Hearthstone

[BetCheckBet]

Ya Ya I know I'm a nerd... But seriously been playing this since October. One of the few games my gf will play and is totally addicted to as well. After a couple months I decided to buy the naxx expansion but otherwise haven't paid for any packs (totally free to play).

This is basically like Magic for dummies. Games last not much longer than 10 mins so ideal for quick plays. Unfortunately to play you need to create a battlenet account (this stopped me from playing a few months earlier). Statistically speaking the games plays very similar to heads up poker.

[SrslySirius]

I've never played it, but my understanding is that it shares many of the pitfalls of MTG. Absurd variance and wallet bleeding are the main turnoffs for me, though I occasionally get sucked back in.

If you're into these sort of games, consider checking out Prismata. It's sort of like a cross between chess and MTG, eliminating the aforementioned annoyances. http://play.prismata.net/

[BetCheckBet]

I've never played it, but my understanding is that it shares many of the pitfalls of MTG. Absurd variance and wallet bleeding are the main turnoffs for me, though I occasionally get sucked back in.

If you're into these sort of games, consider checking out Prismata. It's sort of like a cross between chess and MTG, eliminating the aforementioned annoyances. http://play.prismata.net/

It actually got me into MTG. I had never played a trading card game until now. I spent about 70 bucks to get MTG starter kits for gf and I and we played a little bit but I kinda lost interest and have zero desire to go to a "Friday Night Magic". In Magic its really difficult to get a decent deck from just opening packs so that turned me off. Plus the games can be really unbalanced with the land mechanic.

In Hearthstone variance is similar to heads up poker. The best players won't win much more than 60-65% (assuming their opponents are competent), which helps new players greatly. While having money to spend gives you advantages the most competitive decks are often pretty cheap aggro ones that include 0-1 legendaries. My gf was able to get to rank 15 (you are seeded 20-1) using her own deck, reading nothing online (no netdecking), having zero legendaries, and having zero experience in really any computer strategy game. This was playing completely free. I managed to get to rank 8 playing pretty casually and only investing 20 bucks.

I got into the game after following totalbiscuit who I imagine you are aware of from your background.

Also checking out prismata.

[Indyrick]

I loved playing Magic back in college. Hearthstone is a pretty solid game and Blizzard is making money on it so it will be around for a while. They have Heroes of the storm if you want a free game that is similar to dota. It is a good game to play for free and might be interesting for you and your GF.

[SrslySirius]

They have Heroes of the storm if you want a free game that is similar to dota. It is a good game to play for free and might be interesting for you and your GF.

Playing any MOBA with the gf is a

[BetCheckBet]

They have Heroes of the storm if you want a free game that is similar to dota. It is a good game to play for free and might be interesting for you and your GF.

Playing MOBAs with loved ones is a

LOL thx for suggestion but I don't play MOBAS. It's like impossible to get gf to play very many video games so don't think she would ever do MOBAS given how negative the environment can be. Nice thing about hearthstone is how unintimidating it is compared to most online gaming. It's kinda like the wii of online gaming :P

[RegGaymer]

I've never played it, but my understanding is that it shares many of the pitfalls of MTG. Absurd variance and wallet bleeding are the main turnoffs for me, though I occasionally get sucked back in.

If you're into these sort of games, consider checking out Prismata. It's sort of like a cross between chess and MTG, eliminating the aforementioned annoyances. http://play.prismata.net/

I don't see how Prismata is like chess at all. After hearing Timex rave on about it I checked it out and played the trial version and found it to be rather boring, each to their own I guess.

[SrslySirius]

I don't see how Prismata is like chess at all. After hearing Timex rave on about it I checked it out and played the trial version and found it to be rather boring, each to their own I guess.

Both games have a fixed starting position and symmetrical gamestate. Luck is not a factor.

[gimmick]

I've prolly shot off over a 100$ to hearthstone. It's about the same that a triple A FPS with 4-5 DLCs would cost. So i consider it reasonable and compared to MTGs 500-1000$ price for getting everything you need from the latest set actually quite cheap by TCG standards (MTG cards do have a resale value so it's not quite as bad).

There's some room for deck building in hearthstone especially after new cards get introduced but mostly after basic mechanics, skill in ladder play comes from countering the current meta at your rank with someone elses deck with the appropriate mix of situational cards (BGH, BK, harrison/ooze, MCtech, Loatheb and silences).

I've hit legend rank in two seasons. I did it when it was convenient for me and required fairly little grind going from rank 5 to legend. Both times i found a deck that countered the meta and was new enough that opponents misplayed against it a fair amount. When you finish a season above rank 5 you get to start from around rank 16 in the next season. There's less variance in decks in rank 16 early on in the season and there's less things you need to play around. After the first few rounds you also know rest of their deck at about 95% confidence rate.

There is a grindy way how you can hit legend every season in less than a week, though I've never cared enough to take that route. You pick the most effective fast deck for the current climate (usually a variant of lock or hunter) and take slightly favorable coin flips at a fast pace to rank 5. At rank 5 you take one of the resident sleeper/p2w decks (usually cwarrior or handlock) and start grinding 55-60% edges when almost all of your wins come from long games.

[SrslySirius]

It's nice to hear that Hearthstone may not be as bad of a money pit as MTG is. But it sounds like the variance is about the same.

I may be in the minority here, but I have a low tolerance for RNG luck in games. I certainly appreciate some of the benefits (exciting comebacks, giving bad players a chance), but too much of it ruins a game. When you guys tell me that a new player can put in minimal thought and effort and succeed, that is not a selling point. It sounds like you just push buttons and stuff happens.

