Not to mention that they are assisted by other developers not from the team but from Blizzard.
So of those 70+ approximately 15-20 are said to be development and Balance for the game. Others are more for the technical aspect of making sure the game runs smoothly. So for 1/3 or 1/4 of the team to try to come up with and develop 130 cards each expansion and play test them thoroughly enough to fund every possible broken combination is a bit of a stretch. I'm not saying they don't make mistakes and take a while to fix them, but i dont think its fair to expect so few people to do what hundreds of thousands of players do in a week.
That aside, I don't think the idea of adding some fresh eyes to the team is a bad idea, at least to get some other ideas out there but for the most part I think they are at least trying to make a game that's accessible and fun for all types and levels of players.
Will a players dumb blind luck carry them all the way to the pro leagues though? No, and the reason for that is that they won't have the experience that the pros have to make different call. Everyone bashes most aggro decks as brainless but I've seen plenty of players punished for bad plays because they didn't make good trades or just don't play around any form of removal.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity” ― Sun Tzu
before MSG, you had 2 standard shaman midrange decks, now you have at least 4 different shaman decks. also with other decks, so in that way it's way better.
Some people favours aggro, some favours midrange, but most favours control. at the moment the meta is more aggro/midrange then it was before MSG.
Hearthstone is fine, Only thing I don't like creating same cards but then cost is +1 and the stats are +1+1. but overall hearthstone is the best card game and they will stay that way
I just think there must be a culture of fear in the HS development wing at Blizzard. Maybe they are worried they will "break" the game if they expand too much. There are TONs of new mechanics (They have 20 years of MTG to draw from) that they could incorporate, but they don't. Why do legendaries have to be minions? Where aren't there legendary spells or weapons? Why are they afraid to incorporate an attack discard mechanic? etc. etc. The reality is, if they want a dynamic and versatile meta, they need to provide a WIDE range of competitive options for players. The game is still young, but I think there is enough of a base of cards that they can start to splash the releases with more variation.
Ive been playing for free since the beginning, and have a great collection (there are no legendaries that I want and don't have), but now the game is a grind to me and I ask myself everyday why I keep playing. The daily quests are the only thing that keeps me coming back. The reason I have a great collection is because I haven't let a daily quest go uncompleted for 2 years. Yikes...maybe I have a problem.
Well, look at the community reaction when new things ARE expanded on. Patches for example is a new and interesting design, and it's extremely powerful... and people are up in arms. Drakonid Operative is new and interesting because of how powerful it is to be able to pick one of your opponent's cards... we have a million page nerf thread on these forums for it. Dirty Rat is genuinely an interesting card because it encourages hand reads and knowing the matchup... once again nerf threads galore.
We've also gotten multi-class cards that were received well and likely to be explored later I imagine. Kazakus is genuinely an amazing card that really does leverage the fact this is a digital card game. Jade Golem is interesting, and while I wish Goons were better it still is an interesting mechanic for a lot of players (myself included). People chip in that we don't get interesting designs, but what they're fixated on are superficial things like new keywords; if you look at what cards ACTUALLY DO nowadays, we have a significantly more complex and varied game than we did at release.
Team 5 definitely has work to do to make the game better (ladder and Arena really do need some kind of overhaul), but they've honestly been doing quite well from a design perspective. Proposing we scrap the team because "qq blade flurry design space" is an atrocious solution to what the community really needs to be doing; providing actual, reasonable feedback instead of hurling insults at the dev team.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Articles I suggest every player reads to improve at the game;
They still refuse to balance the damn game. That was what the digital CCG had going for it, easy boosts/nerfs of cards as and when they needed to keep the game at it's best and keep the meta fresh. You look at Overwatch, or hell even Heroes of the Storm, the balance patches flow continually all with explanation.
Standard is not and never was the answer. They are incapable of predicting what new cards might do to the meta as they lack foresight, this keeps them boring and generally safe. Their dev's know they work without the safety net of nerfs/boosts. So what do we get...more and more high powered 1 and 2 drops - predictably OP, all players will want/need but no risk to Blizzard of stuff like the old UTH buzzard or Patron combos. It's shit and they need to reassess their vision for where this game is going.
