Why am I losing?

[Damien 1,514]

This thread is for comments about our What am I losing? article.

[pheerce 0]

Great article! Well-written and insightful. 

 

I'm pretty new to Hearthstone, having only been playing on a casual basis for a few weeks. I have asked the question "Why am I losing?", and your article seems quite accurate. 

 

I already figured out the luck factor (or non-factor, as is more often the case). I think the most useful part of the article, as it relates to me, was The Meta-Game. I do use decks that I've found on sites, including icy-veins. They're "pretty good" but, as the article describes, they're not a one-stop shop. 

 

One issue that I've found is that I tend to play the same players (my friends) over and over. That's great for practice, but pretty quickly you learn their style and only learn how to beat THEM. That's great for bragging rights, but doesn't do much good against an anonymous opponent. 

 

Again, very good article. 

[Vlad 411]

Great article! Well-written and insightful. 

 

I'm pretty new to Hearthstone, having only been playing on a casual basis for a few weeks. I have asked the question "Why am I losing?", and your article seems quite accurate. 

 

I already figured out the luck factor (or non-factor, as is more often the case). I think the most useful part of the article, as it relates to me, was The Meta-Game. I do use decks that I've found on sites, including icy-veins. They're "pretty good" but, as the article describes, they're not a one-stop shop. 

 

One issue that I've found is that I tend to play the same players (my friends) over and over. That's great for practice, but pretty quickly you learn their style and only learn how to beat THEM. That's great for bragging rights, but doesn't do much good against an anonymous opponent. 

 

Again, very good article. 

Thank you for your words.

 

I think it will take a while for people to understand that losing games is an inherent part of a game like Hearthstone, and all you can do is work towards improving your win ratio. It's somewhat disheartening, I suppose, for someone who comes from a PvE setting where they're very much used to winning all the time (since wipes to bosses in WoW, for instance, aren't nearly as crushing as losing to a live opponent).

 

And I absolutely agree with you on playing against friends. It can be very fun, and useful for figuring out if a certain deck can work, but after a while your decks need to go up against people who think differently and make different decisions.

[Guest Antijo]

Very good article. Thanks for writing this.

 

I have to add another thing to the topic of The Meta-Game. After the ranked ladder reset i noticed that i lost to a lot of strange decks on lower ranks. The reason for this was that my control warrior deck couldn't really handle mutiple medium threats (Yeti, Taz'Dingo,...). After I added some medium threats to my own deck I had a lot more success.

 

What I want to say is that the meta-game is different on different ranks. Take for example Tinkmaster Overspark: he is great if your Opponents have lots of cards that are a lot better than a 5/5 devilsaur. If your opponents have mostly yetis and similar cards he is not that great.

 

Before players copy decks from rank legend players, they have to ask themselves if this deck is good in their current meta-game.

[Vlad 411]

Very good article. Thanks for writing this.

 

I have to add another thing to the topic of The Meta-Game. After the ranked ladder reset i noticed that i lost to a lot of strange decks on lower ranks. The reason for this was that my control warrior deck couldn't really handle mutiple medium threats (Yeti, Taz'Dingo,...). After I added some medium threats to my own deck I had a lot more success.

 

What I want to say is that the meta-game is different on different ranks. Take for example Tinkmaster Overspark: he is great if your Opponents have lots of cards that are a lot better than a 5/5 devilsaur. If your opponents have mostly yetis and similar cards he is not that great.

 

Before players copy decks from rank legend players, they have to ask themselves if this deck is good in their current meta-game.

 

You make some good points, and you are absolutely right!

 

Thank you for your post.

[Guest Yuurg]

Wow, a person who actually wants to help new players like me instead of insult them and be a douchebag. This article is really good!

[Guest Guest]

For hearthstone wether luck or skill is needed see why: I used to loose a lot, but now i got the top notch cards and i win, win, win ... - This game is garbage.

[Vlad 411]

Wow, a person who actually wants to help new players like me instead of insult them and be a douchebag. This article is really good!

Thank you!

 

 

 

For hearthstone wether luck or skill is needed see why: I used to loose a lot, but now i got the top notch cards and i win, win, win ... - This game is garbage.

 

I wish it were that simple. Sadly, that's far from the truth. Thanks for sharing, though!

