LogFAQs > #937074082

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, Database 6 ( 01.01.2020-07.18.2020 ), DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Hearthstone Topic #3 - "Demon blood is thicker than... regular blood."
metroid composite 04/09/20 1:15:43 PM #424:	skullbone posted... Would Hearthstone be better with some sort of MMR system that also factored in number of turns or something? I think something that always made me upset in the past was spending 30 minutes in a game to get 1 win and then losing on turn 5 the next game and feeling like it was all pointless. If an aggro deck and a control deck have the same winrate on ladder then most people are going to play aggro just because it's faster to climb. I think that's part of why we always see so much aggro I mean, that only works if you also lose more points for losing a long game. Otherwise control decks would just be guaranteed to climb even with a negative winrate. And if you do lose 2 stars for losing a long game, you could still game the system by playing a grindy control deck that wins at fatigue, and conceding early if you don't think you're going to win the long game (matched against a combo deck). Also purposefully delaying your win for the extra star. But then people would also not want to lose the extra star, and would concede early against you too. I don't know--I agree that there's an issue, but I can't actually think of any solutions that really make it better. The one place that does incentivize control decks a little more is when they have the brawlsoleums, where you get more rewards the better your winrate. --- Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision <cite>metroid composite posted [p:937074082] in Hearthston... [t:78477872]...</cite> <quote>skullbone posted... </cite> <quote>Would Hearthstone be better with some sort of MMR system that also factored in number of turns or something? I think something that always made me upset in the past was spending 30 minutes in a game to get 1 win and then losing on turn 5 the next game and feeling like it was all pointless. If an aggro deck and a control deck have the same winrate on ladder then most people are going to play aggro just because it's faster to climb. I think that's part of why we always see so much aggro</quote>I mean, that only works if you also lose more points for losing a long game. Otherwise control decks would just be guaranteed to climb even with a negative winrate. And if you do lose 2 stars for losing a long game, you could still game the system by playing a grindy control deck that wins at fatigue, and conceding early if you don't think you're going to win the long game (matched against a combo deck). Also purposefully delaying your win for the extra star. But then people would also not want to lose the extra star, and would concede early against you too. I don't know--I agree that there's an issue, but I can't actually think of any solutions that really make it better. The one place that does incentivize control decks a little more is when they have the brawlsoleums, where you get more rewards the better your winrate. --- Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1