Actually, he seems incredibly insightful and observant as where you come across as childish and ignorant of game design. Some of us have been playing CCG games since the very beginning. I've played at least 20 of them. In every single game, I've ever played some factions/colors/whatever are stronger than others at any given time. It is impossible to create the perfect balance in an asymmetrical system and people really like asymmetrical card games.
The margins between what makes a tier 1 deck and a junk deck in Hearthstone are razor thin. Change one or two cards and a deck becomes junk. Add a couple cards to another class and they become tier 1. That is because we are talking about 10% margins in win percentages over hundreds of games. You can win games with what are considered crap decks, I do it all the time. They are playable, just not consistent enough for competitive play.
The truth of the matters is that perfectly balanced card games are boring card games. If they wanted it perfectly balanced then everyone played wit the same cards, no factions, no heroes. And then all the cards are mathematically valued the same. No random mechanics, no significant risk vs reward calculations. I've played games like that, they stink and no one plays them. I've also played games that truly are wildly imbalanced and Hearthstone is not that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out my gaming blog: Downy Owlbear Designs and download free P&P games. Or argue with me about games on Qallout, the video debate site.
As long as you can attack your opponent's face directly and can't interact on your opponent's turn, there will always be people complaining about "skill-less" aggro decks and OTK combo decks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Howdy! [cardimg=gold ]Card Name[ /cardimg] (no space)
@sigtrent; I absolutely agree with you, people lodge these complaints about the balance and design of the game... but this is literally the same case in every card game like MTG or Hearthstone; there will always be best decks and somewhat lopsided power levels between factions because that's simply the cost of making varied and interesting design decisions in the first place. It's also amazing how people latch onto the idea of "unplayable decks", when in reality it's not like there's ever a deck in the game that is truly unable to win matches unless you're designing it to do so; it doesn't mean they're competitively viable (where winrate absolutely matters), but if you're aiming to be competitive you have no business lodging complaints 7/9 classes are viable.
For the people that hate the direction of the game, I can certainly understand if Hearthstone isn't your thing. There's nothing wrong with playing the game you enjoy, but if Hearthstone's current design philosophies aren't suiting your fancy you probably just need to accept that's not going to get better. RNG is here to stay, stuff like Aggro is certainly here to stay, and odds are the balance philosophy will remain almost exactly as it is. Classes are probably never going to be universally viable, and there will always be a card that you don't like the design of. A new team might do something different, but the fact is most of the people who play Hearthstone are genuinely fine with these realities.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Articles I suggest every player reads to improve at the game;
I don't think you understand the free to play model. It's supposed to be minimum development in order to maximize the profits on something a lot of people won't spend money on. It's also supposed to be very addictive and not incredibly deep.
Also, you cannot say a majority dislike the game. That is pure confirmation bias based on what you see here and on reddit. It has no value or proof behind it. If it really was bad they wouldn't do what they do. They have way more data than you do on the subject and the fact of the matter is that they do the 90% better than everyone else. However, everyone has the expectation that they should do all 100% better than everyone else. It's not about greed, it's about expectations.
You should freshen up on your reading. Let me clarify;
I didn't say a majority dislike the game, I said a majority disliked the direction. But you're right, it's not the majority because the majority is silent. Have you heard of population sampling? It's a statistical science that demonstrates how a portion (sample) of the entire group (population) mirrors the group in a lesser or higher degree. It isn't an exact science of course, but this is how you're able to know that smoking will likely kill you. Not because you've experienced it firsthand, but because statistical science says so. Of course there has been done no analysis on the happiness of Hearthstone players in relation to the game, but if only 1 out of 1000 players voiced their opinions online, there would still be an astounding amount of people with the same opinion.
"If it was really bad they wouldn't do what they do." I'll refer to my previous statement; "They need to create a game which makes money and isn't strictly hated or bad." Talking about confirmation bias, how can you assert that "they do it 90% better than everyone else"? They're NOT engaging with the community as much as they should. If you've studied marketing, you'd know that this isn't because they know their stuff, it's because they don't care to. Their total equity is at 8 billion dollars. They can afford to be less poky about user complaints.
It's about greed, not expectations. It's called capitalism and it doesn't change. And about not understanding the F2P model, the game isn't in development. It's maintaining income by releasing expansions and other minor stuff, something which isn't nearly as expensive as developing the game. @AbusingKel is very correct when he said the game caters to casual players. That's kinda the goal of F2P games. This doesn't mean they shouldn't make the right choices.
