Blizzard should just make certain cards not draftable with certain cards, with restriction. For example: AVIANNA: cannot use draft together with Star aligner in the same deck. Problem solve. This card still playable with other combo decks, such as C'thun OTK decks. Naga sea witch: Cannot use together with mountain Giant in the same deck. GIant warlock Deck becomes less OP. Giggling inventor: Cannot use together with Baky the Mooneater. This card will still be playable but not insanely strong in odd-only decks. Iceblock: Cannot be drafted together with Open the waygate. Players will feel less frustrated by all the stalling tools the opponents have. Call to arms: Cannot be drafted together with Genn Greymane. Card will still be strong in OTK paladin deck.
I think that Blizzard should seriously consider this method instead of nerfing those cards into oblivion. Blizzard will need to consider all the possible OP combination in wild with each new expansion. Banning certain cards to be used together is the best way to help with design space in future. Thoughts?
I don't believe that any well-intentioned suggestion for change gives someone license to be a dumbass retard and insult you just for having an idea and expressing it. So in that regard, much of the response you have received here is pretty unwarranted and some people should be ashamed of themselves.
That said, however, I do agree with their insinuation that your idea (while appreciatedly thought out) is not a good one from a design point of view, because it serves only to limit design space and interaction based on currently noted card-cohesion. Essentially what this means is that your concept is a knee-jerk reaction that focuses on a card interaction that you don't particularly like (eg: Avianna and Star Aligner) and so rather than deal directly with the mechanic that is causing the problem, you are focussing on that specific combination. The problem here is that this is a "plaster" rather than fixing the actual problem. It means that further card combinations that havent been discovered / created yet will become a problem in the future and you will be back to square one. From a maintenance point of view, this is a coding nightmare, since you will forever be updating lists of cards that cannot be used together.
Also, you will end up missing vital problems in the process - so for example, your restriction of no Giggling Inventor with Baku - you are ignoring the very real problem with Quest Rogue, which doesn't use Baku.
All in all, it's not a feasible idea in fairness. But well done for at least coming up with an idea / alternative instead of just complaining about the nerf like some do.
I see a lot of people complaining how the Avian / Kun combo was such a problem, as if there aren't a shit load of combo decks in the format that serves the very purpose of letting those decks be played. Blizzard screwed the pooch by making Psychmelon, not by leaving one ridiculous combo deck out of many in the place it belonged.
The entire point of Wild IS the unbalance.
So now you people crying about how OP that deck was better get ready. Blizzard keeps nerfing Wild cards on top of nerfing an EVERGREEN card so now nothing is off limits. And people praise this shit?
Bad expansions (Witchwood, Boomsday), head-scratching nerfs along with just really bad design (Crystal Core, Psychmelon) which are causing a ripple effect on cards nobody was really bitching about. And when I say "really", I mean there was no overwhelming outcry over Mana Wyrm. Half the people bitching about Avania were nowhere to be found before Psychmelon.
I can't wait until the next expansion. I wonder what card they will develop only to nerf years from now...
I actually think OPs idea has merit to it, and it's the haters who're being childish, not him. However, I would implement it differently, and we already have precedent for this with odd/even and cards like Corpsetaker and Reno Jackson. Basically, give the card a regular benefit (as we already have) and a conditional benefit (that is only granted if their deck is constructed a certain way).
For example:
Giggling Inventor: Annoy-o-trons only gain divine shield if your deck has at least 8 minions with Taunt (this discourages its use in aggressive decks).
In the past, blizzard can normally nerf a card just by increasing its mana value by 1. Now with the odd and even mechanic, nerfing a card by increasing the mana value doesn’t work as well. If a card is OP in odd deck, then it will probably become OP in even deck. Blizzard has seriously limited the design space since the odd-even machanic was introduced. That’s why giggling inventor was nerf so hard. It is a really strong card, probably over power in odd Rogue or quest rogue before the nerf. If blizzard nerf it to 6 mana, that will power up even shaman. So it was nerf to the useless 7. However, it wasn’t crazily strong in control deck.
