News Realms Remove Ads - Go Premium! Sign In or Register

Bluetracker

Tracks Blizzard employees across various accounts.

There’s an interesting concept of “grievance rate” in this episode and I really want to talk about it! So I’m doing a 🧵 (But first disclaimers) https://t.co/ztieweYfC2

There’s an interesting concept of “grievance rate” in this episode and I really want to talk about it! So I’m doing a 🧵 (But first disclaimers) https://t.co/ztieweYfC2

  • Mitchell Loewen
    Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
    There’s an interesting concept of “grievance rate” in this episode and I really want to talk about it! So I’m doing a 🧵 (But first disclaimers) https://t.co/ztieweYfC2

    • Mitchell Loewen
      Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
      Disclaimer 1: Go listen to the podcast first! It’s a great episode and I don’t want to repeat the entire concept of what a grievance rate is. So listen first and then come back.

      • Mitchell Loewen
        Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
        Disclaimer 2: I am but one game designer. I have my opinions on game design that may or may not reflect the rest of the Hearthstone design team. So take these as only my personal thoughts and opinions and nothing more.

        • Mitchell Loewen
          Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
          Disclaimer 3: This is not an attack. This is not a rebuttal. I think @ZachODR brought up some great ideas and I am in no way trying to dismiss them. I view this as a cool discussion. But since this is on the internet, reminder to be nice to folks. Don’t be mean. Cool? Cool.

          • Mitchell Loewen
            Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
            OKAY! So the core idea of grievance rates is that x% of players will have a negative experience facing a deck. This feels very true to me! But I think there are two extra layers of nuance that should be considered: degree and predictability. Let’s start with degree.

            • Mitchell Loewen
              Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
              Let’s imagine that there is a deck with a 100% grievance rate, but the severity of that grievance is very low. What I mean by that is that everyone gets mildly annoyed facing it. No one likes it, but no one quits or gets super mad over it. It’s just mildly unpleasant.

              • Mitchell Loewen
                Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
                Now imagine another deck with a 1% grievance rate, but it is EXTREMELY severe. Like if you are in that 1%, you will quit the game and never come back and complain about the game for the rest of time. It’s not just a grievance, it’s a vendetta.

                • Mitchell Loewen
                  Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
                  Which of these decks do you nerf? Probably both! It’s not great having something with a universally unpleasant experience, but it is also not great having something with a rare but cataclysmically bad experience.

                  • Mitchell Loewen
                    Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
                    So, when balancing, you want to hit both high prevalences of grievance but also high degrees of grievance (even if it only affects a small number of players).

                    • Mitchell Loewen
                      Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
                      Now predictability. In multiplayer games with a diverse range of strategies, you will eventually create a metagame. In general, you want this experience to be as diverse as possible (partially for the grievance rate reasons brought up in the podcast). But there’s a risk!

                      • Mitchell Loewen
                        Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
                        Let’s say you have a game that is so diverse that literally every single deck is viable and different. Like on aggregate, all decks can have a >50% winrate and you’ll never face the same deck twice. This is mostly great! But the key here is “in aggregate.”

                        • Mitchell Loewen
                          Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
                          Individual decks/strategies will still perform better/worse against other strategies. If the game is so diverse that you can never predict what strategies you’ll face, you lose the skill expression of deck building because you can’t plan around what you’re facing.

                          • Mitchell Loewen
                            Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
                            Does this mean meta diversity is bad? NO! It is EXTREMELY important. But there is a theoretical upper limit of diversity that you don’t want to hit. That limit is presumably very high for most games, but it does exist and should be kept in mind at least a little bit.

                            • Mitchell Loewen
                              Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
                              That’s my main thoughts. I think this is a super interesting topic, and would love to hear other thoughts. Thanks for reading! 🥰

                              • ElmStreetVictim
                                Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
                                @LoewenMitchell Hey there. What do you think about Tickatus? That card tilted me so bad. Against warlock, they would play their Soulciologist Malicia or whatever 7 drop and it was just a telegraph, I knew, next turn I was milling 5 cards. Even if I won later, I just had a negative feeling.