Oh boy, now you condescend me with lectures about statistics. I'll ignore that though given the anonymous nature of online forums. They actually have done analysis on it. A while back there were random surveys sent out by Blizzard to assess this (and apprently do it from time to time) as it typical so yea they do have a good idea about what to do . So wrong-o on that one and it essentially invalidates all your other points since it proves they're doing exactly what they should be doing, which is get a random sampling from their entire userbase. Link: http://www.hearthpwn.com/news/1794-would-you-pay-for-new-features-blizzard-asks-in-a
They do plenty to engage the community. It's just not up to your grandiose expectation. Also, due to the nature of it being a card game and how much effect a small change has as. It's really not fair to compare it to a game of another genre. Especially something with MOBA like qualities.
I say 90% because I've played the other online card games. They do a small percentage of things better than Hearthstone, but shit the bed hard on everything else by comparison.
Your excessively paranoid that you're getting screwed by the man, but really have no evidence that they are doing anything besides what everyone else does. It's just that it happens to be Blizzard and people despise their success despite that their products are of a much higher quality by comparison to what's out there. It's not greed so much as creating a really good product. Sure, they're rarely that innovative, but holy shit do they know how to polish the hell out of something.
The solution is obvious. After each release, Team 5 should hold an internal tournament. The bottom finishers should be fired and replaced with fresh blood. Either they aren't good enough to understand the game they are designing, or they got unlucky, in which case the designers would be less likely add more RNG to the game for fear that it might cost them their jobs.
In a bad position: Not at all. Quite good, actually.
New design team? Not a complete overhaul, but certainly fresh blood, and not at junior levels. Honestly, I think the team is far too small for the size of the game, at all positions: design, testing, development, communications. If they're asking for more resources and not getting it, it's not their fault but ATVI leadership for not furthering investment into a product with strong revenue growth. If they're being offered more heads and declining because they don't know how to deploy them, it should be forced upon them in addition to a program manager or two to help push forward new initiatives.
The game would be much more enjoyable if classes were equally strong, while skill is the decisive factor.
I'm honestly reluctant to reply to you given how grossly insulting your comparison was.
That said, nobody in this thread is arguing that unbalance is a good thing. They're arguing that balancing a game is ridiculously difficult and that just because some people don't understand the intricacies doesn't mean they don't exist.
I don't think you understand the free to play model. It's supposed to be minimum development in order to maximize the profits on something a lot of people won't spend money on. It's also supposed to be very addictive and not incredibly deep.
Also, you cannot say a majority dislike the game. That is pure confirmation bias based on what you see here and on reddit. It has no value or proof behind it. If it really was bad they wouldn't do what they do. They have way more data than you do on the subject and the fact of the matter is that they do the 90% better than everyone else. However, everyone has the expectation that they should do all 100% better than everyone else. It's not about greed, it's about expectations.
You should freshen up on your reading. Let me clarify;
I didn't say a majority dislike the game, I said a majority disliked the direction. But you're right, it's not the majority because the majority is silent. Have you heard of population sampling? It's a statistical science that demonstrates how a portion (sample) of the entire group (population) mirrors the group in a lesser or higher degree. It isn't an exact science of course, but this is how you're able to know that smoking will likely kill you. Not because you've experienced it firsthand, but because statistical science says so. Of course there has been done no analysis on the happiness of Hearthstone players in relation to the game, but if only 1 out of 1000 players voiced their opinions online, there would still be an astounding amount of people with the same opinion.
"If it was really bad they wouldn't do what they do." I'll refer to my previous statement; "They need to create a game which makes money and isn't strictly hated or bad." Talking about confirmation bias, how can you assert that "they do it 90% better than everyone else"? They're NOT engaging with the community as much as they should. If you've studied marketing, you'd know that this isn't because they know their stuff, it's because they don't care to. Their total equity is at 8 billion dollars. They can afford to be less poky about user complaints.
It's about greed, not expectations. It's called capitalism and it doesn't change. And about not understanding the F2P model, the game isn't in development. It's maintaining income by releasing expansions and other minor stuff, something which isn't nearly as expensive as developing the game. @AbusingKel is very correct when he said the game caters to casual players. That's kinda the goal of F2P games. This doesn't mean they shouldn't make the right choices.