Anyway, although I don’t see card restriction is that hard to understand but who am I to say. Cards are printed so that players can create decks that are creative. Cards can be nerf if it creates a unique unfair advantage in certain decks, but cards can’t be banned to be used together even if they were only really OP when pair-up together? That’s a weird thing. So many players wants to ban certain cards or class in tournament mode, and they got angry at blizzard for not bringing that formate. but banning certain cards to be used together is the most stupid idea.
Another example, shudderwock is a just a strong card, it only becomes annoying when combine with Grumble.
Ditto to what everyone else said... childish and poorly thought out idea. What the true answer is that Blizzard needs to nerf cards so that insane combos cannot be done which eliminate interactive play. That really starts are card creation and seeing all the possibilities with other in the xpac or cards already in play. Needs more testing before release so there aren't these OTK insane plays that have ZERO interactivity.
With every card or combo there should always be a counter for more strategic and interactive play.
Jesus dude, how small of a font would they need to explain the restrictions on the card? Worse than Shahrazad.
Death knight cards don’t explain the hero power or the mechanic on the card. Jade machine doesn’t explain the jade golem is getting bigger each time with a cap at 30 on the card. Rin doesn’t explain what is ‘first seal’ or its ability to burn deck on the card. You can’t even findout what is ‘barnabus’ or it’s effect in druid quest unless you complete the quest in game. 0 explaination what a quest card reward effect in the game unless we search the details online.
My suggestion is The explanation will be done during deck building. It doesn’t even need lots of text in game. I remember blizzard use to ban certain cards in the past in tavern brawl. A Red Cross appear on the card and said it can’t be used in this event, My thought is, for example, when you select Shudderwock in your deck, a big Red Cross will show on Grumble, and you can’t select it. Then a red text said “ card restriction: this 2 cards can’t Be used together in the same decks.” It doesn’t even need a keyword on the card.
Anyway, just my thought with all the complains about OP deck due to certain cards are put in the same decks.
I never played any other TCG or CCG so I don’t know how other card game systems work. I remember watching MTG once and have no idea what is going on without learning the rule.
WYou don't know the meaning of restriction in TCGs. Restrictions is to be able to play a card with less copies than originally intended.
The problem in HS regarding to that, is that cards are already very limited (2 for non-legendaries, and 1 for legendaries), restricting them even less is not worthy. For that, just ban the card.
In MTG is different, because you may have up to 4 copies (with some exceptions) of any card, regardless rarity, and restgricting cards only affects the vintage format.
In shadowverse, you may have up to 3 copies of any card, regardless of rarity. And they have restricted some cards in unlimited to 1-of, because of power levels.
What HS needs is that the dev team stops using a policy of "we don't want people to be mad for nerfing cards", and start doing monthly balance changes. There will be always someone mad for any change made to the game, but the necessity of the majority outweighs the necessity of the individuals.
I might use a wrong word to explain my suggestion. I have never played any TCG before. I just thought of restricting certain cards to be used in the same deck during deck building due to their power level.
I might use a wrong word to explain my suggestion. I have never played any TCG before. I just thought of restricting certain cards to be used in the same deck during deck building due to their power level.
Some card games do restrict some cards, but not as harsh as that. In MTG, every card (except like 3 because of either being impossible for people with disabilities or having the card be a huuuuge waste of time) is allowed in vintage, but the strongest ones are restricted to one copy said card. The issue with bringing that into hearthstone is that you can only have 1 legendary in a deck and running 1 copy less of CTA or some other busted card is going to affect things a bit, but with smaller decks this change isn't as big.
Sorry by the way if my original comment was a bit rude, I didn't really mean it to come off as that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I don't have something witty about this deck, I just like it because Malygos is fun.
Well, hearthstone is a ccg that runs totally different from other card games. It is the first ccg that brings this genre of game famous in online era. Why can’t they impose a new harsh rule in their own game? I believe it is the first ccg game that has card crafting and closed economy instead of trading, despite trading games have existed for 20 plus years. Hearthstone success because it creates and tres new rules and ideas, not just follow traditional TCG rules. MTG may move their cards and mechanism online, but we can’t really move hearthstone offline without creating much mess.