[Guest Camel]

You're grasp of the concepts of luck and statistics let you down. There should be outliers with win rates greater than 50% the distribution should appear like a bell curve with some players consistently getting less than 50% and others more.

[Vlad 411]

You're grasp of the concepts of luck and statistics let you down. There should be outliers with win rates greater than 50% the distribution should appear like a bell curve with some players consistently getting less than 50% and others more.

Sure, I get what you're saying. But the point still stands, and this article certainly was not in any way meant to be a comprehensive statistical analysis of win rates and the matchmaking system. The article is trying to teach (mostly new) players the very important lesson that luck is not important in the game and that focusing on it instead of on improving your own gameplay serves no purpose at all if you're trying to become a better player.

 

The players who have win rates considerably higher than 50% are the ones with a deep understanding of the game, and who are well-versed in its strategies. If you want to attempt to refute this claim by showing players of demonstrably inferior "skill" getting win rates of 70% of higher over hundreds or thousands of games, be my guest.

[Guest Hellupus]

noone said its all luck

but if magic has a small amount of luck and yugi an even smaller

then hearthstone has a good amount of luck

but not because its a foolish game,but because it wants to,in order to be fun

you need the luck factor,take allok at all these cards that either are awesome at that instant,either they make things worst,based on the RNG(mad bomber etc)

i mean you can still make your chances better,but even if you live 1%,it can still happen

luck is luck

hesrthstone promotes luck

accept it

its not msgic,its not yugi,its not dominion,its what it is.there is a deck,there is luck.end of discussion.

and for the record,last arena with mage.no frostbolts,no polymorphs,but 3 fireballs,guess what?

i didn't even see them.not once.

so,sometimes even the best decicions cannot beat the godess of luck.

 

[Vlad 411]

noone said its all luck

but if magic has a small amount of luck and yugi an even smaller

then hearthstone has a good amount of luck

but not because its a foolish game,but because it wants to,in order to be fun

you need the luck factor,take allok at all these cards that either are awesome at that instant,either they make things worst,based on the RNG(mad bomber etc)

i mean you can still make your chances better,but even if you live 1%,it can still happen

luck is luck

hesrthstone promotes luck

accept it

its not msgic,its not yugi,its not dominion,its what it is.there is a deck,there is luck.end of discussion.

and for the record,last arena with mage.no frostbolts,no polymorphs,but 3 fireballs,guess what?

i didn't even see them.not once.

so,sometimes even the best decicions cannot beat the godess of luck.

 

I can't quite tell who you are replying to, but I do agree with you. Obviously, luck is a factor in Hearthstone. It's just not the most important one for determining who wins and who loses.

[Guest Bob]

The proponent of luck is actually much higher than some might believe or than this article will admit.

I have not played thousands but i have played about 25 Arena matches and there is a huge discrepancy from my choices and others.

 

One example,i have chosen Mage 3 times in Arena,i have only ONCE had the ability to choose a Flamestrike,yet i have seen players with 3 in one game.I have NEVER had the chance to pick more than 1 Fireball either and in all 3 games only 1 Frost.I have always considered myself unlucky and never rely on luck but imo it is a big factor.

 

I have seem these same tendencies over all my Arena matches,my opponents seem to have several GOOD selections of KEY cards while i am lucky to even have one but instead i am selecting too many weak cards.

 

I know as soon as i am near done my draft that my deck has no chance and that i really did not have much choice in my selections.

 

Now i know that is only 20 or so Arena but still that is a really bad % of unlucky choices.Of all those drafts i would say i had 2 decent drafts and 1 i only got 4 wins because i made mistakes and the other was just not good enough to compete as i had full board control but had no card draws and ran out of cards to compete for the board. Sooo 1/20 is a really bad % to NOT say luck does not have a VERY big part of this game because it most certainly does.

 

 

 

 

[Vlad 411]

The proponent of luck is actually much higher than some might believe or than this article will admit.

I have not played thousands but i have played about 25 Arena matches and there is a huge discrepancy from my choices and others.