Oh boy, now you condescend me with lectures about statistics. I'll ignore that though given the anonymous nature of online forums. They actually have done analysis on it. A while back there were random surveys sent out by Blizzard to assess this (and apprently do it from time to time) as it typical so yea they do have a good idea about what to do . So wrong-o on that one and it essentially invalidates all your other points since it proves they're doing exactly what they should be doing, which is get a random sampling from their entire userbase. Link: http://www.hearthpwn.com/news/1794-would-you-pay-for-new-features-blizzard-asks-in-a
They do plenty to engage the community. It's just not up to your grandiose expectation. Also, due to the nature of it being a card game and how much effect a small change has as. It's really not fair to compare it to a game of another genre. Especially something with MOBA like qualities.
I say 90% because I've played the other online card games. They do a small percentage of things better than Hearthstone, but shit the bed hard on everything else by comparison.
Your excessively paranoid that you're getting screwed by the man, but really have no evidence that they are doing anything besides what everyone else does. It's just that it happens to be Blizzard and people despise their success despite that their products are of a much higher quality by comparison to what's out there. It's not greed so much as creating a really good product. Sure, they're rarely that innovative, but holy shit do they know how to polish the hell out of something.
The difference between my statement and yours is that yours is a hollow opinion based on taste, while mine is based on logic and reasoning. We'll have to agree to disagree. And sorry if I come off as an asshole, I just don't agree with your views and I think they're extremely flawed. Happy New Year.
What in the flying fuck? I gave you actual data showing that they do survey their audience and use that as feedback and you tell me it's a hollow opinion? You are just sticking your head in the ground and pretending the evidence doesn't exist. That's not logic and reasoning. You've never provided anything of the sort. Just ramblings of a paranoid delusional who doesn't get out in the real world. What a character you are. At least try and prove me wrong.
Yes since beta I hear people repeating after each other: balancing is difficult. We send people to the moon, put a rover on mars, but balancing a cardgame is "ridiculously" difficult? Balancing is a choice. And if choices are made as they are made people start to think balancing is difficult.
But let me for reasons sake assume balancing is that hard. Why then every effort is made to disbalance the meta even more by creating cards like councilman, flame wreathed and the like. Why classes rotate in being strong? It is a choice not an impossibility.
Your reasoning is: I am a bad guy, because it is hard to be a decent human being. Try harder...
No, my reasoning is that people think there must be a way to do anything with no evidence to the contrary. My comment about your comparison was to let you know that likening video game design to rape is in poor taste and lowers the level of dialog.
Let me give a more apt comparison that going to the moon: forecasting weather. Accurate prediction of the weather is extraordinarily difficult because there are a large number of subtle, interacting factors. One small change in the weather in one area can have surprisingly large effects elsewhere. It's why weather forecasts are all probabilities: there is a 75% chance of rain today, not 0% or 100%.
What this has to do with card games is that small changes to single cards can result in a cascade of effects. You nerf one card and the deck it belongs to goes from Tier 1 to Tier 3. Because that deck went down in power its associated cards went down in power. People stop playing that deck. Now the decks that countered that deck also go down in power because their favorite prey is absent. The cards that make up those decks are also now not as favored because they don't have a good deck to belong to. The decks that the previous Tier 1 deck suppressed are now on the rise. The interactions between their cards become more meaningful. Now these decks are the top dogs and people are pointing to their best cards as broken.
Things are subtly interconnected and humans are very poor at predicting how they will work out. Claiming that balance is difficult is a legitimate, accurate statement about the state of game development. Typically development teams get better at it with time, but also make peace with some of the things they know they can't change (such as player behavior).
I have no idea what feedback blizzard is getting when literally 100% of everything people say is not only things that they hate, but things that blizzard change later anyway.
So what exactly are these idiots reading that still make them take 2 months to make changes? ? At what point will they learn their lesson? They tried at the start to "let the meta settle". Whoops, didn't work. The meta settles in like 2 days, they think it settles in 2 months. No sorry.
But they keep at it. They think that's how the game works. It doesn't. It never has, it never will. So make changes faster.
Simple, effective, intelligent. But that's not the team that's in charge sadly.
