Wow! The Failing Vicious Syndicate just published Fake News about the meta polarty but ignores the mistakes of Bumbling Brode and his emails! More conspiracy! Sad!
Because Ben Brode did something like 95% of it and was the only one who knew how to do it, and that tribal knowledge left with him.
I dunno, Brode also did a lot of This is Fine dog himself. He'd occasionally faintly acknowledge community concerns and toss out some platitudes, but mostly he stomped all over Reddit's hopes and dreams too, just with a more boisterous and charismatic persona.
Officially the unluckiest CCG player ever.
+3
3cl1ps3I will build a labyrinth to house the cheeseRegistered Userregular
Because Ben Brode did something like 95% of it and was the only one who knew how to do it, and that tribal knowledge left with him.
ben brode was a puppy they would trot at so people would go "aww lookit that guy he's so fun" without ever actually addressing anything either
That's being super unfair to the dude, he genuinely gave a shit about making a game people enjoyed and he has serious game design chops.
Now that said, you're not wrong in that he did get shunted into the "BEN PLEASE FIX IT THEY'RE MAD AGAIN" role and I imagine that was a significant factor in his leaving to start his own company.
Just speaking personally, this is not the worst meta I've experienced playing this game, not by a long shot.
It's partly that I've been playing decks that have less polarizing matchups across the field, but also I feel like my decisions matter in most games. Of course you have to play a relatively unpolarized deck if you want your decisions to matter, but having an unpolarized deck (or meta) is not by itself enough to make decisions matter. The current meta is not like it was a little under year ago, when the only thing that mattered was who drew more corridor creepers faster. For me that was the worst meta.
Because Ben Brode did something like 95% of it and was the only one who knew how to do it, and that tribal knowledge left with him.
ben brode was a puppy they would trot at so people would go "aww lookit that guy he's so fun" without ever actually addressing anything either
That's being super unfair to the dude, he genuinely gave a shit about making a game people enjoyed and he has serious game design chops.
Now that said, you're not wrong in that he did get shunted into the "BEN PLEASE FIX IT THEY'RE MAD AGAIN" role and I imagine that was a significant factor in his leaving to start his own company.
Eh, I dunno. GC in his heyday was quite communicative about all manner of design and balance decisions, engaging in in-depth discussions almost daily. Brode was still relatively tight lipped most of the time. I feel like I got a ton of insight into WoW's development during GC's reign. Half the time Brode was just "*shrug* we can't improve the game in any way because mobile lolsorry".
The Skulking Gheist comment was a real good example of how the game is polarised. Even if you have the Gheist, you might not draw it in time, and drawing it is the difference between wiping the floor with your opponent and your opponent wiping the floor with you.
Even Murloc Crab wasn't that bad, you might eat a murloc, but your opponent can still come back from that. It gave you an edge when you faced a murloc deck but they were by no means crippled.
I agree with the article. For some reason, this meta just isn't working for me at all. I didn't even get 5 ladder wins last month for the card back and the ranked chest. I just don't feel like playing in this meta any more, and I can't quite put my finger on why - this article helps me understand it a bit better.
0
GoodKingJayIIIThey wanna get mygold on the ceilingRegistered Userregular
I think what Donais reveals, whether intentionally or not, is that polarity is not the only factor determining whether ladder is working.
Maybe MSG wasn’t polarized the way it is now, but decks like jade druid felt so fucking bad to play against, and they showed up a lot in the 10+ ranks.
but also I feel like my decisions matter in most games.
My feeling is just the opposite. Of course, you can certainly make bad decisions that screw up a winnable game and lose, but no, I was never actually going to beat that odd warrior without some miracle of horrid RNG or a disconnect on his part. Instead I just wasted my time on a 25+ turn movie that was playing toward an inevitable conclusion.
Oh, and if I could just never see a Starving Buzzard or Subject 9 in my build-a-beast options again that'd be great.
I still like and appreciate Hearthstone. That Blizzard polish, etc, the voice acting, the graphics, the references to WoW (obviously).