 

One example,i have chosen Mage 3 times in Arena,i have only ONCE had the ability to choose a Flamestrike,yet i have seen players with 3 in one game.I have NEVER had the chance to pick more than 1 Fireball either and in all 3 games only 1 Frost.I have always considered myself unlucky and never rely on luck but imo it is a big factor.

 

I have seem these same tendencies over all my Arena matches,my opponents seem to have several GOOD selections of KEY cards while i am lucky to even have one but instead i am selecting too many weak cards.

 

I know as soon as i am near done my draft that my deck has no chance and that i really did not have much choice in my selections.

 

Now i know that is only 20 or so Arena but still that is a really bad % of unlucky choices.Of all those drafts i would say i had 2 decent drafts and 1 i only got 4 wins because i made mistakes and the other was just not good enough to compete as i had full board control but had no card draws and ran out of cards to compete for the board. Sooo 1/20 is a really bad % to NOT say luck does not have a VERY big part of this game because it most certainly does.

 

Actually, the article attempts to debunk precisely the misconceptions that you fall victim to here.

 

The idea that your deck is doomed if you don't get a certain number of Flamestrikes, or Fireballs, or Pyroblasts, or Frostbolts is simply wrong. Sure, some cards are better than others, there's no doubt about that. And if you somehow end up with a deck that is compiled from only sub-optimal cards, or a large number of them, then you will definitely be at a disadvantage and can end up with a poor run.

 

In short, there is an element of luck involved in the drafting process (just as there is in the drawing process). But to state that this element of luck is the main factor that determines the outcome of your Arena run is just wrong. By properly understanding the value of cards, good players are able to craft strong decks even from limited options. Likewise, good players are able to "overcome" the odds when they have a weak deck, by playing smartly and putting their cards to good use.

 

If you want to improve as a player, then it is these two aspects that you need to focus on. No amount of reading, practicing, or thinking will ever make you less unlucky. Also, your opponents are just as likely to have had the misfortune of a bad draft. Simply put, while luck definitely is a factor, absolutely nothing can be gained from treating it as such (except to prepare yourself for something unpredictable possibly happening, and not relying on some uncertain event).

[Guest John Tzialis]

Man i really want to know how can you craft all these legendaries so easily..When i start playing hearthstone before 3 weeks now...i heard that it wasnt a pay2win..but i see all the legendaries and the epic cards and in my packs i gain only one rare and the others are common...that makes me 85% lose the match vs a player with epic or legendaries ...i try to main warrior and i have selled every single card of the other classes to make a ''good deck'' and i managed to get 2 rares and a molten giant...but again this is tough to me...can u give me some advices on how to gain some ''good'' cards without to pay ?Sry for my english

[Oltier 471]

Man i really want to know how can you craft all these legendaries so easily..When i start playing hearthstone before 3 weeks now...i heard that it wasnt a pay2win..but i see all the legendaries and the epic cards and in my packs i gain only one rare and the others are common...that makes me 85% lose the match vs a player with epic or legendaries ...i try to main warrior and i have selled every single card of the other classes to make a ''good deck'' and i managed to get 2 rares and a molten giant...but again this is tough to me...can u give me some advices on how to gain some ''good'' cards without to pay ?Sry for my english

Play arena matches. The arena matches only require 150 gold, it doesn't require you to craft cards and if you win even one game, you get one guaranteed pack. If you can climb up to high win rate, you'll get dusts, golds and pack as a reward. And some golden cards, that can be DEd for even more dusts.

 

Also keep in mind, that the players with all the legendaries have been playing for months now, since at the official launch of the game, the cards have not been reset.

[Guest sovereign110]

On the topic of how much influence luck has in the game...

 

Luck has more influence in Hearthstone than it does in other games of its kind, which I think frustrates many players who are used to more engaging gameplay.  It has to do with Hearthstone's extremely simplistic game mechanics, the near-complete lack of any game structure beyond the most basic required for a card game of this kind (you can only do so much with a strictly "my turn, your turn" flow ><) and the lack of control you actually have over the few aspects of gameplay that are there. 

 

It's obvious luck has some influence in all games of chance...it's one aspect developers can't entirely remove...but games like MTG are complex enough that it rarely has a significant effect on anyone who knows the basics of deckbuilding to the point where they won't constantly get bad draws.  MTG is just too fleshed out, with so much content that's unaffected by chance.  Hearthstone is extremely watered-down for a game of its kind (especially considering they basically lifted all the aggro mechanics/keywords from MTG and changed the names), and when you take too much out, Luck starts throwing its weight around more.

