Support NeoGAF

[I'm an expert]

Hardcore vs casual is a tired argument. Learn2play wasn't just a whitty one liner back then. If you want to be good at a game(anything), put in the time. Otherwise, ahem.. QQ. In this game at least casuals do have the opportunity to get every card a hardcore wanted, without the need for groups or some sort of super hard challenge.

 

[CradleOfMan]

This is incidental. It's perfectly possible for a top tier deck to absolutely require 5-6 Legendaries, as the EU Druid of old did, and the Control Warrior that took its place. It is, at the end of the day, always up to Blizzard to push this or that meta at the highest level of play. Zoolock and poverty aggro decks weren't always in vogue, it took time for them for them to be discovered and they usually got shut down as soon they popped up. It was very fortunate that Zoolock has proven itself time and time again, because it gives newer players a cheap option for climbing the ranks.

Water is not arguing about the practicalities of achieving Legend as a purely non-grinding, non-paying player, but the very principle of the imbalance between grinders, payers, and casuals. A bit silly, yes, but I've made similar arguments in the past against League of Legends so I'm used to this line of thought.

If there is no imbalance, what do people aspire to? All the cards upfront? Chess, bridge, etc. already exists if you just want to see how skillful you are. What else are you suggesting for a fun and economically viable CCG?

 

[Haly]

If there is no imbalance, what do people aspire to? All the cards upfront? Chess, bridge, etc. already exists if you just want to see how skillful you are. What else are you suggesting for a fun and economically viable CCG?

There are Living Card Games for this very reason. I'm not saying Hearthstone should be one, or Blizzard should make one, or if it's even preferable to the Hearthstone model (business and player wise) , but don't pretend that alternatives don't exist, it's disingenuous.

The "problem" of "p2w" in card games is an old one and there already exist "solutions", such as Deckbuilding games and LCGs.

Anyway, one could argue that, in a well balanced game, the enjoyment of playing the game itself should be cause enough to play, no? If a game requires a carrot-on-a-stick to be worth playing, well, it's probably a very shallow game. This reminds me of the arguments some League players used against DOTA2, where they claim, unapologetically, that they enjoyed grinding to unlock champions rather than having the entire pool available from the start, as if there would be no reason to play the actual game without some sort of "reward". That is a toxic attitude as far as I'm concerned, and contributes heavily to the proliferation of grinding mechanics in online games.

Obviously, this doesn't directly parallel CCGs because the collection aspect is the core of the game (whereas in League, or other games with grind-to-unlocks, it's usually secondary), but it's not hard to see where Water is coming from.

 

[Minsc]

Well here's another way to look at it.

The game has 3 (or soon to be 4) ways to play it... let's assess each option.

1) Arena: Not at all P2W. Probably the fairest mode of all (and yet at the same time sometimes the least fair lol).

2) Casual: Once again, not P2W. Over the course of 1,000 matches, someone who's spent $300 on the game will have the same W/L ratio (essentially) as someone who's spent $0. Casual's MMR's goal is to have you lose 50% of your games, and will do it's best to have you doing so, so anyone with a complete set of cards will quickly just face others with complete sets of cards until they're matched against players above their skill level and start losing.

3a) Ranked (w/ goal to get lvl 20 card back): Not P2W. Ranks 25-20 cannot have people who own all the cards for very long, so you're not going to have to worry about big spenders.

3b) Ranked (w/ goal to get to legendary): Can be reached from scratch with no money in a single month / ranked season. P2W if you must, this is the only place I can see it applying, even even still you do not need to pay to win and reach legendary, and reaching legendary does nothing important.

4) PvE Adventure: Not P2W (barring some completely outrageous gold pricing, you normally earn ~500/g week, so anything in the 500g-1000g range is fair imo, though past 1,000 gets tough).

So in all the various ways of playing the game, there is a single mode that eventually you can hit a wall with. And that wall can be overcome with a little work and no money, and there's nothing at all at the end of the climb other than a card back, no bonus cards, no free gold, no real prize or anything. An entirely optional climb.

Edit: forgot 5th mode below:

5) Practice: Also not P2W

 

[I'm an expert]

That's not another way to look at it lol. That is the common sense only way to look at the game.

My 10000 dust war just got smacked by a pally with double squire, blessing of might, kings, noble sacrifice, truesilver, and arcane golem in first 5 turns. That guy must have paid a fortune.

