Previous First 1 2 Last Next 16 Replies Latest reply on Aug 28, 2016 2:40 AM by Parambam

    Another Balance Thread


      Yes, it's another balance thread. For a CCG like this conversations about balance are important, and why many people like me don't play Hearthstone. I've noticed going 1st tended to result in a loss for me and going 2nd tended to result in a win. So I decided to keep track if that was true over 10 games, and it came true on 9/10 games I played. The biggest difference between going 1st or 2nd is the 3 extra mana you get to spend.


      Is 3 mana to big a buff to the person going 2nd? Do others have the same experience I have with going first almost guaranteeing a loss and going 2nd a win? I am going to keep track at least up to 25 games and see if the numbers hold out, but I am curious if the Dev's keep track of W/L ratio's for going 1st vs 2nd and is there a significant difference across the entirety of the game?

        • 1.

          Uh so that is how many games you went first or second and how many wins or losses? Can we have some basic facts instead of a biased conclusion? Going first or second is also not the only factor in winning or not, with things like what the matchups are and did you get screwed by going first being at least equally as important.


          And this is just 10 games which doesn't mean anything. You could easily have the next 10 games be 5/10 or 1/10 or any other number. For your observation to be valid we need minimum 100 games (more like 500), and it also applies to you only. For a valid discussion we need a lot more data.

          • 2.

            Rofl wrath, I bring numbers and still get accused of a biased conclusion. Even though I drew no conclusions but asked for more numbers and other peoples experience. 10 games doesn't mean nothing, it is quick look. Please think before you reply.

            1 of 1 people found this helpful
            • 3.

              Somewhere the devs posted that with the 3 mana boost 2nd wins at a ....


              49% rate.


              Everything is fine.

              1 of 1 people found this helpful
              • 4.

                Of course it is a biased conclusion because you calculated a number that is useless and then take a position on it. Where in the initial post is how many times you went first, and how many times you went second?! How many wins did you have? It could have been you went first 10 straight times and won 1 of them, or went second 10 straight times and won 9. Is that what you are trying to prove?


                If we have X+Y=Z and you only give me the value for Z, of course I am going to tell you something is missing. This is simple math so Is that so surprising?


                A normal person would at least say something like:


                In 10 games, going first I went 0/3, going second 6/7. Therefore my statement was true 90%


                Though your statement of 90% is still useless and should not be used for anything. More relevant is that you had a 0% win rate going first, and 85.7% win rate going second.


                And again I repeat that an observation based on just 10 games is useless. It is like saying "in the past 10 days, we had 6 days of rain". Other than the fact this is probably (but not 100%) not a desert, and it is not the poles or mount Everest as it would snow instead, what else can you say about the location? What is the reason you are telling me this?


                Your post has so many holes in it that it is just a quick look of an epic fail.


                Statgirl wrote:


                I've noticed going 1st tended to result in a loss for me and going 2nd tended to result in a win. So I decided to keep track if that was true over 10 games, and it came true on 9/10 games I played.

                • 5.

                  you need bigger sample m8.... bigger the size smaller the deviation... this is just unreliable and invalid... i could say that going first equals 100 win rate because i played 1 game going first and won oppose to 1 game going second and lost.... sample size 2... you see where I am going with this...wrathss explained it quite nicely

                  • 6.

                    Statgirl is correct here people going second is almost always a win since if they dont have lets say a 1 or 2 drop you can easily get board pressure and win

                    • 7.

                      you bring a sample size of 10 and ur name is STATgirl? You must be trolling

                      • 8.

                        Going second is not overpowered at all, a lot of times i go 1st and i win in turn 4, if the opponent does not have guards. So this is rather on what cards you get, not those magicka potions.

                        • 9.

                          I think the elixir of magicka should be nerfed to 2 charges. Me and my friend we are always jumping of joy whenever we are second, it's like YEAH, an easy win with the OP 3 mana boost. I sincerely believe that a 2 mana buff is largely enough to compensate for the second turn. Even with a 2 mana boost I'd still be happy to be second so yes, the 3 mana boost is too strong, I vote that it be balanced it to 2.

                          • 10.

                            One of the game designers briefly mentioned this on stream.


                            He said 2 charges favored first too much and 3 charges favored first very slightly. It sounds like 3 was the sweet spot in terms of equalizing win rate.

                            1 of 1 people found this helpful
                            • 11.

                              I think 100 games at rank 2 or above could make a point. But even then it would be only for one deck.

                              • 12.

                                This is quite a toxic forum. A person comes in, notices a small trend and asks others for their take without drawing conclusions and gets lambasted with attacks that jump to conclusions about me and my OP that just aren't true. I would like to thank the people who gave legitimate responses, especially those who mentioned what the devs have found on this topic. To the others, if you're going to be toxic and hateful, just do everyone a favor and go away please.


                                @ponk87 I will say balance has to work at all levels, not just level 2 and up. That is where Hearthstone falls flat on its face. They have balance for complete newbs and for pro's but not for the middle 50%(ish) of users. But yes I agree more than 1 deck needs to be tested, as well as looking at the results of more than 1 user, which is I went to the forums to ask for others input.

                                • 13.

                                  And your answer is on reddit somewhere apparently, but the win split 1st/2nd was reported as 51/49.


                                  Now, I don't know if that number is total aggregate games, or what, so it's fair to question if that split is different at different levels within the game, but even if it is slightly different, how different would it have to be to require a change?


                                  You cannot change it based off of what level people are playing at, it has to be global.


                                  So if the global number is 51/49, then yeah, I think we're done here?


                                  Of course they should continue to monitor that number, it might shift with time as people develop decks that do have disproportionate win rates going 1st or 2nd.

                                  • 14.

                                    I am one, who think that blue is some op?

                                    Previous First 1 2 Next