly playing the metagame, the piloting stage of the game, with all its assorted RNG events, is rendered irrelevant. Hating RNG is, in my view, a quintessentially Johnny take — Timmy loves it because it allows bonkers things to happen, while to Spike it's an equation to solve and thus mostly morally neutral, but Johnny just wants to draw his deck's pieces consistently and have everything to according to The Plan™.

If there's one thing that puts Johnny on tilt, it's losing a matchup that's (perceived as) favorable based on archetypes. Why? Because Johnny got unlucky. He played the metagame portion to a win (he believes) but it didn't translate to an actual victory. He feels cheated. But those same games can be hugely positive moments for both Timmies and Spikes.

Me personally, I hate the way Johnnies think. I pity the fools, really. In the age of the Internet, your probability of beating a collective hivemind of millions of players is virtually nil. The dream of making your own deck better than the netdecks is just that, a dream, and the realistic course of action is to realize you'd have to level up piloting skill like crazy with a Spike mentality first before you'd have even the slightly reasonable chance. (Until then, the only reasonable course of action is to do what Johnnies hate Spikes for doing — choosing the most appropriate netdeck based off metagame data, and copying it card for card.) Because what Johnnies want from the game, and from any game they touch if you really think about it, is so utterly unrealistic, they basically spend all their time relentlessly complaining in forums and Reddit, giving their opinions on game design and trying to rationalize how, if only the devs were enlightened, then they would be able to have what they wanted, as if the entire fucking internet would magically turn off such that The Hivemind wouldn't inexorably solve the new game design in two days using fundamentally the same process. What Johnnies want is something destined only to the top 1% of the top 1%, so 99.9% of Johnnies are bitter chronic losers.

And if you're thinking "wait a second, isn't this post technically QQ itself," you're right. I'm a self-loathing Johnny — which is the correct kind, according to theory. That's my cope.

But I digress. The point is that, when devs are designing for Johnny, the sad truth is that Johnny will basically never achieve Johnny's goals. They're simply too unrealistic. But from a neurochemical standpoint, humans experience roughly the same level of happiness imagining their goal fulfilled as they do actually achieving it. So from a game design perspective, designing for Johnny is about designing with enough balance to make the metagame less obviously solved, to the maximum extent possible, for as long as possible. Balance is, and always will be, an illusion, but for Johnny the maximum joy is found in trying to solve the puzzle, not in knowing its answer. The way to make Johnny happy is to sell a big lie, a lie we call balance.

So when I really think about it, Rosewater did nothing wrong. Giving Johnnies too much insight into how they really think kinda spoils everything. But again, I digress.

RNG doesn't really have anything to do with balance, ultimately. It's just another scapegoat, and scapegoating is what Johnny does. Because he's a narcissist.

Hearthstone is sill fun. Yes, i spent a few dollars when i started but now i can farm for gold easier to gain more cards. Easier to play when i'm tipsy, not too taxing on my video card. POE is #ukcked up right now performance wise.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

So you have a bit of Timmy to you, but you have some self-loathing for that part of yourself as well — you don't want to be happy that way too often.

...

That's a good long chunk of psychoanalysis of sorts, but in my case it's a bit different. Can't say i experience any kind of hate now when playing card games, be it self-hate or hating say some generic "netdecker" that SMORC'd my face (i did of course during my first year of playing brodestone, as probably any noob did) nor do i usually set specific "goals" in games then butthurt for not "achieving them" cause well, in my opinion games are for fun, unless you are somehow making a living off it (like say there was a several months long period of unemployment in my life long ago when i played Russian Preference for profit).

When it comes to definition of fun, i do value a good strategic "battle" over a quick win just for the sake of win, regardless of the win/loss in the end and/or the type of game (now i mostly play drafts/arenas, sometimes constructed modes or events too). That rng shitfest ActiBlizzort has made over the years and their philosophy of "if everything is broken, nothing actually is" is just not my cup of tea i guess, hehe. Maybe its a good money cow for Bobby Kotick (bless his left testicle) now, but feels super-silly and boring to me, sorry.

"

dW2005 wrote:

When it comes to definition of fun, i do value a good strategic "battle" over a quick win just for the sake of win, regardless of the win/loss in the end and/or the type of game (now i mostly play drafts/arenas, sometimes constructed modes or events too).

"

dW2005 wrote:

That rng shitfest ActiBlizzort has made over the years and their philosophy of "if everything is broken, nothing actually is" is just not my cup of tea i guess, hehe.

I genuinely don't understand the connection between these two things. What does the pace of the game have to do with randomness?

I played a lot of hearthstone during it's beta and first year. Was sad to see Kripp become hearthstone only. Then the game just got progressively worse and during the 2nd year I just couldn't stand that game anymore and they made it harder to keep up with acquiring cards without spending lots of cash. It was also being more focused on RNG and then they ruined arena and it felt really good never playing that game again. Haven't thought about it in years.

Eh, I was like top 30 Americas in Hearthstone Arena at some point last year. I am definitely not of the opinion Arena was "ruined."

But now I'm trying to get the high score at DoorDash. Much more rewarding Android game.