Yes, the funnest period of Hearthstone for me was back in GvG when all I had in terms of cool cards were Tirion Fordring, Deathwing, and Bolvar Fordragon, and winning with them (especially Bolvar, ofc) felt really good. But after investing money into the game, buying the adventures and countless amounts of packs, and seeing my winrate go way higher just because I bought Naxx is pretty disappointing in hindsight. Now, Blizzard prints cards to avoid having the meta of the past: decks and cards so powerful that everyone runs them, and especially avoiding strong legendaries, so gimmick legendaries are printed in lieu. However, the only change is that lower rarity cards are made more powerful in replacement, and the metagame is dominated by decks that require 0-1 legendaries, which most players can afford to build. "Patron Warrior is/was cancer" is the stupidest thing I've ever heard, because I'd rather play against skilled Patron Warriors back to back than play against completely mindless decks, getting beaten again and again, just because I want to play cards that are unique or interesting in design.
Blizzard doesn't love control, like they say they do, because they don't understand the point of control. Control is about taking a whooping through the early and mid game, surviving and becoming harder to kill as time passes, and beating out your opponent with strong end game minions and plays. There's a reason Control Warrior, the most played/successful control class, isn't seen much, and it's not because their early or mid game got too weak (Sludge Belcher and Death's Bite leaving certainly hurt, but it survived). It isn't played anymore because it has no quality end game other than C'Thun, and C'Thun Warrior has less room for creativity than vanilla Control Warrior. We don't want cool and interesting effects if they don't help win, that's not at all what control is about. We want cards that kick serious ass, but Blizzard is too afraid to print cards in the 8, 9, and 10 slots on Dr. Boom level of power, even though a lot of his strength was in his convenience as a 7-drop and the fact that no other card beat Dr. Boom on turn 7 (plus turn 7 is mid-game for control and late game for anything else, so it worked for everything). I want to see more cards like C'Thun and N'Zoth, but more importantly, cards that actually support those archetypes. When's the last time you saw a good N'Zoth deck? Deathrattles these days are just too aggressive or effect-reliant, and they don't know how to make a deathrattle effect that isn't just something sticky, like Rat Pack.
This is like 2.5 mini rants in one, and I could go on more, but I'll just leave it at this. In my opinion, Blizzard does not respect control/combo as legitimate archetypes, or just don't understand the point of them, and that's a huge, huge problem for the game.
On one hand you have a hard worker striving to be 'the man' and has to do so by creating better content. On the other you have a successful man whose only interest is in maintaining wealth and income, because people buy the crap anyways.
Blizzard could probably shit on everyones aunts and we'd still play.
Lol if you'd include WotC in your metaphor you'll have to describe a real piece of shit
The game has changed so drastically from fun to terribly painfully. The agro synergy in shamon and warrior is so broken. All their cards work together but for control to win we have to top deck. The point aggro can win on a bad draw but control will always lose. Sad
What in the flying fuck? I gave you actual data showing that they do survey their audience and use that as feedback and you tell me it's a hollow opinion? You are just sticking your head in the ground and pretending the evidence doesn't exist. That's not logic and reasoning. You've never provided anything of the sort. Just ramblings of a paranoid delusional who doesn't get out in the real world. What a character you are. At least try and prove me wrong.
You thought one single survey would counter everything I said? My reasoning and logic is based on references, did you miss that too? Sorry, you lost all my respect when you attempted to diminish me with insults of a ten year old. I can't prove you wrong, and you can't prove me wrong. So again, we have to agree to disagree. I'm not going to debase myself by debating with a murloc like yourself.
What fucking references? You had none lol. Just opinions. I gave proof and if you looked at the link it says that they do that periodically. Just because they don't specifically do what you want doesn't mean anything. Your opinion isn't worth anything and your lazy retorts aren't either. Bring some actual proof to the party bro. You're not only extremely condescending, but painfully and willfully ignorant.
Things are subtly interconnected and humans are very poor at predicting how they will work out. Claiming that balance is difficult is a legitimate, accurate statement about the state of game development. Typically development teams get better at it with time, but also make peace with some of the things they know they can't change (such as player behavior).
"Poor predicting how they will work out" ? They have play testing. They already must have known that the Goons wouldn't work e.g with hunter. It is utterly nonsensical to defend bad card design as simplistic as you do. They already must have known that the pirates would rule the meta and that pirate warrior would be a thing for the intellectually impaired within the community.