 

Player skill certainly still trumps luck when it comes to the outcome of a match, but luck is just enough of a pest that it can be frustrating and/or discouraging for players.  Players who exaggerate how "bad" the RNG is and blame it for too much of their poor performance irritate me just as much as people like the author of this guide (apparently), who naively try to over-minimize the luck factor and seem to abhor having to accept what influence it does have.  Despite the rather dichotomous view the author takes on the Luck vs. Skill argument, truth is they both influence the game in various ways, sometimes compounding on each other as different situations arise.  Random chance is part of what makes games like this entertaining....how boring would it be if every match was the same exact thing over and over for eternity?  The difference between luck and skill is, you can actually do something about your skill as a player, whereas (at least in Hearthstone) luck has more room to throw its weight around and be a peskier kid than usual.

 

Uh, as for the "Luck" section of the guide itself, I think if the author cares about the integrity of their writing, they'd seriously consider a rewrite.  Everything brought up concerning statistics shows a complete lack of understanding on the author's part, and it might be the most blatantly false thing I've seen on I-V.  Please don't spread misinformation to your readers!  That's just wrong ><

 

Uh, other than that, the overall tone of that section is rather adversarial.  It sort of conveys to readers that they shouldn't get too worked up about bad luck in this game (which is correct), but it does so with a "NOW STOP WHINING" overtone.  And, as I said before, it minimizes the chance aspect of the game TOO much, like it's an overreaction to the newbies who tend to use it as a scapegoat.  Newbies will hopefully have a clear understanding of luck's role in the game eventually, while the apologists just need to calm down and realize that random chance is not a pox on your game.

[sovereign110 0]

On the topic of how much influence luck has in the game...

 

Luck has more influence in Hearthstone than it does in other games of its kind, which I think frustrates many players who are used to more engaging gameplay.  It has to do with Hearthstone's extremely simplistic game mechanics, the near-complete lack of any game structure beyond the most basic required for a card game of this kind (you can only do so much with a strictly "my turn, your turn" flow ><) and the lack of control you actually have over the few aspects of gameplay that are there. 

 

It's obvious luck has some influence in all games of chance...it's one aspect developers can't entirely remove...but games like MTG are complex enough that it rarely has a significant effect on anyone who knows the basics of deckbuilding to the point where they won't constantly get bad draws.  MTG is just too fleshed out, with so much content that's unaffected by chance.  Hearthstone is extremely watered-down for a game of its kind (especially considering they basically lifted all the aggro mechanics/keywords from MTG and changed the names), and when you take too much out, Luck starts throwing its weight around more.

 

Player skill certainly still trumps luck when it comes to the outcome of a match, but luck is just enough of a pest that it can be frustrating and/or discouraging for players.  Players who exaggerate how "bad" the RNG is and blame it for too much of their poor performance irritate me just as much as people like the author of the article (apparently), who naively try to over-minimize the luck factor and seem to abhor having to accept what influence it does have.  Despite the rather dichotomous view the author takes on the Luck vs. Skill argument, truth is they both influence the game in various ways, sometimes compounding on each other as different situations arise.  Random chance is part of what makes games like this entertaining....how boring would it be if every match was the same exact thing over and over for eternity?  The difference between luck and skill is, you can actually do something about your skill as a player, whereas (at least in Hearthstone) luck has more room to throw its weight around and be a peskier kid than usual.

 

Uh, as for the "Luck" section of the article itself, I think if the author cares about the integrity of their writing, they'd seriously consider a rewrite.  Everything brought up concerning statistics shows a complete lack of understanding on the author's part, and it might be the most blatantly false thing I've seen on I-V.  Please don't spread misinformation to your readers!  That's just wrong ><

 

Uh, other than that, the overall tone of that section is rather adversarial.  It sort of conveys to readers that they shouldn't get too worked up about bad luck in this game (which is correct), but it does so with a "NOW STOP WHINING" overtone.  And, as I said before, it minimizes the chance aspect of the game TOO much, like it's an overreaction to the newbies who tend to use it as a scapegoat.  Newbies will hopefully have a clear understanding of luck's role in the game eventually, while the apologists just need to calm down and realize that random chance is not a pox on your game.