 

[Slashlen]

There are Living Card Games for this very reason. I'm not saying Hearthstone should be one, or Blizzard should make one, or if it's even preferable to the Hearthstone model (business and player wise) , but don't pretend that alternatives don't exist, it's disingenuous.

Water's argument would still apply because everyone isn't going to have every monthly pack. A player would have to buy each monthly pack in order to keep up. That model you link to gets around the randomness of card acquisition, but does not solve the need to acquire.

Online CCGs like Hearthstone try to get around this to a degree by the crafting system. Water was able to "buy" the cards he wanted with dust. In fact, if you really wanted to, you could just buy packs and convert extras to dust until you had every card in the game.

Anyway, one could argue that, in a well balanced game, the enjoyment of playing the game itself should be cause enough to play, no? If a game requires a carrot-on-a-stick to be worth playing, well, it's probably a very shallow game. This reminds me of the arguments some League players used against DOTA2, where they claim, unapologetically, that they enjoyed grinding to unlock champions rather than having the entire pool available from the start, as if there would be no reason to play the actual game without some sort of "reward". That is a toxic attitude as far as I'm concerned, and contributes heavily to the proliferation of grinding mechanics in online games.

I don't think it's as much a carrot-on-a-stick as it is people wanting an evolving experience. There are Hearthstone veterans who have more gold/dust than they know what to do with, and what do they want? New cards, either from PvE or an expansion. Even in the LCG you mention, it has monthly packs of new cards. It's because every time a card is added, it can change how you approach the game. Will Priests suddenly become popular with these new cards? Maybe. New cards keep the game exciting and fresh.

One positive point about the randomness aspect of the CCG and acquisition over time is that newer players get to experience this for a while without having to wait for expansions. This is because every time they open a pack, they may get a card they didn't have before, and that card could cause them to retool entire decks. I got Onyxia in a pack the other day, and I've been thinking about where it might be useful in my current set of cards. That's fun, even if it's not perfectly balanced.

Of course, this tends to end once you have all the cards you want, but at that point Water's balance issue is no longer a problem for you as you have the cards you want.

 

[Water]

I appreciate Minsc's suggestions for having fun with the game and approaching it as an adventure over time - but I'm already doing that.

I agree with Slashlen in that if you want 100% fairness out of Hearthstone right off the bat, you have to play Arena. That's exactly what I have done thus far.

Haly understands my arguments, just not my intention. I'm not arguing for Blizzard to switch to a different design, just pointing out the weaknesses of the one they've chosen.

What I'd really like is the fine gentlemen on this thread to stop pretending Hearthstone, when played for free, is a fair competetive game for the vast majority of its players. It's a fun game. No need to oversell it with bullshit. No need to disparage players who vent about getting beat with good cards; they are getting beat with good cards and it is unfair from a competetive standpoint. That stands whether they are playing badly or not. Also, assuming they are bad without supporting evidence is being a dick.

I don't understand what's different between you sitting your ass in front of a computer and someone else sitting their ass in front of a computer. This is a competitive game. Like anything competitive, skill requires time. If you're just expecting to show up and play a game and have the same chance as anyone else.. well.. no. That's not how anything in life works.
...
Well, yes, some people play more than you. Why wouldn't they have an obvious advantage? There's nothing unfair about the guy who hits the gym more than you, or reads more books on a subject than you.. if you don't want to be small, if you don't want to be left out of a conversation, if you don't want to lose at a game, put more time into it.

The above makes me think you don't even know what competition is. When you go to a weightlifting meet, the only question is how much you can lift. They don't give you weights that are easier to lift if you have, at some point in the past, logged 1000 hours at the gym or slipped $300 to the judge. And yet that's exactly what happens in Hearthstone. The attitude that investing time, in itself, should give better results in competition is downright cancerous.

One of my friends is a former world class MtG professional. If he sat down to play Hearthstone for a week on an account that's got everything, I have no doubt that he'd wipe the floor with the majority of HS players. If he made a free account, in a week he'd still be getting owned by lousy players who have played from launch and have cards.

 

[JesseZao]

The above makes me think you don't even know what competition is. When you go to a weightlifting meet, the only question is how much you can lift. They don't give you weights that are easier to lift if you have, at some point in the past, logged 1000 hours at the gym or slipped $300 to the judge. And yet that's exactly what happens in Hearthstone. The attitude that investing time, in itself, should give better results in competition is downright cancerous.

One of my friends is a former world class MtG professional. If he sat down to play Hearthstone for a week on an account that's got everything, I have no doubt that he'd wipe the floor with the majority of HS players. If he made a free account, in a week he'd still be getting owned by lousy players who have played from launch and have cards.