I like shiny things.
My buddy who plays recently flamed out, though, given the lack of new modes (no tournament mode for some reason meant a lot to him) and that, oddly, has killed my desire too...even though I don't care about tournament mode. I don't know why it hurt my own interest, but it did.
Magic: Arena has also done a doozy the past week too, though.
XBL: Bizazedo
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
I think the thing that grinds my gears is that Team 5 response. Okay, let's say you don't agree with the math. Let's say you don't agree with the analysis. You should still be trying to fix shit. You can't release a game this complex and not be fixing shit constantly. You need to be so obsessed with improving your game that you belong in a goddamn Nathaniel Hawthorne short story. Yes, sometimes you need to ease up on the reins and make more observations, but there hasn't been any real change in the meta for weeks now, and at this point, you need to staunch the bleeding.
And I am completely fucking beside myself that they criticized VS for not being objective enough. Wow. That takes some thin fucking skin.
To be fair, my first impression on reading the article was that VS made a chart that showed what they wanted it to show (that the meta was more polarized now than ever). What it didn't show was any particular correlation between polarization as they measured it, and what the popular opinion of those metas were. I think that's more what Mike Donais was referring to -- why is polarization bad now, but good during Ungoro?
To be fair, my first impression on reading the article was that VS made a chart that showed what they wanted it to show (that the meta was more polarized now than ever). What it didn't show was any particular correlation between polarization as they measured it, and what the popular opinion of those metas were. I think that's more what Mike Donais was referring to -- why is polarization bad now, but good during Ungoro?
I'm pretty sure they came up with their metric before they knew what the exact results would be. I don't think they specifically tuned it so it would make a bar chart that was highest in Boomsday. You are correct that they didn't try to correlate it with the supposedly prevailing opinions of the time. That said, there's still a difference between saying you think VS could have gone more in-depth with their analysis and implying the article was shit.
I dislike that they're putting their opinions on balance in what should theoretically be a sterile data analysis. Every analysis has an element of bias though I suppose, and OpEds get more hits than research papers.
always a good look to say "Your article is bad! It's not objective!"
Also why should they be held to any measure of objectivity in the first place? It's not their role in the community to defend Blizzard's decisions or even attempt to offer an unbiased opinion. Like, quite literally their job is present data analysis with modeling which is expressly NOT meant to be an objective thing.
To be fair, my first impression on reading the article was that VS made a chart that showed what they wanted it to show (that the meta was more polarized now than ever). What it didn't show was any particular correlation between polarization as they measured it, and what the popular opinion of those metas were. I think that's more what Mike Donais was referring to -- why is polarization bad now, but good during Ungoro?
I'm pretty sure they came up with their metric before they knew what the exact results would be. I don't think they specifically tuned it so it would make a bar chart that was highest in Boomsday. You are correct that they didn't try to correlate it with the supposedly prevailing opinions of the time. That said, there's still a difference between saying you think VS could have gone more in-depth with their analysis and implying the article was shit.
Wow, talk about polarity! Apparently the article is either Good or it's Shit and nothing in between.
+4
3cl1ps3I will build a labyrinth to house the cheeseRegistered Userregular
The article definitely addresses the difference in polarization now vs. Un'Goro and why one is more tolerable than the other.
Also, I think it's somewhat disingenuous to dismiss things by inferring that VS was saying "polarized means bad." Obviously there can be reasonable levels of polarization in a healthy game, but too much is quite clearly pretty bad for a game. It definitely has a correlation with badness.
Just take it to the extreme with a thought experiment. If decks had 100% polarity it would be a horrible game to "play". The player on the zero win percent end of a matchup might as well just instantly concede. And to the other extreme, even if the theoretical but impossible 0% polarity meta made for dull matchups, at least there would be a game to play without an automatically known outcome, and making optimal, smart plays would still be important for winning.
Also, reading Ishkar and Donais's responses are kind of worrisome. I feel like that's sort of become the refrain lately.