[Guest I30T]

What about the fact that in the first 50 games of my hearthstone adventure, I got pyroblasted in 3 games. I am facing with players that have at least 3 blue rare cards.

 

What about people who have payed their way into hearthstone gaining an advantage of cards while I'm still trying to figure out my third craft.

 

Let's face it, this article covers everything IF matchmaking or whatever you call it was fair.

 

New players will have a tough time in the beginning and have a very poor win/loss irregardless of luck, decision making and meta.

[Guest Imitable]

Luck screws me over when i'm claiming my decks D:

[Guest Sam]

I am more towards this article being correct. I think knowlege is the main factor in winning.

 

But you say a good player will win with sub optimal cards.

 

Seriously, no one beat's me when they have sub optimal cards, and most player's use great card's sub optimally on me, when you can tell that they don't have any more in their deck. Quite literally my opponent generally gets the exact card they need exactly when they need it. I get wiped out over and over by players who have much better cards than me and it seem's to just be a wait for an opponent who gets worse decks/draws than myself.

 

But the thing is, I have only been playing 3 days with a win rate of around 40% after around 25 arena match's. I probably won't play as much now because of this huge luck factor, but I average's always average out. Thus I would expect that this is just having a bad run, any anyone who's having a good run starting out won't be posting about this luck factor, and I think if I just keep playing I'll get a few days of win ration of 60%++. I think if I kept playing I would get a long run of drawing great decks.

 

Really, it's too much luck involved.

 

Just as an example, if you have ever had some gambling system on something where the outcome is 50%, you do not ever get 1/2/1/2/1/2/1/2. It's the way it work's to get 11111/22/1111111/2/11111/22/11 then for the outcome to completely reverse for a while.

 

So, it's pretty much all luck unless you feel like memorising a lot of information (which isn't really skill). If I'm right in what I say and then we examine the experts of hearthstone win rates. Then having the knowlege of all the plays will only improve your win rate by about 10%.

 

Considering the match ups are all against random players, an expert should be getting 95% win rate or more. A 75% win rate against noobs and experts alike is simply ridiculous.

[Guest Guest]

What about the fact that in the first 50 games of my hearthstone adventure, I got pyroblasted in 3 games. I am facing with players that have at least 3 blue rare cards.

 

What about people who have payed their way into hearthstone gaining an advantage of cards while I'm still trying to figure out my third craft.

 

Let's face it, this article covers everything IF matchmaking or whatever you call it was fair.

 

New players will have a tough time in the beginning and have a very poor win/loss irregardless of luck, decision making and meta.

 

True

[Guest Poetlord]

Great article - I used the basic netdeck from this site for a mage and promptly got my rear end kicked around - having played more than a couple of games i understood that the netdeck lacked defense - so i swapped out some minions for a couple of basic healers and taunts - won my next few matches - enough to get the gold to buy a new pack

 

Lord of the Arena, for example, is a great card but if its played the first turn it can be played, it will almost always get gunned down - hold it and let your opponent waste their clears on your lesser minions then you can drop it late game - especially good if you can do a board clear and then play it

 

and remember just because a card looks great doesn't mean you're going to get to play it - low level minions work great for stalling (especially the two for one minions) so you can get your strategy together for what you are holding - don't build a deck around one card - build it around a strategy 

[Vlad 411]

On the topic of how much influence luck has in the game...

 

Luck has more influence in Hearthstone than it does in other games of its kind, which I think frustrates many players who are used to more engaging gameplay.  It has to do with Hearthstone's extremely simplistic game mechanics, the near-complete lack of any game structure beyond the most basic required for a card game of this kind (you can only do so much with a strictly "my turn, your turn" flow ><) and the lack of control you actually have over the few aspects of gameplay that are there. 

 

It's obvious luck has some influence in all games of chance...it's one aspect developers can't entirely remove...but games like MTG are complex enough that it rarely has a significant effect on anyone who knows the basics of deckbuilding to the point where they won't constantly get bad draws.  MTG is just too fleshed out, with so much content that's unaffected by chance.  Hearthstone is extremely watered-down for a game of its kind (especially considering they basically lifted all the aggro mechanics/keywords from MTG and changed the names), and when you take too much out, Luck starts throwing its weight around more.