For an outsider like me, this is just another of the game play rules. And it is less way complicated than any other trading card games. Just to understand the board rules for mtg is a big headache to me, and the card restriction you mention during the deck building for mtg, and the power of the deck it’s affect by limiting 2-4 cards, sound even more complicated to me. I can’t even bother to learn Artifact new 3 boards effects.
This is about as bad an idea as saying Kaladin can't post in the Salt thread. "You can't play those cards together because we said so." It's a good thing you're nowhere near a game design position because you're suggesting something that is for the idea that players should be both punished and restricted at the same time and against the idea of freedom and ability, solely because you have no way of properly correcting a "problem".
Stick to what you do best and get back to eating that dollar store glue you're so fond of.
Blizzard should just make certain cards not draftable with certain cards, with restriction.
Hey, great idea. Imagine how much this could open design space! In fact, to make it easier for players to know what cards can be played together we should group them using different colours. Then we could make them all thematically similar and relate them to warcraft classes! Oh wait...
This is about as bad an idea as saying Kaladin can't post in the Salt thread. "You can't play those cards together because we said so." It's a good thing you're nowhere near a game design position because you're suggesting something that is for the idea that players should be both punished and restricted at the same time and against the idea of freedom and ability, solely because you have no way of properly correcting a "problem".
Stick to what you do best and get back to eating that dollar store glue you're so fond of.
Hmm..........We already have that system, which is called “ class” card by only letting certain cards by played by a class. Blizzard can create a class card that can be played by only one class, but cannot create a card that can be played by 8 class except 1. If blizzard want to create a new card that can be played by 8 classes but not 1 due to possible too Op effect, Blizzard will need to make it into 8 different class cards because it is only fair as a normal common card cannot be restricted. Maybe even have to sell it seperately in different expansion. Other choice is Blizzard can not ever print out that card because it may cause unbalance issue due to 1 class. Blizzard can only nerf the card and make it unplayable, and all classes and deck cannot get access to that card. It is only fair. All in the name of freedom.
This is about as bad an idea as saying Kaladin can't post in the Salt thread. "You can't play those cards together because we said so." It's a good thing you're nowhere near a game design position because you're suggesting something that is for the idea that players should be both punished and restricted at the same time and against the idea of freedom and ability, solely because you have no way of properly correcting a "problem".
Stick to what you do best and get back to eating that dollar store glue you're so fond of.
Hmm..........We already have that system, which is called “ class” card by only letting certain cards by played by a class. Blizzard can create a class card that can be played by only one class, but cannot create a card that can be played by 8 class except 1. If blizzard want to create a new card that can be played by 8 classes but not 1 due to possible too Op effect, Blizzard will need to make it into 8 different class cards because it is only fair as a normal common card cannot be restricted. Maybe even have to sell it seperately in different expansion. Other choice is Blizzard can not ever print out that card because it may cause unbalance issue due to 1 class. Blizzard can only nerf the card and make it unplayable, and all classes and deck cannot get access to that card. It is only fair. All in the name of freedom.
Have you ever heard about tri-class cards? There exist a lot of more elegant solutions to the problem you're proposing and just straight up not letting players use 2 cards in the same deck solely because it was hardcoded that way isn't a very good one from a game design perspective.
I don't believe that any well-intentioned suggestion for change gives someone license to be a dumbass retard and insult you just for having an idea and expressing it.
So in that regard, much of the response you have received here is pretty unwarranted and some people should be ashamed of themselves.
That said, however, I do agree with their insinuation that your idea (while appreciatedly thought out) is not a good one from a design point of view, because it serves only to limit design space and interaction based on currently noted card-cohesion.
Essentially what this means is that your concept is a knee-jerk reaction that focuses on a card interaction that you don't particularly like (eg: Avianna and Star Aligner) and so rather than deal directly with the mechanic that is causing the problem, you are focussing on that specific combination.
