I see people calling for nerfs, buffs or whatever other balance issues they'd like to see and these ideas being met with "no".
Playing lots of other card games, I can say that there are often cards that need balancing for one of three reasons: 1. They're overpowered. 2. They're overplayed. 3. They're underpowered (and I guess then underplayed). ...yet in those other games, banning or changing a card would mean an errata or making a card useless as printed.
In Hearthstone, we have a dynamic digital environment in which the developers can easily change the stats, text and interactions of cards. I'm not saying this should be abused or even that the players know what is best for the cards. What I am saying is that there's a great opportunity to be able to constantly change things that get out of control and keep something interesting due to the electronic format.
Further, Blizzard is able to give a player something back when they take away their beloved broken card: you get the dust it takes to craft it. And that's actually far more than I even would need or want. I only just crafted Dr. Boom, but if they made him horrible tomorrow, I wouldn't so much as expect to get my dust back I spent on making him.
I suppose I'm the odd-ball person who would rather see a changing environment constantly striving for balance (with some likely missteps along the way) than what feels- to me- to be small steps between very static metas. Even if a card was nerfed or buffed incorrectly, in Hearthstone, changing it back isn't overwhelming.
It's a vicious cycle. On one hand, you are pitting a group of developers tasked with balance and on other side millions of player, lead by some very creative and motivated people eager to exploit any hole. I dont think Blizz is willing to put such resources into this game. Heck, i wouldn't either. :)
The ability to nerf or buff cards is a key strength of a digital-only CCG. Clearly, this is the ideal tool for adjusting an undesirable metagame and face-to-face CCGs must be extremely envious of Hearthstone's ability to address issues without leaving the player-base incredibly salty about having cards which they have invested heavily in be banned.
With M:tG, WOTC are loathe to nerf cards because they know that a significant number of players will have paid large amounts of physical cash to acquire the most broken rare and mythic cards and that this money will not be recouped if the card is banned from tournament play.
However, Blizzard refunds the full dust cost whenever a nerf takes place so that players who crafted a card (as it became apparent that it was extremely powerful) will not lose any value when the nerf occurs.
This is a perfect situation and enables Blizzard to keep the metagame healthy.
Obviously, there are always liberal sprinklings of salt among archetype fanboys whenever a nerf occurs but this isn't because anyone feels ripped-off or out-of-pocket. They just happen to be fans of a broken archetype and the success which it brings. Most of these salty dogs would admit, privately, that their favourite deck was broken and thus harmful to a healthy meta. However, they still proliferate on forums such as this whining about how Blizzard keep targeting successful decks and tearing them down.
My answer to them is :
"OF COURSE THEY DO. DUH!!!"
Personally, I would go so far as to say that even a healthy metagame would benefit from nerfs/buffs if it has been in place for too long. One of the key attractions of a CCG is testing one's deck building skills and a long-established but balanced metagame doesn't require any reinvention of archetypes.
During such a phase in the metagame, I would start calling for buffs on weak cards instead of nerfs on strong ones. These should be done subtly and without risking the introduction of imbalance but this should certainly be a valid option available to Blizzard.
For example, Blizzard could trawl the various Hearthstone forums looking for popular requests for buffs and address two or three in an effort to stimulate some minor movement in the metagame. Simple changes such as the below would be fine :
The latter two buffs could, potentially, see the cards see some constructed play but would not be expected to imbalance the metagame. However, if they were able to alter a few match-ups and breathe life in to a stale metagame then that could only be a good thing.
The ability to nerf or buff cards is a key strength of a digital-only CCG. Clearly, this is the ideal tool for adjusting an undesirable metagame and face-to-face CCGs must be extremely envious of Hearthstone's ability to address issues without leaving the player-base incredibly salty about having cards which they have invested heavily in be banned.
With M:tG, WOTC are loathe to nerf cards because they know that a significant number of players will have paid large amounts of physical cash to acquire the most broken rare and mythic cards and that this money will not be recouped if the card is banned from tournament play.
However, Blizzard refunds the full dust cost whenever a nerf takes place so that players who crafted a card (as it became apparent that it was extremely powerful) will not lose any value when the nerf occurs.