Ishkar, if someone posts data that suggests a real problem in your game, typically the best approach is to post your own data in response assuming you can refute it. As INANTP so eloquently put it "Nuh uh" isn't a thoughtful response. Heck, even just a few numbers extrapolated from some internals would be nice.
Donais's response is by far the more troubling of the two. The problem of polarization isn't new, and player enjoyment/engagement relating to it is actually a fairly well studied problem in the gaming as a whole. It's been looked at in fighting games, racing games, other card games (Magic), Mobas - almost any competitive genre with a skill component sees this problem arise to some extent. A number of designers have written essays discussing this topic in depth, looking at simple questions like "Why isn't Rock, Paper, Scissors more popular?"
Donais's response is glib and places the onus on the VS crew to explain away Blizzard's design choices, which is presumptuous at best and dismissive at worst. Donais could, for example, use that response to talk a little bit about why polarization isn't inherently good or bad himself. It would have been nice to see some introspection regarding the topic, specifically around the concepts of Depth and Player Agency - two of the principle ways you combat stagnation from too little (or too much) polarization.
It would have been nice to even see a little bit of acknowledgement that maybe polarization right now is bad, but it's part of an overall plan or something. I mean all he really had to say is something to the effect of "We pushed different types of decks in this expansion, and as a direct result that's led to more polarizing matchups. It's something we wanted to try, and now we're seeing how players react to a meta game with combo heavy elements. It's something we're actively watching and gathering feedback on to help guide us in future expansions."
I find it somewhat pathetic that the two Blizzard responses were shorter than all of the posts here about the subject. All we are doing here is speculating and discussing the subject with only the VS data. Meanwhile the two responses were more defensive and tried to impress on the community that they know better because they work for Blizzard.
they do have several monetization streams (site ads, patreon, subscription service, merch) but i seriously doubt it's doing significantly more than covering server costs
they do have several monetization streams (site ads, patreon, subscription service, merch) but i seriously doubt it's doing significantly more than covering server costs
Server costs should be relatively minimal, it's largely static HTTP content. They're being hosted by cloudflare, which should reduce their overhead quite a bit. Not sure what their origin costs are, but I'd imagine they are also pretty low. All in all, I wouldn't be surprised if the site made a modest amount of money even after hosting costs.
The thing if it is, the VS article is actually pretty evenhanded. It only even reaches the polarity=bad conclusion obliquely.
Yeah. Finally got time to read it. It definitely leaves the impression of these stats we're presenting are bad and the HS team should pay attention to this, but....it does this via data. It's not 100% concrete, but it's persuasive and seems to match my own irrelevant, anecdotal experience.
The HS team members should've treated their responses a bit more seriously and less off the cuff.
XBL: Bizazedo
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
+3
The JudgeThe Terwilliger CurvesRegistered Userregular
edited October 2018
It was odd seeing Un'Goro more polarized by comparison to, say, KFT since it seems like there's a general feeling it was one of the better timeframes of the game as a whole.
The Judge on
Last pint: Focal Banger / The Alchemist - Untappd: TheJudge_PDX
Posts
Edit: -458 and still decreasing!
"Bad person" is insufficient to describe the extent to which anyone who supports Trump is a worthless lump of garbage.
ben brode was a puppy they would trot at so people would go "aww lookit that guy he's so fun" without ever actually addressing anything either
That's being super unfair to the dude, he genuinely gave a shit about making a game people enjoyed and he has serious game design chops.
Now that said, you're not wrong in that he did get shunted into the "BEN PLEASE FIX IT THEY'RE MAD AGAIN" role and I imagine that was a significant factor in his leaving to start his own company.