The problem here is that this is a "plaster" rather than fixing the actual problem. It means that further card combinations that havent been discovered / created yet will become a problem in the future and you will be back to square one. From a maintenance point of view, this is a coding nightmare, since you will forever be updating lists of cards that cannot be used together.
Also, you will end up missing vital problems in the process - so for example, your restriction of no Giggling Inventor with Baku - you are ignoring the very real problem with Quest Rogue, which doesn't use Baku.
All in all, it's not a feasible idea in fairness. But well done for at least coming up with an idea / alternative instead of just complaining about the nerf like some do.
I see a lot of people complaining how the Avian / Kun combo was such a problem, as if there aren't a shit load of combo decks in the format that serves the very purpose of letting those decks be played. Blizzard screwed the pooch by making Psychmelon, not by leaving one ridiculous combo deck out of many in the place it belonged.
The entire point of Wild IS the unbalance.
So now you people crying about how OP that deck was better get ready. Blizzard keeps nerfing Wild cards on top of nerfing an EVERGREEN card so now nothing is off limits. And people praise this shit?
Bad expansions (Witchwood, Boomsday), head-scratching nerfs along with just really bad design (Crystal Core, Psychmelon) which are causing a ripple effect on cards nobody was really bitching about. And when I say "really", I mean there was no overwhelming outcry over Mana Wyrm. Half the people bitching about Avania were nowhere to be found before Psychmelon.
I can't wait until the next expansion. I wonder what card they will develop only to nerf years from now...
I actually think OPs idea has merit to it, and it's the haters who're being childish, not him. However, I would implement it differently, and we already have precedent for this with odd/even and cards like Corpsetaker and Reno Jackson. Basically, give the card a regular benefit (as we already have) and a conditional benefit (that is only granted if their deck is constructed a certain way).
For example:
Giggling Inventor: Annoy-o-trons only gain divine shield if your deck has at least 8 minions with Taunt (this discourages its use in aggressive decks).
It's a idea... but think, it will not work. Make the game so more complicated...
The nerf, is easier, simple and don't let any doubt to new players to how to make a deck.
Well, there are some real hater here.
In the past, blizzard can normally nerf a card just by increasing its mana value by 1. Now with the odd and even mechanic, nerfing a card by increasing the mana value doesn’t work as well. If a card is OP in odd deck, then it will probably become OP in even deck. Blizzard has seriously limited the design space since the odd-even machanic was introduced. That’s why giggling inventor was nerf so hard. It is a really strong card, probably over power in odd Rogue or quest rogue before the nerf. If blizzard nerf it to 6 mana, that will power up even shaman. So it was nerf to the useless 7. However, it wasn’t crazily strong in control deck.
Anyway, although I don’t see card restriction is that hard to understand but who am I to say. Cards are printed so that players can create decks that are creative. Cards can be nerf if it creates a unique unfair advantage in certain decks, but cards can’t be banned to be used together even if they were only really OP when pair-up together? That’s a weird thing. So many players wants to ban certain cards or class in tournament mode, and they got angry at blizzard for not bringing that formate. but banning certain cards to be used together is the most stupid idea.
Another example, shudderwock is a just a strong card, it only becomes annoying when combine with Grumble.
Jesus dude, how small of a font would they need to explain the restrictions on the card? Worse than Shahrazad.
Free to try and find a game, dealing cards for sorrow, cards for pain.
Ditto to what everyone else said... childish and poorly thought out idea. What the true answer is that Blizzard needs to nerf cards so that insane combos cannot be done which eliminate interactive play. That really starts are card creation and seeing all the possibilities with other in the xpac or cards already in play. Needs more testing before release so there aren't these OTK insane plays that have ZERO interactivity.
With every card or combo there should always be a counter for more strategic and interactive play.
Death knight cards don’t explain the hero power or the mechanic on the card. Jade machine doesn’t explain the jade golem is getting bigger each time with a cap at 30 on the card. Rin doesn’t explain what is ‘first seal’ or its ability to burn deck on the card. You can’t even findout what is ‘barnabus’ or it’s effect in druid quest unless you complete the quest in game. 0 explaination what a quest card reward effect in the game unless we search the details online.