This is a perfect situation and enables Blizzard to keep the metagame healthy.
Obviously, there are always liberal sprinklings of salt among archetype fanboys whenever a nerf occurs but this isn't because anyone feels ripped-off or out-of-pocket. They just happen to be fans of a broken archetype and the success which it brings. Most of these salty dogs would admit, privately, that their favourite deck was broken and thus harmful to a healthy meta. However, they still proliferate on forums such as this whining about how Blizzard keep targeting successful decks and tearing them down.
My answer to them is :
"OF COURSE THEY DO. DUH!!!"
Personally, I would go so far as to say that even a healthy metagame would benefit from nerfs/buffs if it has been in place for too long. One of the key attractions of a CCG is testing one's deck building skills and a long-established but balanced metagame doesn't require any reinvention of archetypes.
During such a phase in the metagame, I would start calling for buffs on weak cards instead of nerfs on strong ones. These should be done subtly and without risking the introduction of imbalance but this should certainly be a valid option available to Blizzard.
For example, Blizzard could trawl the various Hearthstone forums looking for popular requests for buffs and address two or three in an effort to stimulate some minor movement in the metagame. Simple changes such as the below would be fine :
The latter two buffs could, potentially, see the cards see some constructed play but would not be expected to imbalance the metagame. However, if they were able to alter a few match-ups and breathe life in to a stale metagame then that could only be a good thing.
None of those changes would affect constructed in the slightest. War Golem is actually NOT a bad card in itself. In Arena it's a pretty ok pick and can win you the game. The problem is that it doesn't fit into a constructed deck because it's 'fair'. you cannot make a good deck off of 'fair' cards. You need an unfair advantage in a proper constructed deck.
This is why Yeti, that most cherished card, never saw play even before GvG. it's 'fair'. It's a balanced card. What you want is a card that either creates an unfair advantage or a card that helps maintain the advantage other cards give. Thus you don't want a 7/8 at turn 7. You want a 8/8 at turn 4 and a 9/9 that does 2-8 damage on death at turn 7 (Dr. Boom).
And that's ONE problem with buffing cards. If you take a poor card and make it balanced then it still won't see proper play. However, let's say you made Lorewalker Cho into a mech. All of a sudden, you turned a poor card into a meta changer. Hundreds of mech builds will put him in a deck and just go full minions while working to punish spell based defenses. It will be a nightmare.
A more real example is Unleash the Hounds, which went from an unusable 4 mana to 2 mana, and completely warped the entire game for months.
And yes, they could just keep making changes in a "ok, let's make Cho a mech.. Ug it ruined everything, change it back!" way, but then your creating a permanently unstable meta in a game where people spend months (or a lot of money) to develop decks they plan to rely on for some time. And most of the changes will be fixing the problems caused by past changes. And for little gain. Again, buffing, more times than not, will either make a 'fair' card that won't find a good use or an 'unfair' card that completely dominates the meta.
Yes, changes happen and we want them, but it's better to set them in new cards instead. Instead of warping Cho, which may find a use elsewhere, just make a new mech card. Instead of giving War Golem more stats just make a Tank Max. The public will prefer new cards put in regularly to seeing the same old cards go up and down in stats in unpredictable ways.
Does that mean to NEVER do anything? No. But it's rarely worthwhile to buff a card when you can just create a card anyway, and nerfs should be rare and really really studied first. And good gosh, NOT just based on public opinion.
It creates a very unhealthy community where players would rather bitch and wait for the next nerf than actually try and figure out the meta and counter appropriately. It also encourages Blizzard to create less new content when they can just keep nerfing the top dogs to force a change in the meta.
Under no circumstances should a card ever be buffed, period. Every change made to a card, no matter how minor, runs the risk of throwing the game into complete imbalance and ruining the season. Nerfs are reserved only for situations when there is overwhelming evidence of a card diminishing the game play experience. I applaud the conservative approach Blizzard has taken.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Free to try and find a game, dealing cards for sorrow, cards for pain.
It creates a very unhealthy community where players would rather bitch and wait for the next nerf than actually try and figure out the meta and counter appropriately. It also encourages Blizzard to create less new content when they can just keep nerfing the top dogs to force a change in the meta.