It's partly that I've been playing decks that have less polarizing matchups across the field, but also I feel like my decisions matter in most games. Of course you have to play a relatively unpolarized deck if you want your decisions to matter, but having an unpolarized deck (or meta) is not by itself enough to make decisions matter. The current meta is not like it was a little under year ago, when the only thing that mattered was who drew more corridor creepers faster. For me that was the worst meta.
ghostcrawler:wow
brode:hearthstone
:thinking:
Battle.net Tag: Dibby#1582
Even Murloc Crab wasn't that bad, you might eat a murloc, but your opponent can still come back from that. It gave you an edge when you faced a murloc deck but they were by no means crippled.
Maybe MSG wasn’t polarized the way it is now, but decks like jade druid felt so fucking bad to play against, and they showed up a lot in the 10+ ranks.
PSN: Threeve703
It could be a chicken and egg problem, or they could be totally unrelated.
Oh, and if I could just never see a Starving Buzzard or Subject 9 in my build-a-beast options again that'd be great.
I like shiny things.
My buddy who plays recently flamed out, though, given the lack of new modes (no tournament mode for some reason meant a lot to him) and that, oddly, has killed my desire too...even though I don't care about tournament mode. I don't know why it hurt my own interest, but it did.
Magic: Arena has also done a doozy the past week too, though.
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
And I am completely fucking beside myself that they criticized VS for not being objective enough. Wow. That takes some thin fucking skin.
And if they said that, it seems exceptionally poor timing with MtG:Arena here and Artifact coming.
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
It's near the TOTP, in one of your posts.
Meeeeeoooooow....
I think in the end, though, it might just boil down to Hearthstone is never going to have the depth people want.
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
Also why should they be held to any measure of objectivity in the first place? It's not their role in the community to defend Blizzard's decisions or even attempt to offer an unbiased opinion. Like, quite literally their job is present data analysis with modeling which is expressly NOT meant to be an objective thing.
Wow, talk about polarity! Apparently the article is either Good or it's Shit and nothing in between.
Just take it to the extreme with a thought experiment. If decks had 100% polarity it would be a horrible game to "play". The player on the zero win percent end of a matchup might as well just instantly concede. And to the other extreme, even if the theoretical but impossible 0% polarity meta made for dull matchups, at least there would be a game to play without an automatically known outcome, and making optimal, smart plays would still be important for winning.
Ishkar, if someone posts data that suggests a real problem in your game, typically the best approach is to post your own data in response assuming you can refute it. As INANTP so eloquently put it "Nuh uh" isn't a thoughtful response. Heck, even just a few numbers extrapolated from some internals would be nice.
Donais's response is by far the more troubling of the two. The problem of polarization isn't new, and player enjoyment/engagement relating to it is actually a fairly well studied problem in the gaming as a whole. It's been looked at in fighting games, racing games, other card games (Magic), Mobas - almost any competitive genre with a skill component sees this problem arise to some extent. A number of designers have written essays discussing this topic in depth, looking at simple questions like "Why isn't Rock, Paper, Scissors more popular?"
Donais's response is glib and places the onus on the VS crew to explain away Blizzard's design choices, which is presumptuous at best and dismissive at worst. Donais could, for example, use that response to talk a little bit about why polarization isn't inherently good or bad himself. It would have been nice to see some introspection regarding the topic, specifically around the concepts of Depth and Player Agency - two of the principle ways you combat stagnation from too little (or too much) polarization.
It would have been nice to even see a little bit of acknowledgement that maybe polarization right now is bad, but it's part of an overall plan or something. I mean all he really had to say is something to the effect of "We pushed different types of decks in this expansion, and as a direct result that's led to more polarizing matchups. It's something we wanted to try, and now we're seeing how players react to a meta game with combo heavy elements. It's something we're actively watching and gathering feedback on to help guide us in future expansions."
Steam: betsuni7
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Server costs should be relatively minimal, it's largely static HTTP content. They're being hosted by cloudflare, which should reduce their overhead quite a bit. Not sure what their origin costs are, but I'd imagine they are also pretty low. All in all, I wouldn't be surprised if the site made a modest amount of money even after hosting costs.
The HS team members should've treated their responses a bit more seriously and less off the cuff.
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).