 

Player skill certainly still trumps luck when it comes to the outcome of a match, but luck is just enough of a pest that it can be frustrating and/or discouraging for players.  Players who exaggerate how "bad" the RNG is and blame it for too much of their poor performance irritate me just as much as people like the author of the article (apparently), who naively try to over-minimize the luck factor and seem to abhor having to accept what influence it does have.  Despite the rather dichotomous view the author takes on the Luck vs. Skill argument, truth is they both influence the game in various ways, sometimes compounding on each other as different situations arise.  Random chance is part of what makes games like this entertaining....how boring would it be if every match was the same exact thing over and over for eternity?  The difference between luck and skill is, you can actually do something about your skill as a player, whereas (at least in Hearthstone) luck has more room to throw its weight around and be a peskier kid than usual.

 

Uh, as for the "Luck" section of the article itself, I think if the author cares about the integrity of their writing, they'd seriously consider a rewrite.  Everything brought up concerning statistics shows a complete lack of understanding on the author's part, and it might be the most blatantly false thing I've seen on I-V.  Please don't spread misinformation to your readers!  That's just wrong ><

 

Uh, other than that, the overall tone of that section is rather adversarial.  It sort of conveys to readers that they shouldn't get too worked up about bad luck in this game (which is correct), but it does so with a "NOW STOP WHINING" overtone.  And, as I said before, it minimizes the chance aspect of the game TOO much, like it's an overreaction to the newbies who tend to use it as a scapegoat.  Newbies will hopefully have a clear understanding of luck's role in the game eventually, while the apologists just need to calm down and realize that random chance is not a pox on your game.

I am the author of the article. After reading your post, I went back and re-read the article. I still see nothing wrong, and I stand by everything I say in the Luck section, as well as the message it is meant to convey.

 

I wouldn't go so far as to call my tone there adversarial, but I make no excuses for the fact that I meant to come on quite strongly. The amount of players who either quit Hearthstone early (despite enjoying the game and being excited about it) or who fail to progress in their understanding of it because they rely too much on the "it's all luck, this game sucks" excuse is too high. I am actively trying to combat this misunderstanding in the article, even at the risk of minimising the effects of luck somewhat. Because the underlying point of the article is not to assess exactly how much luck matters, but rather that it is completely pointless to your development of a player to obsess over how you were unlucky or how the opponent was lucky. It happens, it sucks when it does, but there's nothing you can do about it. If you convince yourself that you're losing because you're unlucky, then you will get stuck in a position from where it is extremely difficult to improve your skill. And it is this skill that will ultimately win you a lot more games than "being lucky" ever will.

 

From the tone of your post, you clearly have some animosity towards Hearthstone. I won't go to any length here to try to combat your claims of the game being "extremely simplistic" and lacking "any game structure". I think you're wrong, but you're entitled to your opinion.

 

 

What about the fact that in the first 50 games of my hearthstone adventure, I got pyroblasted in 3 games. I am facing with players that have at least 3 blue rare cards.

 

What about people who have payed their way into hearthstone gaining an advantage of cards while I'm still trying to figure out my third craft.

 

Let's face it, this article covers everything IF matchmaking or whatever you call it was fair.

 

New players will have a tough time in the beginning and have a very poor win/loss irregardless of luck, decision making and meta.

 

I'm not sure if being Pyroblasted 3 times in 50 games is supposed to show that Pyroblast shows up very often or very rarely, but I think it clearly shows that it's exceedingly rare.

 

In any case, you are of course right. There are a good many factors that contribute to defeat, and many times a new player will be up against players with better cards. But the matchmaking system is such that you will always be up against players where you have a 50% chance of winning. Whether this is because you are equally skilled and equally equipped, or because your opponent is a much better player but has fewer cards, the system does not distinguish. So if you're regularly facing players with superior cards, it's probably because you're winning just as much as they are, despite having a weaker card collection.

 

I am more towards this article being correct. I think knowlege is the main factor in winning.

 

But you say a good player will win with sub optimal cards.