[pagelpoker]

[pagelpoker]

[BetCheckBet]

It's nice to hear that Hearthstone may not be as bad of a money pit as MTG is. But it sounds like the variance is about the same.

I may be in the minority here, but I have a low tolerance for RNG luck in games. I certainly appreciate some of the benefits (exciting comebacks, giving bad players a chance), but too much of it ruins a game. When you guys tell me that a new player can put in minimal thought and effort and succeed, that is not a selling point. It sounds like you just push buttons and stuff happens.

While I don't necessarily disagree its hard to imagine a poker fan saying this. Poker has one of the highest luck elements out there. Hearthstone creators have directly marketed it as fitting in between chess and poker.

I mean in poker you can train a monkey to win 25 percent of the time. Probably easiest game to train monkey at.

While hearthstone has high degree of luck it is nowhere near the amount in poker.

[SrslySirius]

While I don't necessarily disagree its hard to imagine a poker fan saying this. Poker has one of the highest luck elements out there. Hearthstone creators have directly marketed it as fitting in between chess and poker.

I mean in poker you can train a monkey to win 25 percent of the time. Probably easiest game to train monkey at.

As a poker player (I'm not one, but let's go with it), there is money involved so you must give it a pass. You need for bad players to win somewhat frequently.

As a poker fan, the luck element sucks. There is no pure competition, it is impossible to objectively judge who is the best, attempts to "sportify" the game are mostly failures. I would never play this game for the pure fun of it with zero dollars on the line.

[Corrigan]

As a poker fan, the luck element sucks. There is no pure competition, it is impossible to objectively judge who is the best, attempts to "sportify" the game are mostly failures. I would never play this game for the pure fun of it with zero dollars on the line.

There is a large luck element in sports, much bigger than most people give credit to.

[SrslySirius]

There is a large luck element in sports, much bigger than most people give credit to.

That's true, and I should point out that I'm referring to specific kind of luck.

In sports you have execution luck. For example, a basketball player with an 80% free throw percentage will miss 3 in a row fairly often. But this sort of luck is directly correlated to skill. Holing out from 80 yards in golf is a lucky shot, but a highly skilled player is far more likely to get that kind of luck. I don't have a problem with games based on execution luck.

Then there's yomi luck. This comes up in games where you have to guess what your opponent will do, like in paper rock scissors or fog of war games like Starcraft. It's impossible to be right 100% of the time, but skilled players can outthink and level their opponents fairly often. Sometimes you get unlucky and guess wrong. This type of luck is also correlated to skill. I don't mind games that feature yomi luck.

Games with RNG like poker and MTG are heavily (but not entirely) based on pure luck. Random variables completely beyond the player's control. It's a common element in children's games. You frequently get fucked over for no good reason. I hate this type of luck.

[gimmick]

Why do you think there's a difference between a rock-paper-scissors player with a 60-40 edge to his opponent and a poker player with a 60-40 edge to his opponent? They both gain their edge by exploiting their opponents mistakes.

In your everyday life you're surrounded by random variables completely beyond your control. It's a common element in life. You frequently get fucked over for no good reason.

[SrslySirius]

Why do you think there's a difference between a rock-paper-scissors player with a 60-40 edge to his opponent and a poker player with a 60-40 edge to his opponent? They both gain their edge by exploiting their opponents mistakes.

In your everyday life you're surrounded by random variables completely beyond your control. It's a common element in life. You frequently get fucked over for no good reason.

For one thing, a RPS expert will have a much bigger edge than 60-40 against an amateur if playing a reasonable number of sets. I hear there are AIs that destroy humans at the game now. In poker it takes a much larger sample for skill to shine through.

But RPS admittedly was not the best example, as it's pure yomi. It's a smaller factor in most games that have it, like American Football and Street Fighter 2. It's easier to accept "just bad luck" if somebody makes a bad read in a football game. Imagine how awful the game would be if someone upstairs was rolling dice and assigning random penalties every 3 downs. You could say a "pure luck" factor of football is bad reffing, which nobody likes.

I'm not sure what your point is with real life. We play games for fun and competition. We make the rules and choose which games to play. If every game had to be a perfect reflection of reality, they would mostly suck. And what would be the point of playing?

[lol wow]

good lord

[gimmick]

Why do you think there's a difference between a rock-paper-scissors player with a 60-40 edge to his opponent and a poker player with a 60-40 edge to his opponent? They both gain their edge by exploiting their opponents mistakes.

In your everyday life you're surrounded by random variables completely beyond your control. It's a common element in life. You frequently get fucked over for no good reason.

For one thing, a RPS expert will have a much bigger edge than 60-40 against an amateur if playing a reasonable number of sets. I hear there are AIs that destroy humans at the game now. In poker it takes a much larger sample for skill to shine through.

If we assume that an expert has a 60-40 edge in match/set it doesn't matter what game they are playing, for the experts edge to keep growing in multiple sets. For 3 matches that would be about 75-25 regardless of the game. AIs destroy humans in RPS by using pattern recognition. You can completely negate that edge by using a dice to randomize your actions.

A very simple pattern in RPS that some opponents have is never repeating a sign 3 times. When such an opponent throws 2 rocks in a row you can exploit that pattern by throwing scissors and guaranteeing that you win 50% time and draw 50% of the time. In such an event it doesn't matter what tool you use to vary the sign. Using your opponents brain signals, flipping a coin, throwing a die etc. all result in the same variance and expected value.