Hearthstone

[Metro]

Trump does seem to get some really shitty opponents in Arena. I wish I faced the people he did.

 

[DakaSha]

ITT: Good players just have the grace of god on their side

 

[Metro]

Not saying that but if you go and watch some of his videos (I just catch them on YouTube) you'll see exactly what I mean. Even at 5-0 he often faces people who draft horribly and/or do moronic tactics like face rush and allow him to get board control. I'll take retards who draft Leper Gnome and Reckless Rocketeer all day. As I've said before, the earlier in the day you play, the easier the competition is... and Trump doesn't have a job so he can do Arena at noon.

 

[Grunker]

Finally, as a lot of top TCG players, he's not only good, but also pretty lucky.

did you just consider luck a factor for a steady infinite player

edit: ninja'd by DakaSha

 

[Cowboy Moment]

I don't see what you people are so upset about, the very top players in a game with a major random component are often luckier than average. Seriously, Kai Budde was so obviously lucky that some people suspected him of cheating at certain points during his career. That isn't saying he wasn't a great player in terms of skill, he obviously was. But that famous luck is likely the difference between five Pro Tour wins, and just a few top8s.

And no, I don't think you need to be lucky to be an infinite HS arena player. But I would expect that the people at the very top in terms of average win count, to be luckier than average, both in terms of deck building and actual play. And just from watching Trump play, he seems pretty lucky. It's easy to prove me wrong though, just point me to him going like 1-3 or 2-3 without being able to do shit about it. If luck isn't a factor, statistically speaking, with how much he plays, he should get a really shitty RNG string occasionally as well.

Not saying that but if you go and watch some of his videos (I just catch them on YouTube) you'll see exactly what I mean. Even at 5-0 he often faces people who draft horribly and/or do moronic tactics like face rush and allow him to get board control. I'll take retards who draft Leper Gnome and Reckless Rocketeer all day. As I've said before, the earlier in the day you play, the easier the competition is... and Trump doesn't have a job so he can do Arena at noon.

Afaik arena matchmaking used to work diffferently, so maybe those are old videos from that time? Don't know when they changed it though.

 

[DakaSha]

You're a fucking idiot.

 

[Scruffy]

itt: people who don't understand statistics

Derp.

derp what, i'm paying for it, i thought i'd keep the cards

 

[DakaSha]

itt: people who don't understand statistics


derp what, i'm paying for it, i thought i'd keep the cards

You get a guaranteed pack + winnings at end. Thats what you pay for.

If you got to keep your cards, even without those winnings, for 150 gold, nobody would ever play constructed again

Also i added you

 

[Scruffy]

nobody would ever play constructed again

constructed IS pretty shit, isn't it
ah well, makes sense, i didn't know about the guaranteed pack thing, i thought my awesome 2-3 and 3-3 records were the reasons of that

 

[DakaSha]

I vastly prefer constructed over draft in this game, but it needs more cards

 

[Grunker]

just from watching Trump play, he seems pretty lucky.

motherfucker "luck" is not some trait you are assigned by the gods, it's not something that one person is and one person isn't

 

[Scruffy]

yeah, the "luck" argument is always a mega-scrub indicator, refrain from it, srsly guys

 

[Cowboy Moment]

It's not a fucking argument, just an observation as far as Trump is concerned, at least. From the few videos I've seen of him, he seemed seemed above average when it comes to getting the good end of the RNG. Notice how I'm specifically phrasing this to avoid referring to "luck" as an innate characteristic of a person, as to not upset Grunker any further. In any case, I'm sure he gets poor RNG streaks as well, although I do notice that nobody seems capable of offering an example. Maybe he simply doesn't upload bad runs to youtube?

Insofar as luck making a difference in something like high-level MtG play, it obviously did. Kai Budde himself admitted in interviews that he often got lucky in high-stakes situations, is he supposed to be a scrub as well, idonthavetimeforthiscrap ? Listen, I'll put it in a way that doesn't make you immediately panic with "but but statistics!". Back during Budde's reign of terror, there was a group of players pretty consistently making top8s in GPs and ProTours, so these were obviously very skilled. However, only Budde accrued such a high amount of wins in those high profile tournaments. A top8 in a tournament like that is up to 9 games if you fully play out every Bo3, 7.5 on average. So does it really seem inconceivable that the high variance of such a situation could result in a player doing better than anyone else purely due to random chance?