So if I started professional weightlifting tomorrow, I'd be able to compete with people already in the sport. You're being pretentiously obtuse.

 

[Water]

The game has 3 (or soon to be 4) ways to play it... let's assess each option.
1) Arena: Not at all P2W.
...
2) Casual: Once again, not P2W. Over the course of 1,000 matches, someone who's spent $300 on the game will have the same W/L ratio (essentially) as someone who's spent $0.
...
3a) Ranked (w/ goal to get lvl 20 card back): Not P2W. Ranks 25-20 cannot have people who own all the cards for very long, so you're not going to have to worry about big spenders.
...
3b) Ranked (w/ goal to get to legendary): Can be reached from scratch with no money in a single month / ranked season. P2W if you must, this is the only place I can see it applying, even even still you do not need to pay to win and reach legendary, and reaching legendary does nothing important.
...
4) PvE Adventure: Not P2W (barring some completely outrageous gold pricing, you normally earn ~500/g week, so anything in the 500g-1000g range is fair imo, though past 1,000 gets tough).
...
5) Practice: Also not P2W

You forget 1v1 competition and/or tournaments, which for some people are the main draw of the game. In casual (not that it matters...) the game is just as P2W as in ranked, it's still a ladder and paying lets you beat people who you otherwise wouldn't. Also, if you are at the very bottom or the very top of the casual ladder, the matchmaking can no longer balance things out and you'll also have a higher winrate if you pay.

I recall your previous definition of P2W was something like "is there an advantage to be gained by paying that isn't also available over time" but by that definition everything in HS is self-evidently not P2W since you'll eventually get all the cards.

The problem I have with your definition is F2P games tend to make stuff technically available over time, but so hard to get that most players never get everything that counts, so in practice a lot of stuff is behind a paywall. That's why I prefer the more inclusive definition "can you spend real money right now to beat a person or challenge you otherwise couldn't".

 

[Minsc]

One of my friends is a former world class MtG professional. If he sat down to play Hearthstone for a week on an account that's got everything, I have no doubt that he'd wipe the floor with the majority of HS players. If he made a free account, in a week he'd still be getting owned by lousy players who have played from launch and have cards.

Only he wouldn't be playing the majority of HS players, the game would place him against people of his skill level. He'd be winning as much as someone with a library 1/10th the size. And there's more skill in the game than you can learn in a week, I doubt he'd be playing like you say. There's dozens of things to look out for in any given matchup, and I expect playing with people who've been in it since beta, they'd be beating him quite a bit more than the other way around once he gets his MMR high enough to start playing better players.

 

[Tarazet]

I don't think anyone was actually arguing the game wasn't P2W because the cards are all equally strong, in a certain deck certain cards are better than others. Going back to your post earlier, I know I saw a lot more Bloodfen Raptors in Hunter decks than I do KJs. And I see more KJs in warlock zoo decks than I do Raptors.

That doesn't make it P2W, anyone can do what you just did for free with minimal time and have a zoolock deck that is viable to rank 5, if not legendary.

It's hard not to see it, though, if you are playing an expensive deck like Control Warrior which has answers to practically anything. There isn't a single matchup out there that I feel like I will always lose. But if I'm playing Zoo and bears and trees start coming out, I'm done.

 

[Water]

So if I started professional weightlifting tomorrow, I'd be able to compete with people already in the sport. You're being pretentiously obtuse.

Yes, exactly - you can compete in a fair competition. If you are naturally strong, you could beat me tomorrow even though I have been lifting casually for years. All that matters is how you and I lift that day. They don't give me extra arm straps due to me having logged enough gym time.

 

[Minsc]

It's hard not to see it, though, if you are playing an expensive deck like Control Warrior which has answers to practically anything. There isn't a single matchup out there that I feel like I will always lose. But if I'm playing Zoo and bears and trees start coming out, I'm done.

Wasn't one of control warrior's worst matchups the cheap-ish midrange hunter deck?

 

[JesseZao]

Yes, exactly - you can compete in a fair competition. If you are naturally strong, you could beat me tomorrow even though I have been lifting casually for years. All that matters is how you and I lift that day. They don't give me extra arm straps due to me having logged enough gym time.

Okay, buddy. Go compete with the pros. I won't crush your dreams.

 

[CarbonatedFalcon]

Still going backwards with miracle rogue. Might have to hunter face rush or zoolock to get to 5 or so before it's more viable.