What you call difficult, I call sloppy, intellectually lazy card design.
You missed the point, what should they have done about that? Nerfed Pirate Warrior and buffed hand buff hunters? Then their counters and the decks they counter would go up and down in power and the meta wouldn't necessarily be any better.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
“In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity” ― Sun Tzu
My current disaster-piece
before MSG, you had 2 standard shaman midrange decks, now you have at least 4 different shaman decks. also with other decks, so in that way it's way better.
Some people favours aggro, some favours midrange, but most favours control. at the moment the meta is more aggro/midrange then it was before MSG.
Hearthstone is fine, Only thing I don't like creating same cards but then cost is +1 and the stats are +1+1. but overall hearthstone is the best card game and they will stay that way
AJAX AMSTERDAM
Articles I suggest every player reads to improve at the game;
MTG/Hearthstone biases to avoid
Reframing negative Hearthstone experiences to improve at the game
Who's the Beatdown?
The margins between what makes a tier 1 deck and a junk deck in Hearthstone are razor thin. Change one or two cards and a deck becomes junk. Add a couple cards to another class and they become tier 1. That is because we are talking about 10% margins in win percentages over hundreds of games. You can win games with what are considered crap decks, I do it all the time. They are playable, just not consistent enough for competitive play.
The truth of the matters is that perfectly balanced card games are boring card games. If they wanted it perfectly balanced then everyone played wit the same cards, no factions, no heroes. And then all the cards are mathematically valued the same. No random mechanics, no significant risk vs reward calculations. I've played games like that, they stink and no one plays them. I've also played games that truly are wildly imbalanced and Hearthstone is not that.
Check out my gaming blog: Downy Owlbear Designs and download free P&P games.
Or argue with me about games on Qallout, the video debate site.
As long as you can attack your opponent's face directly and can't interact on your opponent's turn, there will always be people complaining about "skill-less" aggro decks and OTK combo decks.
Howdy! [cardimg=gold ]Card Name[ /cardimg] (no space)
Hey, how's it going?
What's poppin,' player?
@sigtrent; I absolutely agree with you, people lodge these complaints about the balance and design of the game... but this is literally the same case in every card game like MTG or Hearthstone; there will always be best decks and somewhat lopsided power levels between factions because that's simply the cost of making varied and interesting design decisions in the first place. It's also amazing how people latch onto the idea of "unplayable decks", when in reality it's not like there's ever a deck in the game that is truly unable to win matches unless you're designing it to do so; it doesn't mean they're competitively viable (where winrate absolutely matters), but if you're aiming to be competitive you have no business lodging complaints 7/9 classes are viable.
For the people that hate the direction of the game, I can certainly understand if Hearthstone isn't your thing. There's nothing wrong with playing the game you enjoy, but if Hearthstone's current design philosophies aren't suiting your fancy you probably just need to accept that's not going to get better. RNG is here to stay, stuff like Aggro is certainly here to stay, and odds are the balance philosophy will remain almost exactly as it is. Classes are probably never going to be universally viable, and there will always be a card that you don't like the design of. A new team might do something different, but the fact is most of the people who play Hearthstone are genuinely fine with these realities.
Articles I suggest every player reads to improve at the game;
MTG/Hearthstone biases to avoid
Reframing negative Hearthstone experiences to improve at the game
Who's the Beatdown?
Guys-
The solution is obvious. After each release, Team 5 should hold an internal tournament. The bottom finishers should be fired and replaced with fresh blood. Either they aren't good enough to understand the game they are designing, or they got unlucky, in which case the designers would be less likely add more RNG to the game for fear that it might cost them their jobs.
Read this guy, if you haven't done yet
"Sit and come relax, riddle off the mac. It's the patch."
In a bad position: Not at all. Quite good, actually.
New design team? Not a complete overhaul, but certainly fresh blood, and not at junior levels. Honestly, I think the team is far too small for the size of the game, at all positions: design, testing, development, communications. If they're asking for more resources and not getting it, it's not their fault but ATVI leadership for not furthering investment into a product with strong revenue growth. If they're being offered more heads and declining because they don't know how to deploy them, it should be forced upon them in addition to a program manager or two to help push forward new initiatives.
CCGing since '98.
Is Hearthstone in a bad spot? No.