From a purely theoretical standpoint, while variance (even high variance) stops having an influence on the observed mean of a random variable after a sufficiently large number of trials, as per the CLT, it's important to consider what we're actually talking about here. Putting aside the question of what we're actually measuring, I can easily believe that if we take all HS games even played, the variance would be perfectly negligible. What is not necessarily evident is that it would be negligible for a specific player. For example, if you flip a million coins, you'll get pretty close to the average in relative terms. However, if you have a thousand people each flip a thousand coins, it's pretty likely that at least one of them will get a result 10%+ better than the average.

Of course, it would be difficult to analyse a game like HS in the same way, but it's certainly not impossible that some player out there is getting the short end of the stick while another gets a strong legendary in every second arena run. "Drafting" in particular seems like it could have high variance, and it doesn't happen so often as to average out gracefully. Then again, I don't understand statistics so maybe someone smarter can figure this out for me and settle the argument once and for all.

Also, I forgot earlier, Grinolf, as far as I know, Warriors, Priests and Warlocks are considered the "weakest" arena classes. This is corroborated in my experience as I rarely get to play against any of them, I only know Warlock because that's what I play in constructed. Shamans, I think aren't necessarily bad, but are tricky to build a good mana curve with due to all the overload, and so I rarely play against those as well. In terms of popularity, it goes roughly like: Mage, Paladin, Rogue, Druid, Hunter, and then the aforementioned ones, in my experience.

 

[Scruffy]

It's not a fucking argument, just an observation as far as Trump is concerned, at least. From the few videos I've seen of him, he seemed seemed above average when it comes to getting the good end of the RNG. Notice how I'm specifically phrasing this to avoid referring to "luck" as an innate characteristic of a person, as to not upset Grunker any further. In any case, I'm sure he gets poor RNG streaks as well, although I do notice that nobody seems capable of offering an example. Maybe he simply doesn't upload bad runs to youtube?

Insofar as luck making a difference in something like high-level MtG play, it obviously did. Kai Budde himself admitted in interviews that he often got lucky in high-stakes situations, is he supposed to be a scrub as well, idonthavetimeforthiscrap ? Listen, I'll put it in a way that doesn't make you immediately panic with "but but statistics!". Back during Budde's reign of terror, there was a group of players pretty consistently making top8s in GPs and ProTours, so these were obviously very skilled. However, only Budde accrued such a high amount of wins in those high profile tournaments. A top8 in a tournament like that is up to 9 games if you fully play out every Bo3, 7.5 on average. So does it really seem inconceivable that the high variance of such a situation could result in a player doing better than anyone else purely due to random chance?

From a purely theoretical standpoint, while variance (even high variance) stops having an influence on the observed mean of a random variable after a sufficiently large number of trials, as per the CLT, it's important to consider what we're actually talking about here. Putting aside the question of what we're actually measuring, I can easily believe that if we take all HS games even played, the variance would be perfectly negligible. What is not necessarily evident is that it would be negligible for a specific player. For example, if you flip a million coins, you'll get pretty close to the average in relative terms. However, if you have a thousand people each flip a thousand coins, it's pretty likely that at least one of them will get a result 10%+ better than the average.

Of course, it would be difficult to analyse a game like HS in the same way, but it's certainly not impossible that some player out there is getting the short end of the stick while another gets a strong legendary in every second arena run. "Drafting" in particular seems like it could have high variance, and it doesn't happen so often as to average out gracefully. Then again, I don't understand statistics so maybe someone smarter can figure this out for me and settle the argument once and for all.

playing a game is not the same as flipping a coin. your argument would work if flipping a coin were a work of skill. it isn't. therefore, your example is flawed.

variance regarding "luck" stops being relevant when it's always the same people obtaining certain results. they don't obtain these results for the same reason why they might obtain a 10% "better" result when they flip a coin, they obtain these results because their understanding of the situation is consistently better than the understanding of their opponents.

you don't consistently TOP8 just because of luck. if it were luck, it wouldn't be always the same people top8ing/top16ing/top24, they would top24 once or twice, top8 once, and then stay low. They consistently stay "up" because they're better, not luckier.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

playing a game is not the same as flipping a coin. your argument would work if flipping a coin were a work of skill. it isn't. therefore, your example is flawed.

variance regarding "luck" stops being relevant when it's always the same people obtaining certain results. they don't obtain these results for the same reason why they might obtain a 10% "better" result when they flip a coin, they obtain these results because their understanding of the situation is consistently better than the understanding of their opponents.

you don't consistently TOP8 just because of luck. if it were luck, it wouldn't be always the same people top8ing/top16ing/top24, they would top24 once or twice, top8 once, and then stay low. They consistently stay "up" because they're better, not luckier.