My suggestion is The explanation will be done during deck building. It doesn’t even need lots of text in game. I remember blizzard use to ban certain cards in the past in tavern brawl. A Red Cross appear on the card and said it can’t be used in this event, My thought is, for example, when you select Shudderwock in your deck, a big Red Cross will show on Grumble, and you can’t select it. Then a red text said “ card restriction: this 2 cards can’t Be used together in the same decks.” It doesn’t even need a keyword on the card.
Anyway, just my thought with all the complains about OP deck due to certain cards are put in the same decks.
I never played any other TCG or CCG so I don’t know how other card game systems work. I remember watching MTG once and have no idea what is going on without learning the rule.
I might use a wrong word to explain my suggestion. I have never played any TCG before. I just thought of restricting certain cards to be used in the same deck during deck building due to their power level.
Some card games do restrict some cards, but not as harsh as that. In MTG, every card (except like 3 because of either being impossible for people with disabilities or having the card be a huuuuge waste of time) is allowed in vintage, but the strongest ones are restricted to one copy said card. The issue with bringing that into hearthstone is that you can only have 1 legendary in a deck and running 1 copy less of CTA or some other busted card is going to affect things a bit, but with smaller decks this change isn't as big.
Sorry by the way if my original comment was a bit rude, I didn't really mean it to come off as that.
I don't have something witty about this deck, I just like it because Malygos is fun.
Well, hearthstone is a ccg that runs totally different from other card games. It is the first ccg that brings this genre of game famous in online era. Why can’t they impose a new harsh rule in their own game? I believe it is the first ccg game that has card crafting and closed economy instead of trading, despite trading games have existed for 20 plus years. Hearthstone success because it creates and tres new rules and ideas, not just follow traditional TCG rules. MTG may move their cards and mechanism online, but we can’t really move hearthstone offline without creating much mess.
For an outsider like me, this is just another of the game play rules. And it is less way complicated than any other trading card games. Just to understand the board rules for mtg is a big headache to me, and the card restriction you mention during the deck building for mtg, and the power of the deck it’s affect by limiting 2-4 cards, sound even more complicated to me. I can’t even bother to learn Artifact new 3 boards effects.
This is about as bad an idea as saying Kaladin can't post in the Salt thread. "You can't play those cards together because we said so." It's a good thing you're nowhere near a game design position because you're suggesting something that is for the idea that players should be both punished and restricted at the same time and against the idea of freedom and ability, solely because you have no way of properly correcting a "problem".
Stick to what you do best and get back to eating that dollar store glue you're so fond of.
Come visit my Card Emporium. Strange things, you will find inside...
Come take the test, if you're daring. Feel free to show me your results in a message.
Hey, great idea. Imagine how much this could open design space! In fact, to make it easier for players to know what cards can be played together we should group them using different colours. Then we could make them all thematically similar and relate them to warcraft classes! Oh wait...
Check out my Hearthstone expansion: The Shifting Sands
Hmm..........We already have that system, which is called “ class” card by only letting certain cards by played by a class. Blizzard can create a class card that can be played by only one class, but cannot create a card that can be played by 8 class except 1. If blizzard want to create a new card that can be played by 8 classes but not 1 due to possible too Op effect, Blizzard will need to make it into 8 different class cards because it is only fair as a normal common card cannot be restricted. Maybe even have to sell it seperately in different expansion. Other choice is Blizzard can not ever print out that card because it may cause unbalance issue due to 1 class. Blizzard can only nerf the card and make it unplayable, and all classes and deck cannot get access to that card. It is only fair. All in the name of freedom.
Have you ever heard about tri-class cards? There exist a lot of more elegant solutions to the problem you're proposing and just straight up not letting players use 2 cards in the same deck solely because it was hardcoded that way isn't a very good one from a game design perspective.
Check out my Hearthstone expansion: The Shifting Sands
This would be too complex to add to hearthstone. Hearthstone is known to be simplistic
*cluck*