                                • Mitchell Loewen
                                  Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
                                  @ElmStreetVictim Cards like Tickatus are tricky because they very explicitly create negative feelings (that's kinda the appeal of them for some players). Some tech cards broadly can fall here too. I think they serve an important role, but their power and prevalence should be kept purposefully low

                                  • ElmStreetVictim
                                    Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
                                    @LoewenMitchell No I mean, what did you feel when Tickatus milled cards from your deck? Best case, joy. Worst case, tilt. Middle of the road?

                                    • Mitchell Loewen
                                      Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
                                      @ElmStreetVictim Oh! Good question. Hmm, I personally didn't really mind being milled by Tickatus. It sometimes felt bad, but most often I turned it into a challenge of "ok, they destroyed my primary win con, how do I still win this?"

                              • larrynoplastico
                                Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
                                @LoewenMitchell Ok. I hope my thoughts you love to hear :) Another interesting point on this is "agency": can I as a player do something to avoid that grievance (other than not playing, of course)? At this point tech cards are very relevant, specially for that 1%. (1/4)

                                • larrynoplastico
                                  Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
                                  @LoewenMitchell If I really HATE quest decks (please destroy Quest Hunter), but I could tech a card to destroy them, I'll be willing to include it to reduce that grievance. In fact, I can counter the grievance (when it doesn't work) with the joy of destroying it when it does. (2/4)

                                  • larrynoplastico
                                    Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
                                    @LoewenMitchell That’s what happens with Freeze and Denathrius (two of the current meta grievances). Freeze is annoying, but I can tech a good card like Starfish to win. Denathrius is annoying, but I can include Theotar, Mutanus, double down with Brann or even Zola if I want. (3/4)

                                    • larrynoplastico
                                      Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
                                      @LoewenMitchell Including tech cards can make me lose more against other decks, which is another unpleasant experience, but I’m the one balancing one against the other. Tech cards have it’s own problems: can also cause grievance, but I believe there do more good than bad in general (4/4)

                                      • Mitchell Loewen
                                        Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
                                        @larrynoplastico Really interesting perspective! Player agency is super important when it comes to play experience because often the complaints I hear when a deck is unfun is "I couldn't play my cards" or "My deck didn't work" or "My choices didn't matter". Thank you for sharing your thoughts!

                                        • larrynoplastico
                                          Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
                                          @LoewenMitchell To be fair, tech cards sometimes cause that: "my deck was destroyed by Steamcleaner", "they robbed my wincon with Theotar", etc. Both have in common that you can't play the cards, they don't counter the effect of the card (as silence or Viper)... Gives something to thing about...

                                          • Mitchell Loewen
                                            Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
                                            @larrynoplastico Yeah tech cards are tough like that. The gold standard you're aiming for is "fun to play with but also fun to play against", but that is often extremely hard to hit. Sometimes you end up compromising with "fun to play with but ok to play against"

                          • AmesCG
                            Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
                            @LoewenMitchell Is that theoretical limit ever truly achievable unless you assume a nearly infinite pool of cards?

                            • Mitchell Loewen
                              Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
                              @AmesCG I'm not sure! Maybe it isn't achievable and is a purely theoretical limit. But I would assume as you approach the limit deck building will matter less and less, and generalize dissatisfaction will increase.

    • DishwasherTag
      Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
      @LoewenMitchell Great read, thanks for sharing! Here are some of my thoughts: 1. the grievance rate of your opponent's deck changes based on what deck you are playing 2. if both players play the same deck with the same grievance rate, then the grievance rate is technically zero.

      • Mitchell Loewen
        Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
        @DishwasherTag Good points! I think there are a lot of factors that go into grievance rate/severity, and matchups play a big role in this (e.g. if you play a deck that consistently beats an infuriating deck, you might not actually feel that upset about it).