Might try out the Mana Addict variation again though. Or aggro rogue.

I think I can ALMOST do a control pally since I pulled a Tirion the other day. Thought about dusting him since I don't normally play the class, but it's still a good legendary, so I'm more hesitant to do so.

 

[Tarazet]

Wasn't one of control warrior's worst matchups the cheap-ish midrange hunter deck?

Hunters have so many minions with 1 health, you get monster value out of Whirlwind and Armorsmith. You just have to mulligan properly.

Still going backwards with miracle rogue. Might have to hunter face rush or zoolock to get to 5 or so before it's more viable.

Might try out the Mana Addict variation again though. Or aggro rogue.

Tempo rogue is pretty fun. It's easy to knee-jerk your way into a situation where you've spent all of your firepower, though.

 

[daemissary]

It's gotten a little chippy in here overnight...

Look, as a free player I am definitely frustrated when my opponent and I play to a standstill and he top decks Baron, Cairne, Ysera and Ragnaros in consecutive turns. There's no real "solution" to that problem though...I'm aware that Blizzard needs to make money so they need to encourage people to pay. I also don't mind grinding because the game is fun.

I really just wish that they'd release cards more often. That would add more usable cards to the mix and hopefully change up the deck archetypes so every matchup doesn't feel so stale.

 

[Water]

Okay, buddy. Go compete with the pros. I won't crush your dreams.

You don't understand the difference between getting a shot in a fair competition and being able to win?

 

[CoolOff]

I never thought I'd say this, but I'm watching DH and I miss Twitch-chat.

 

[sibarraz]

I want to build a cheap warrior deck, is there a good deck out there who could help me a bit?

 

[JesseZao]

You don't understand the difference between getting a shot in a fair competition and being able to win?

You never lifted in your life.
You enter a pro weightlifting contest.
They look at your untrained body with bewilderment.
You cash in your time credits for being alive.
You are now seen as an equal by your competitors.
Right?

Let's go back to why this whole troll started. What deck were you using before netdecking one of the most tested and consistent decks in ranked? It's probably baffling why it helped you win more.

Also, your position is misguided from the start. Blizzard made this game to leverage one of their popular IPs and to expand their market. The fact that people want to be hyper-competitive playing it is just gravy. They didn't set out to dethrone chess. I for one am glad that it's free as the only reason I never stepped foot into the world of MTG is because of the hundreds-thousands people "need" to blow on the game.

 

[Water]

Only he wouldn't be playing the majority of HS players, the game would place him against people of his skill level. He'd be winning as much as someone with a library 1/10th the size.

Win counts are a total red herring, what matters is who you beat. If he's on the ladder, or successfully plays 1v1s with people who are on the ladder, he implicitly beats the players who are below. Which would be the majority of players.

And there's more skill in the game than you can learn in a week, I doubt he'd be playing like you say. There's dozens of things to look out for in any given matchup, and I expect playing with people who've been in it since beta, they'd be beating him quite a bit more than the other way around once he gets his MMR high enough to start playing better players.

What I said is only that he'd beat the majority, which is a remarkably low bar. Sure there would be a lot more to learn after a week - the point is that in a week he'd be at a point where most people are not in a month or two. Time is not skill, and people don't deserve to win based on spending time.

 

[Violet_0]

I hate Reynard forever for creating the Zoo deck that has plagued this game for 5+ months now

 

[scy]

What I said is only that he'd beat the majority, which is a remarkably low bar. Sure there would be a lot more to learn after a week - the point is that in a week he'd be at a point where most people are not in a month or two. Time is not skill, and people don't deserve to win based on spending time.

While there is a barrier, it's fairly pointless to focus this much on it since it's a miniscule amount of time needed (in the grand scheme of things) to get there. You can craft Zoo in less than a week of playing. Not even that long, really. Many budget decks will get you to competitive Legend status with minimal amounts of time spent.

Is there a difference in deck power from basic-only to basic + expert? Well, yes. Especially if you view certain cards as requirements and use things to approximate their effect as opposed to crafting a deck around other cards. But it's not like the game is tasking you with hundreds of hours to get the cards to try to be competitive. You don't need that much investment, time-wise, to start being competitive at the game.

At the end of the day, though, this argument will never stop. You just want the field to have everything from the start and others don't care that it's not that way. If we're discussing a future game, sure, I wager more people would be on the side of "just give everything" but Hearthstone's barrier is so low that it's practically a non-issue.