Yes, but if you see the same players consistently top16 (well players out of the same larger group is more realistic), and one of them gets five wins while the others each get either one or zero, does that necessarily mean that player is more skilled? Or maybe it's just random chance, considering how few games one plays in a top8, and how matchups strongly influence results as well. I honestly don't think Kai Budde was a better MtG player than, say, Bob Maher. Aside from being extremely skilled at the game, he could've simply been *gasp* lucky when it counted.

At what cutoff points do we decide to stratify skill in a game with a major random factor? Is someone with consistent top16 objectively better than someone with consistent top32s?

 

[Scruffy]

Yes, but if you see the same players consistently top16 (well players out of the same larger group is more realistic), and one of them gets five wins while the others each get either one or zero, does that necessarily mean that player is more skilled?

if you're referring to a single instance, like one tournament for example, sure, topdecking that needed card twice might have been a factor.

however

the very top players in a game with a major random component are often luckier than average.

is nonsense. the very top players are top players PRECISELY because they manage, through skill and dedication, to minimize the impact of luck. they aren't on average luckier, they are on average better at being consistent thanks to their knowledge of the game and their skill.

Or maybe it's just random chance, considering how few games one plays in a top8, and how matchups strongly influence results as well. I honestly don't think Kai Budde was a better MtG player than, say, Bob Maher. Aside from being extremely skilled at the game, he could've simply been *gasp* lucky when it counted.

Sure, he could have. In alternative, if you consider that he top8ed after coming back from 5 years of inactivity or something along those lines, he could just be better than most at magic.

At what cutoff points do we decide to stratify skill in a game with a major random factor?

There's no major random factor in Magic or Hearthstone. That's why you can build a deck with a fighting plan, instead of just throwing in cards at random. The random factor is further diminished by card draw and deck manipulation like scrying and whatnot. It's 60 cards, 20something of which don't do much more than giving you mana. There certainly is a random factor, it's certainly not "major".

Is someone with consistent top16 objectively better than someone with consistent top32s?

depends on the numbers.

 

[Scruffy]

shortening: if magic were a "high random factor" game, we'd have a high random number of different winners and top8ers changing all the time, because it'd be completely dependent on randomness and luck. we know that's not the case.

coming to the conclusion that that happens because the people who consistently win/top8 are "luckier" than the rest seems... a lot less probable than the conclusion that these people are capable of controlling the random factor and be consistently better players that their opponent.

 

[Metro]

So, $20ish or 2800 gold for Naxx and you'll need the cards if you want to play constructed. Enjoy ihvaeareallylongrunonname

 

[Manjuice Nutella]

I wonder if he will... have time for this crap

 

[Cowboy Moment]

shortening: if magic were a "high random factor" game, we'd have a high random number of different winners and top8ers changing all the time, because it'd be completely dependent on randomness and luck. we know that's not the case.

coming to the conclusion that that happens because the people who consistently win/top8 are "luckier" than the rest seems... a lot less probable than the conclusion that these people are capable of controlling the random factor and be consistently better players that their opponent.

I'm not saying that though, I'm saying that once you get this group of highly skilled players, the actual placement may very well have high variance, and a player can be seen as dominant without actually being substantially more skilled relative to the group average. Frankly, it's a bit difficult to even measure "skill" in games with significant random factors, and it doesn't help that the DCI ranking is basically ELO, a system developed for a perfectly deterministic game with no hidden information. Actually, Blizzard's MMR system, which they use in all of their ranked multiplayer games/modes, does try to account for "randomness" to a certain extent, even in deterministic games (but with hidden information) like Starcraft 2, and in WoW Arena which is mostly deterministic as well. So if they actually had a hidden MMR for Arena, they could conceivably measure the impact of the random factor by adjusting their model until they hit the best match. See the TrueSkill paper if you're interested in specifics of that shit.

I think you also underestimate how much the "random factor" matters in high-level play, just in general. It even matters a lot in deterministic games like Starcraft 2, which is, as a whole, really unstable at the top level. My personal theory is that in a lot of games, skill helps much more in advantageous situations than disadvantageous ones. So the difference between a good and bad player would be the most apparent if they draw a good hand, and less apparent if it's a poor hand, as poor hands generally offer less options and opportunities. So, in a sense, bad play is a great equalizer, while good play tends to make disadvantages from RNG harder to overcome.

Another factor, in MtG specifically, that makes high level play more unstable, are deck matchups, which are for all intents and purposes random, but good players tend to maximize the advantage from having a good matchup (although one can make the argument that matchups can only be evaluated at a high level, making this observation trivial).