 

Seriously, no one beat's me when they have sub optimal cards, and most player's use great card's sub optimally on me, when you can tell that they don't have any more in their deck. Quite literally my opponent generally gets the exact card they need exactly when they need it. I get wiped out over and over by players who have much better cards than me and it seem's to just be a wait for an opponent who gets worse decks/draws than myself.

 

But the thing is, I have only been playing 3 days with a win rate of around 40% after around 25 arena match's. I probably won't play as much now because of this huge luck factor, but I average's always average out. Thus I would expect that this is just having a bad run, any anyone who's having a good run starting out won't be posting about this luck factor, and I think if I just keep playing I'll get a few days of win ration of 60%++. I think if I kept playing I would get a long run of drawing great decks.

 

Really, it's too much luck involved.

 

Just as an example, if you have ever had some gambling system on something where the outcome is 50%, you do not ever get 1/2/1/2/1/2/1/2. It's the way it work's to get 11111/22/1111111/2/11111/22/11 then for the outcome to completely reverse for a while.

 

So, it's pretty much all luck unless you feel like memorising a lot of information (which isn't really skill). If I'm right in what I say and then we examine the experts of hearthstone win rates. Then having the knowlege of all the plays will only improve your win rate by about 10%.

 

Considering the match ups are all against random players, an expert should be getting 95% win rate or more. A 75% win rate against noobs and experts alike is simply ridiculous.

Thank you. I think it's true that often (and especially in Arena, where the situation comes up more often) good players will win with sub-optimal cards against players with better cards. This is because of their "skill" (good understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the cards, experience that allows for intuitive play, and so on). You are saying that you've been playing for 3 days. Allow me to say that that is an extremely short amount of time, and that the patterns you notice now will change massively when (and if...) you get to be months into the game, with hundreds or thousands of wins under your belt. Understanding of the game on many levels only comes at such times.

 

Then, you are talking a streak. Fair enough, but I don't think anyone ever questioned that. When I say that the matchmaking system tries to have you play opponents where you'll get a 50% win rate, that doesn't mean lose one/win one for ever. You will naturally get streaks, both of wins and of losses, but overall you will generally average 50%, if the matchmaking system can function appropriately.

 

The reality is that when a great player starts playing a ranked season, they will average well above 70% win rate until they reach very advanced ranks (10, 8, 5, maybe even 3). They are winning all of these games not because their decks are stronger, but because their decision-making is better. They only start to drop to a 50% win rate when the matchmaking system's pool of opponents is comprised almost entirely of players of similar skill (who also happen to be at the very high ranks). Then, indeed, win rate drops dramatically, and small percentile differences can be caused by luck (mostly in terms of what deck you play vs. what your opponent plays).

 

In Arena, very good players do have a win ratio. Take trump's stats: http://local.se/trumpstats.pl. Any way you argue, if luck is the predominant factor (or enough of a deciding one), there is no way he could get those stats with such a large sample size.

 

 

Great article - I used the basic netdeck from this site for a mage and promptly got my rear end kicked around - having played more than a couple of games i understood that the netdeck lacked defense - so i swapped out some minions for a couple of basic healers and taunts - won my next few matches - enough to get the gold to buy a new pack

 

Lord of the Arena, for example, is a great card but if its played the first turn it can be played, it will almost always get gunned down - hold it and let your opponent waste their clears on your lesser minions then you can drop it late game - especially good if you can do a board clear and then play it

 

and remember just because a card looks great doesn't mean you're going to get to play it - low level minions work great for stalling (especially the two for one minions) so you can get your strategy together for what you are holding - don't build a deck around one card - build it around a strategy 

 

Thank you. I think you're on to quite a few of the advanced concepts. Good luck!

[URjustSOL 0]

My points (short and sweet):

 

1. Luck is more important than the author admits, but maybe less so than most new players believe.

 

2. Not everyone is a good card player, no matter how many hours you sink into it. Those rare few who have card skills and have sunk thousands of hours into HS have a win ratio of 75%.

 

Work hard, study the classes and the cards, pay attention to what cards beat you and how they played them. Once you get a decent card pool you'll be ready for the big chair.

Edited August 2, 2014 by URjustSOL