Hunters have so many minions with 1 health, you get monster value out of Whirlwind and Armorsmith. You just have to mulligan properly.

Then you're thinking of the wrong deck. The midrange Hunter deck was designed to beat Control Warrior. Barring Face Hunter, most Hunter decks during their surge of popularity didn't really have many X/1s outside of Buzzard + UtH. Not that Whirlwind or Armorsmith weren't still good for the match-ups at times (more the latter than the former) but the deck in question was the massive favorite vs Control Warrior.

I hate Reynard forever for creating the Zoo deck that has plagued this game for 5+ months now

If we're going back that far, you'd be cursing curi and not Reynad.

 

[Raxus]

Zoo destabilized after turn 6 due to no late game. If you can survive or even dominate until then you will find the rest is gravy.

 

[Violet_0]

haha Artosis is casting at DH. Too bad Kripp isn't there, they're my favorite caster duo

If we're going back that far, you'd be cursing curi and not Reynad.

heh, tbh I kinda forgot when the Warlock nerfs happened

 

[Water]

You never lifted in your life.
You enter a pro weightlifting contest.
They look at your untrained body with bewilderment.
You cash in your time credits for being alive.
You are now seen as an equal by your competitors.
Right?

I don't have the faintest idea what you are trying to say and what it has to do with participating in a fair competition. I doubt anyone else here can explain it either. "Time credits for being alive"? "Seen equal by your competitors"?

Let's go back to why this whole troll started. What deck were you using before netdecking one of the most tested and consistent decks in ranked? It's probably baffling why it helped you win more.

The point of my little experiment was to see how much good cards help. So what do you think I played before? There's only one possible answer, but if it's not obvious to you it's also stated in my original post.

Also, your position is misguided from the start. Blizzard made this game to leverage one of their popular IPs and to expand their market. The fact that people want to be hyper-competitive playing it is just gravy. They didn't set out to dethrone chess. I for one am glad that it's free as the only reason I never stepped foot into the world of MTG is because of the hundreds-thousands people "need" to blow on the game.

Which position?

 

[Slashlen]

I feel like this is one of those arguments where one side is arguing in absolute terms and the other is looking at it in a more relative way. Are there advantages in Hearthstone that have nothing to do with player skill? Of course, access to more cards help. Does this make Hearthstone P2W? Maybe technically, unless you assume that the advantage must be overwhelming.

And that is what I think separates Hearthstone from the vast majority of it's peers. They seem to have done everything they can to minimize any P2W aspects outside of messing with the basic CCG mechanics or making it impossible for them to earn anything. No cards are kept behind a paywall that can't be overcome with time. Gold for packs is earned at a very reasonable rate. Cards are balanced so that many of the free cards are still actually useful.

There are so many P2W CCGs that would be selling players a 8/8 Super Yeti that was only 2 mana and it would only be available for real currency. Is Hearthstone P2W? Maybe technically, but if it is it's a pretty watered down P2W compared to a lot of what's out there.

I think when most people ask if something's P2W they want to know if they'll get stomped by somebody who dropped $$$ but doesn't actually know what they're doing(low skill/high pay player). I think that $$$ player still loses in Hearthstone.

 

[scy]

The point of my little experiment was to see how much good cards help. So what do you think I played before? There's only one possible answer, but if it's not obvious to you it's also stated in my original post.

Here's the issue with this: What did you have in those slots before those cards? Were they rough approximations or did you actually tweak the deck and how it plays when you used different cards? Simply changing a deck by slotting in the right cards for the playstyle of the deck does not really indicate much about the power of rarity.

If you're going to measure the power of rarity by taking a deck and then subbing cards out, you're not really going to get to the right conclusion. Sure, the deck will no doubt run worse. It's built and tuned around those cards. You could replace Doomguard with Leeroy and it would run worse too since it's not accomplishing the same task despite upping the rarity.

I think when most people ask if something's P2W they want to know if they'll get stomped by somebody who dropped $$$ but doesn't actually know what they're doing(low skill/high pay player). I think that $$$ player still loses in Hearthstone.

Basically. But then there's the people who believe any kind of money involvement makes the game "P2W" regardless of it being something you can get through normal means. Varying degrees for people so eh.

 

[JesseZao]

The attitude that investing time, in itself, should give better results in competition is downright cancerous.

One of my friends is a former world class MtG professional.

Time credits.

Grats?

