Hacker News Reader

> How come then, that the simulator says that the player actually wins more games without The Coin?

This isn't what the results say. The win rate for the player who goes first ("Player 0") rose from 41% to 61% when the player who goes second ("Player 1") was not given The Coin.

This is summarized in the text:

> The Coin basically makes what used to be a first player advantage into a first player disadvantage. Not bad for a single card!

Ah, misunderstanding from my side. Thanks for clarifying.

And don't forget the further upside of going second, you get an extra card in your starting hand. I really do feel like going second is far superior to going first right now.

As far as I'm aware, official stats from Blizzard is that the player going first is wins a higher % of the time than going second, despite the coin. I'll try and find the source.

User dtech already found the source for me (: -> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8020232

Not with all decks though apparently. Freeze mage can benefit from the coin immensely

Miracle rogue too (coin defias ringleader anyone?). Certain rush/zoo decks to get extra minions out faster can be overwhelming.

I appreciate your point about coin being stronger in some decks than others - that doesn't change the fact that across _all_ of the games of hearthstone being played, if you go first you're more likely to win than if you go second.

> Maybe I'm too dumb to understand this, but my intuitive idea is that a card like The Coin gives you various advantages and no disadvantages, since it is an extra card that comes for free and gives you more flexibility.

The Coin does indeed give you advantages with no downside. However, the reason why you get the coin has to do with the mechanics of Hearthstone. In the case where The Coin didn't exist, you would be at a severe disadvantage if you didn't go first.

In Hearthstone, since you can generally control where your minions attack, going first gives you tempo. If your opponent didn't have the coin, as the player going first you could permanently maintain your tempo and win with regularity (depending on what cards you draw). In card games it is important that tempo be something that can change in the course of the game in order to make things more fair.

IMO the Coin is a tricky thing. While you can argue that it balances the two player, the second player has the additional choice of when to use the Coin.

The first player has the advantage of going first. That is a given advantage, with no choice involved. It is harder to "waste" that advantage. The Coin, on the other hand, is much more linked to choice (when to use) and therefore, easily wasted. It is also an additional "thing" for the second player to think about when playing, while the first player doesn't have this burden.

Player 1 gets the coin, but the table is listing Player 0's win percentage. So when you give the coin to Player 1, Player 0's win percentage goes down. So yes, the coin is a massive advantage. In other words, the player wins more 20% games when the opponent doesn't get the coin, all else being equal.

If you want some real-world stats about going first vs. second, try the stats from Arena Mastery[1], which more or less match what Bilzzard has said anecdotally: with the second player getting the coin, going first is still a slight advantage.

[1] http://arenamastery.com/sitewide.php

In that article, he shows that giving the coin to p1 (the 2nd player, it's 0-based) gives a /disadvantage/ to p0 (the 1st player), so it is actually beneficial for the player who gets the coin.

In the simulator maybe, but according to Blizzard statistics going first has a small advantage (51%-53% winrate in feb 2014: http://www.hearthpwn.com/news/296-developer-interview-with-e...).

It was much greater before the extra card and coin was added.

That might be true. The advantage that The Coin gives you is highly dependent on the deck that you have. In that particular deck that I used in the simulations, the advantage is rather large. For a deck consisting of stronger (higher mana) cards, the advantage is much smaller. I think it's basically due to the fact that a 2-mana drop vs 1-mana drop is much stronger than a 7-mana drop vs a 6-mana drop.

Yes, sorry I was referring to his numbers in the simulator rather than in the actual game.

In the game it depends on the deck - for some decks, it's more useful than others, either due to particular mana curves, or to triggered effects (the coin counts as a spell, so can trigger cards like Gadgetzan Auctioneer or Wild Pyromancer)

I don't see anything about The Coin in that interview. Where did you get 51%-53% from?

It's right there

> Ben: It's about three percent better to go first over second.

The 51% was mentioned is in a previous Blizzcon QA

Adding a 'pretty good' card to a deck means you might draw that card when you need a critical one. Even though 'The Coin' is good, it may not work (as well) with the rest of the cards. As you say, 1 card, 1 round can decide the game.

While this is true in the general case, The Coin is an extra card added to your hand at the beginning of the game and is never a part of your deck. It is purely beneficial.

It is. Additionally the person who gets the Coin also gets an extra card in their starting hand. You can "mulligan" this card, or swap it out of your starting hand for another draw. Although this might seem relatively trivial, having an extra chance to mulligan a card increases your chances significantly of getting a card that you want in a specific matchup.

In Hearthstone the coin is an extra card that the second player is always given at the start of the game, so no such disadvantage in Hearthstone.