      • DishwasherTag
        Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
        @LoewenMitchell 3. disclaimer: I just like thinking about this stuff. 4. Long Rumble: In Hearthstone there are many ways to win a game, but they all fit either one of these 2 categories: >75% damage from hand >75% damage from board 1/

        • DishwasherTag
          Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
          @LoewenMitchell If I deal 25 out of 30 damage from hand and 5 damage via minions on the board, then that fits the 1st category. If I deal 25 out of 30 damage with minions on the board and 5 from hand, then that fits the 2nd category. 2/

          • DishwasherTag
            Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
            @LoewenMitchell If my opponent's deck is a "damage from hand" deck, and I 'Dirty Rat' their win condition, then I have technically won the game from hand. You could say there are a million ways to win a game of Hearthstone but every win is still either "from hand" or "from board". 3/

            • DishwasherTag
              Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
              @LoewenMitchell Something I hear often is "you can't make everyone happy - there are too many types of players". I disagree. No matter what type of player you are - no matter your favorite deck - you still fall under either one of these 2 categories: "from hand" or "from board". 4/

              • DishwasherTag
                Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
                @LoewenMitchell There were lots of discussions around Tickatus, but at the end of the day, it was simply another way to win "from hand". Whether I "otk" someone or "Tickatus" away their win con, the experience is still the same: I win "from hand". 5/

                • DishwasherTag
                  Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
                  @LoewenMitchell Whether I deal 3 damage from hand every turn, or 30 damage on turn 10, the experience is the same. It all falls right under winning "from hand". So what does all of this have to do with grievance rate? Sometimes players think that a matchup is "unfair". 6/

                  • DishwasherTag
                    Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
                    @LoewenMitchell A matchup is "unfair", whenever my opponent has to do less than me to win. Defining "less" is super complex, so let's look at it from another angle: when is a matchup "fair"? 7/

                    • DishwasherTag
                      Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
                      @LoewenMitchell Any mirror match is 100% fair. Same cards, same way to win. It all comes down to skill + card draw. Awesome. Neither one of the two players can complain. Consequently, the more we divert from a mirror match, the more unfair a matchup becomes. Or does it? 8/

                      • DishwasherTag
                        Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
                        @LoewenMitchell Yes, it does. Balance can only do so much. Now this is where it gets so complex that I actually start lagging, so I will jump straight to my conclusion: 9/

                        • DishwasherTag
                          Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
                          @LoewenMitchell If you want to minimise the grievance rates in your game. If you want to maximise "fairness", while also minimising Q-times, then: 10/

                          • DishwasherTag
                            Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
                            @LoewenMitchell Take any mirror match. Find a match that is as far away from a mirror match as your game allows. Take both sides of that match and then split your game in 2 modes: one mode for each side of that match. 11/

                            • DishwasherTag
                              Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
                              @LoewenMitchell And now you have not one, but two starting points for experientially different gameplay ideas. The basis of the design for either mode is the mirror match you get when you have either side of that match (see 11) face off against itself. 12/

                              • DishwasherTag
                                Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
                                @LoewenMitchell For Hearthstone this means: Mode A is the "from hand" game mode. Mode B is the "from board" game mode. Design fun "from hand" decks and have them face off against each other. Design fun "from board" decks and have them face off against each other. 13/

                                • DishwasherTag
                                  Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
                                  @LoewenMitchell My thoughts are probably more comprehensible in this thread (this also includes Mitchell's theory on predictability): https://t.co/a6SZDcU0AD 14/

                                  • DishwasherTag
                                    Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
                                    @LoewenMitchell Alright. That's it, haha. Thanks for reading! 15/15

                                    • Mitchell Loewen
                                      Posted 3 years, 3 months ago (Source)
                                      @DishwasherTag Hmm interesting. Thank you for sharing your thoughts!
Tweet