I don't have the faintest idea what you are trying to say and what it has to do with participating in a fair competition. I doubt anyone else here can explain it either. "Time credits for being alive"? "Seen equal by your competitors"?
The point of my little experiment was to see how much good cards help. So what do you think I played before? There's only one possible answer, but if it's not obvious to you it's also stated in my original post.
Which position?

Obtuse. You are being it.

 

[Water]

Time credits.

Grats?

If you have a point, spell it out. I still have no idea what you are trying to say.

 

[JesseZao]

If you have a point, spell it out. I still have no idea what you are trying to say.

See above. I'm done.

 

[Violet_0]

Darkwonyx vs Rdu Shaman against Miracle Rogue went about as well as expected

 

[JesseZao]

Ran into a "kripp" yesterday in an arena. Didn't play the part very well, though, as he was constantly emoting.

 

[Impeccable]

Almost time for excessive Reynad salt.

 

[Water]

Here's the issue with this: What did you have in those slots before those cards? Were they rough approximations or did you actually tweak the deck and how it plays when you used different cards? Simply changing a deck by slotting in the right cards for the playstyle of the deck does not really indicate much about the power of rarity.

True. That said, tweaking could also be a problem since it can change the nature of the deck and then you are not exactly testing the performance of the rares either. This is something one would have to worry about if the "experiment" didn't leak like a sieve in almost every other way. I don't remember the exact substitutions I had, but I did use common sense instead of mechanical approximations, and had played the deck a little bit before taking the step of upgrading it.

Charting the average dust cost of the decks over the ranked ladder would be interesting, but I don't think Blizzard would ever show that data in public.

 

[Water]

See above. I'm done.

Cool. I'm legit curious if anyone else understood what you were trying to say, though. Folks, please drop me a PM if you got it.

 

[I'm an expert]

I was on the MtG Pro Tour in the 90s as well. Used to know Jon Finkel.

There, now you have to bow down to me like your friend when it comes to HS.

 

[Violet_0]

Almost time for excessive Reynad salt.

haha, Reynad is in the loser's bracket

 

[Special C]

I've had some decent success without spending any real money. I've won quite a few games with some pretty basic decks. I have a Shaman Windfury/Burst deck that is doing well, An Enrage Warrior deck (got lucky enough to pull grommash and a gorehowl from a pack, and a Shockadin deck without Leeroy or Avenging Wrath. The only deck I've purposly crafted is Zoo because it's so cheap but I don't even like to play it. I've yet to have enough dust to craft any Legendaries or Epics. I'm not shy about blowing dust to craft the rares I need to finish my decks out even though I know I'll eventually get them again in packs.

I typically play once every 3 days and try to roll quests that I can complete at the same time. I wouldn't consider this game purely PtW. More like PtW faster

 

[JesseZao]

haha, Reynad is in the loser's bracket

Where are you guys watching the games? I don't see them on twitch.

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

Ran into a "kripp" yesterday in an arena. Didn't play the part very well, though, as he was constantly emoting.

Probably wasn't kripp at all then heh.

 

[I'm an expert]

Where are you guys watching the games? I don't see them on twitch.

http://www.viagame.com/channels/hearthstone-championship/

 

[JesseZao]

http://www.viagame.com/channels/hearthstone-championship/

Thanks.

Edit: hp and atk values are so "cute" in the ipad version.

 

[I'm an expert]

Lol poor Reynad.. just lost Rag rng again. I really do feel for him.

 

[dk_]

Salt - The Game

 

[Vio-Lence]

Lol poor Reynad.. just lost Rag rng again. I really do feel for him.

Didn't deserve his seed anyways. Rng is rng in card game.

 

[depths20XX]

No wonder I couldn't find the stream. They're streaming it on yet another streaming service that will be gone in 6 months.

 

[I'm an expert]

Didn't deserve his seed anyways. Rng is rng in card game.

Yeah but he has a pretty bad streak with Rag rng. Like I don't think it ever goes in his favor. As for deserving his seed.. I'd say he did but /shrug. Thanks Lifecoach.

 

[JesseZao]

No wonder I couldn't find the stream. They're streaming it on yet another streaming service that will be gone in 6 months.

Yep. Quality is good, but I'm getting sporadic signal degredation and buffering on 4g. Annoying.

Yeah but he has a pretty bad streak with Rag rng. Like I don't think it ever goes in his favor. As for deserving his seed.. I'd say he did but /shrug. Thanks Lifecoach.

Lifecoach is a cool guy. One of the more genuine "helpful" streams.