Should they get a new design team? Yes and no. We don't need to fundamentally change game's mechanics or design. We just need smarter minds in charge.
I have no idea what feedback blizzard is getting when literally 100% of everything people say is not only things that they hate, but things that blizzard change later anyway.
So what exactly are these idiots reading that still make them take 2 months to make changes?
?
At what point will they learn their lesson? They tried at the start to "let the meta settle". Whoops, didn't work. The meta settles in like 2 days, they think it settles in 2 months. No sorry.
But they keep at it. They think that's how the game works. It doesn't. It never has, it never will. So make changes faster.
Simple, effective, intelligent. But that's not the team that's in charge sadly.
Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice - Sneak Review! http://www.thepoxbox.com/challenges.php?id=batmanvsuperman
The biggest problem in my mind is that Hearthstone has the opportunity to become a control/combo/midrange based metagame again and again thanks to the rotations, but every expansion the only cards control decks get are gimmicky. Medivh, the Guardian, The Curator, Raza the Chained, White Eyes, Krul the Unshackled, Wrathion, Mayor Noggenfogger, Inkmaster Solia, Kazakus, Prince Malchezaar, Moroes, Anomalus, Herald Volazj, Cho'gall, Y'Shaarj, Rage Unbound, Giant Sand Worm, Cabalist's Tome, Blood of The Ancient One, Luckydo Buccaneer, Unlicensed Apothecary, Scaled Nightmare, and so on, all are undervalued, too gimmicky, or get simply beat by cards including Malchezaar's Imp, Darkshire Librarian, Silverware Golem, N'Zoth's First Mate, Small-Time Buccaneer, Patches the Pirate, Jade Claws, Jade Idol, Aya Blackpaw, Smuggler's Run, Grimestreet Outfitter, and Spirit Claws, just to name a select, relevant few. Notice anything about the rarities of these cards?
Yes, the funnest period of Hearthstone for me was back in GvG when all I had in terms of cool cards were Tirion Fordring, Deathwing, and Bolvar Fordragon, and winning with them (especially Bolvar, ofc) felt really good. But after investing money into the game, buying the adventures and countless amounts of packs, and seeing my winrate go way higher just because I bought Naxx is pretty disappointing in hindsight. Now, Blizzard prints cards to avoid having the meta of the past: decks and cards so powerful that everyone runs them, and especially avoiding strong legendaries, so gimmick legendaries are printed in lieu. However, the only change is that lower rarity cards are made more powerful in replacement, and the metagame is dominated by decks that require 0-1 legendaries, which most players can afford to build. "Patron Warrior is/was cancer" is the stupidest thing I've ever heard, because I'd rather play against skilled Patron Warriors back to back than play against completely mindless decks, getting beaten again and again, just because I want to play cards that are unique or interesting in design.
Blizzard doesn't love control, like they say they do, because they don't understand the point of control. Control is about taking a whooping through the early and mid game, surviving and becoming harder to kill as time passes, and beating out your opponent with strong end game minions and plays. There's a reason Control Warrior, the most played/successful control class, isn't seen much, and it's not because their early or mid game got too weak (Sludge Belcher and Death's Bite leaving certainly hurt, but it survived). It isn't played anymore because it has no quality end game other than C'Thun, and C'Thun Warrior has less room for creativity than vanilla Control Warrior. We don't want cool and interesting effects if they don't help win, that's not at all what control is about. We want cards that kick serious ass, but Blizzard is too afraid to print cards in the 8, 9, and 10 slots on Dr. Boom level of power, even though a lot of his strength was in his convenience as a 7-drop and the fact that no other card beat Dr. Boom on turn 7 (plus turn 7 is mid-game for control and late game for anything else, so it worked for everything). I want to see more cards like C'Thun and N'Zoth, but more importantly, cards that actually support those archetypes. When's the last time you saw a good N'Zoth deck? Deathrattles these days are just too aggressive or effect-reliant, and they don't know how to make a deathrattle effect that isn't just something sticky, like Rat Pack.
This is like 2.5 mini rants in one, and I could go on more, but I'll just leave it at this. In my opinion, Blizzard does not respect control/combo as legitimate archetypes, or just don't understand the point of them, and that's a huge, huge problem for the game.
Don't think it's in a bad position but i do miss Blade fury being able to do damage to the face. It also costed less