So, $20ish or 2800 gold for Naxx and you'll need the cards if you want to play constructed. Enjoy ihvaeareallylongrunonname

What do you get for the $20? Just cards for constructed?

 

[Scruffy]

shortening: if magic were a "high random factor" game, we'd have a high random number of different winners and top8ers changing all the time, because it'd be completely dependent on randomness and luck. we know that's not the case.

coming to the conclusion that that happens because the people who consistently win/top8 are "luckier" than the rest seems... a lot less probable than the conclusion that these people are capable of controlling the random factor and be consistently better players that their opponent.

I'm not saying that though, I'm saying that once you get this group of highly skilled players, the actual placement may very well have high variance, and a player can be seen as dominant without actually being substantially more skilled relative to the group average. Frankly, it's a bit difficult to even measure "skill" in games with significant random factors, and it doesn't help that the DCI ranking is basically ELO, a system developed for a perfectly deterministic game with no hidden information. Actually, Blizzard's MMR system, which they use in all of their ranked multiplayer games/modes, does try to account for "randomness" to a certain extent, even in deterministic games (but with hidden information) like Starcraft 2, and in WoW Arena which is mostly deterministic as well. So if they actually had a hidden MMR for Arena, they could conceivably measure the impact of the random factor by adjusting their model until they hit the best match. See the TrueSkill paper if you're interested in specifics of that shit.

I think you also underestimate how much the "random factor" matters in high-level play, just in general. It even matters a lot in deterministic games like Starcraft 2, which is, as a whole, really unstable at the top level. My personal theory is that in a lot of games, skill helps much more in advantageous situations than disadvantageous ones. So the difference between a good and bad player would be the most apparent if they draw a good hand, and less apparent if it's a poor hand, as poor hands generally offer less options and opportunities. So, in a sense, bad play is a great equalizer, while good play tends to make disadvantages from RNG harder to overcome.

Another factor, in MtG specifically, that makes high level play more unstable, are deck matchups, which are for all intents and purposes random, but good players tend to maximize the advantage from having a good matchup (although one can make the argument that matchups can only be evaluated at a high level, making this observation trivial).

So, $20ish or 2800 gold for Naxx and you'll need the cards if you want to play constructed. Enjoy ihvaeareallylongrunonname

What do you get for the $20? Just cards for constructed?

put it that way it might make more sense than

the very top players in a game with a major random component are often luckier than average.

edit
to clarify what i mean: i do agree that, at a high level of play, player X might win because he topdecked a card rather than another, and so the skill level wasn't relevant at that point. That, however, is also true at ANY level of play. I disagree, however, that that might happen often enough to be able to claim that the top players of ANYTHING are top players because they are "luckier than average", which in itself is a nonsensical claim, since "luckier than AVERAGE" implies that there's some "base" level of luck, when luck, by definition, is randomic.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

Heh, the kinds of decks you can play against in Arena at higher numbers of wins... Pally at 7-1, within the first 10 turns he managed to play: 4 (!) Consecrations, 2 Swords of Justice and 2 Aldor Peacekeepers, plus some good commons. Can't even do that shit in Constructed.

On the plus side, I discovered that Priest is really fun to Arena with. Probably my favourite class after Rogue.

 

[Manjuice Nutella]

So, $20ish or 2800 gold for Naxx and you'll need the cards if you want to play constructed. Enjoy ihvaeareallylongrunonname

What do you get for the $20? Just cards for constructed?

Only full instance unlock (5$ for each Wing). Only then you can begin to tackle it for those new cards.

 

[Jozoz]

I had my first 12 win arena run today after getting to 11 like five times.

It was as a filthy mage though. It wasn't a good deck at all but I had 3 skillstrikes and they just win games on their own, heh.

 

[King Arthur]

Heh, the kinds of decks you can play against in Arena at higher numbers of wins... Pally at 7-1, within the first 10 turns he managed to play: 4 (!) Consecrations, 2 Swords of Justice and 2 Aldor Peacekeepers, plus some good commons. Can't even do that shit in Constructed.

On the plus side, I discovered that Priest is really fun to Arena with. Probably my favourite class after Rogue.

http://s4.postimg.org/fag3oaxy3/Hearthstone_Screenshot_7_16_2014_20_54_12.png

Inversely, I drafted this shitty deck and managed to get seven wins somehow. I seriously thought it was going to go 0-3 when I made it.

I find priest, paladin and rogue are best in arena, and I think mage is vastly overrated.