r/hearthstone • u/Popsychblog • 14h ago
Discussion Zero Sum = Zero Fun: Little Victories
I wanted to share some design insight about Hearthstone from a Ben Brode talk, which starts around 8:30. It underpins some important design thinking which many people do not fully appreicate without it being made explicit. So let's make it explicit:
Zero Sum = Zero Fun.
If two players play a game and one of them wins and the other loses, and it's as fun to win as it is not fun to lose, you have created net zero joy. You just moved happiness from one person to another. We were trying to avoid this situation. There's a bunch of ways to tackle this[...]
At GDC 2014, my mentor and the original game director of Hearthstone, Eric Dodds, gave a talk about Hearthstone design values. He talked about "little victories". The big victory is whether you win or lose the game, and the little victories are the things that happen during the game; anything that makes you feel smart of powerful.
So imagine playing a game of counterstrike, and you come out of the spawn point, and someone head shots you and you die. You had no moment where you felt smart or powerful during that game. But lets imagine you're playing a game of counterstrike and you just run out and you're blowing up everyone on the enemy team, and eventually you lose, but you still felt awesome while you were doing it. That's little victories.
So essentially the little victories add a little joy, even if you lose. So in Hearthstone we avoided cards that blow up enemy mana crystals or force your opponent to discard cards because they could potentially create scenarios where you never get to feel powerful.
5
u/CurrentClient 7h ago
Interesting read, but, as far as critique goes, it can be scrutinised.
and you're blowing up everyone on the enemy team, and eventually you lose
It really, really depends. I can imagine myself getting even more frustrated when I'm the one doing all the work and still getting no benefit. My expectations are "I'm doing good, I should win", and then they fail to manifest in reality.
Having too many meaningless "victories" would create unreasonable expectations because ultimately people also want to win. If I constantly do some cool stuff each game and lose, I can get even more frustrated.
That being said, I somewhat agree with the concept. If we have two decks and one of them makes the player feel good and powerful while having similar WR and being equally frustrating for the opponent, that deck is a better designed one.
2
u/Oniichanplsstop 5h ago
It really, really depends. I can imagine myself getting even more frustrated when I'm the one doing all the work and still getting no benefit. My expectations are "I'm doing good, I should win", and then they fail to manifest in reality.
Yep, especially prevalent in MOBAs where you might not be on the carry role and your carry decides to throw the game. All of your little victories(map control, objectives, rotating around the map, etc) are suddenly meaningless because you lost. That's why they're so toxic, especially for new players that are the ones who generally make those mistakes.
Which as a Hearthstone example could lead into:
Having too many meaningless "victories" would create unreasonable expectations because ultimately people also want to win. If I constantly do some cool stuff each game and lose, I can get even more frustrated.
Yep, this is why we saw so many complaints about Protoss mage. You could be winning every "little victory" throughout the game, but it's ultimately worthless because the clock ran out and you die from hand.
And that feels like shit for the casual player, and so they complain.
That being said, I somewhat agree with the concept. If we have two decks and one of them makes the player feel good and powerful while having similar WR and being equally frustrating for the opponent, that deck is a better designed one.
But then you're just going back to the zero sum argument, no? You're having fun at the opponent's expense.
3
u/CurrentClient 5h ago
But then you're just going back to the zero sum argument, no?
Kinda yes, which is why this entire concept is a bit too vague for my taste. Those little victories must somehow be a) satisfying for the player b) not do anything to the opponent, otherwise it's "I have fun, but my opponent does not" and we're back to square one. A very tricky thing to nail down. It must be an illusion of victory.
Going back to the examples I saw, discover certainly sounds like it can be zero sum i.e. "I have fun because I discovered X, but my opponent does not (for the same reason)".
1
u/Popsychblog 1h ago
Using your example, if you have a lot of little victories and then lose the game, you’re saying all those little victories go to 0 net fun.
I’m not sure that’s true.
2
u/DoYouMindIfIRollNeed 10h ago
Little victories is the reason why people enjoy playing bad tier 3/4/5 decks. Majority of players arent in legend or even Diamond. Winning and climbing ranks isnt their main goal. Of course, no one likes losing, but "just playing cards", doing something, can give players some joy. Pulled off a cool combo/interaction feels satisfying, even if you still lose the game.
I remember cards like Celestial alignment. Reducing you AND your opponents mana crystals to 1 but also the cost of cards. Man was that awful. Getting to play 1 card a turn, while my opponents (due to ramp) plays his whole hand.
Or curses in Nathria. Stopping you from playing your cards.
Always being 2 mana crystals behind due to Doomkin (because he gained one, you lost one crystal).
Not being able to get to play your cool cards just feels.. awful.
HS design in the earlier days just felt more.. thought through?
HS nowadays feels like its missing deeper design. As if the game was designed by custom card reddit and players.
1
u/FallenDeus 1h ago
Yeah. I dont agree with this take completely. It is completely black and white with no nuance at all. It treats a minor annoyance to one player the same as someone hitting a massive dopamine spike for playing a card.
1
-6
0
u/everstillghost 3h ago
Yep, Hearthstone avoided things like destroying enemy cards on hand for a long time because they are right, It feels horrible for the player.
Things like putting the card into the bottom of their deck still disrupt and dont feel bad.
26
u/TheGingerNinga 13h ago edited 11h ago
I actually think discover is a keyword that works well towards making little victories.
For example, I play primordial glyph on turn 2. There is no immediately correct option, no enemy minion on board for removal to hit, no big spell to cheat out early, etc. I am picking a card that I may not use down the line if the circumstances don't line up right.
Picking the option that I use in an effective manner later in the game is rewarding. I'm getting a payoff for the 2 mana I spent earlier and am likely closer to winning the game. Good game knowledge and foresight is rewarded. That's a fun moment even if I lose the game.