This is actually a really good point I hadn't considered.
Pretend we lived in a world where there was a mature and even-headed community. Would it be acceptable then?
It creates a very unhealthy community where players would rather bitch and wait for the next nerf than actually try and figure out the meta and counter appropriately. It also encourages Blizzard to create less new content when they can just keep nerfing the top dogs to force a change in the meta.
This is actually a really good point I hadn't considered.
Pretend we lived in a world where there was a mature and even-headed community. Would it be acceptable then?
Assuming that this game wasn't filled with literal five year olds, I still think that Blizzard would have no choice. They painted themselves into a corner by releasing cards that were clearly not balanced from the very beginning, probably due to the small amount of manpower available to the HS Team. If they hadn't nerfed anything since release, then all we would see today would be 2-mana Unleash Hunter and Miracle Rogue.
Under no circumstances should a card ever be buffed, period. Every change made to a card, no matter how minor, runs the risk of throwing the game into complete imbalance and ruining the season. Nerfs are reserved only for situations when there is overwhelming evidence of a card diminishing the game play experience. I applaud the conservative approach Blizzard has taken.
I'm not trolling and I respect your opinion here, but I have to ask... why?
Why should cards never be buffed? Why do changes run such a risk when there already exist imbalances? Why are nerfs so reserved and why is a conservative approach overwhelmingly good?
I only ask because I feel this way about other games, but not about Hearthstone. The developers (who I think do a great job) clearly have cultivated a game where randomness is applauded and even seen as a hurdle for those with skill to overcome. How does allowing the card pool to be evolutionary endanger that, exactly?
I'm not trolling and I respect your opinion here, but I have to ask... why?
Why should cards never be buffed? Why do changes run such a risk when there already exist imbalances? Why are nerfs so reserved and why is a conservative approach overwhelmingly good?
I only ask because I feel this way about other games, but not about Hearthstone. The developers (who I think do a great job) clearly have cultivated a game where randomness is applauded and even seen as a hurdle for those with skill to overcome. How does allowing the card pool to be evolutionary endanger that, exactly?
The devs themselves have said that "cutting the long leg off of a table is easier than making the other 3 legs longer". Nerfing is much easier and practical since it is targeted and the effects are much more predictable.
If the devs buff 2 cards and nerf 2 cards, and the resulting meta is not what they would like, fixing it is a lot harder. Which one of the cards was the issue?
I see what you're saying, Sonserf. And to explain a bit, were I to even theorize on what cards to buff/nerf, I'd probably do horribly. I can't think of anything I feel needs a buff badly just for mechanical reasons. There's a few cards that aren't played much, but there's none that come to mind as just being dismissed from ever being in any deck ever.
But let me approach this from another point of view.
One of my friends thinks Illidan is just so cool (well, Malfurion and that shadow hunter Maiev, too). They couldn't build a deck around Illidan that they felt worked, so they kind of gave up on it. Personally, it's not a big deal to me. But let's say some amazing popular character is released as a card- like Arthas. And let's just say he sucks. I'd think that- themeatically- that calls for a buff.
I agree with the OP, in printed card games you ban or restrict cards, but you can't actually adjust the card like in HS. Sure people will always complain about stuff, but when 75% or more of people are in agreement that something is wrong, they are usually right. There's plenty of cards that are long overdue for a nerf or buff, it would be nice to get a bunch done at once instead of just 1 card after months and months.
One of my friends thinks Illidan is just so cool (well, Malfurion and that shadow hunter Maiev, too). They couldn't build a deck around Illidan that they felt worked, so they kind of gave up on it. Personally, it's not a big deal to me. But let's say some amazing popular character is released as a card- like Arthas. And let's just say he sucks. I'd think that- themeatically- that calls for a buff.
I've played in some card games where important characters received more than one card. The cards were named differently (say, you could have an Jaina and a Young Jaina-marking her during War 3). Thus that might be a better way of handling popular but off meta cards.
Otherwise, you'd get cases like Arthas getting buffed, becoming OP, then getting nerfed, and if I was so big on a card that i demanded a buff to it then I'd be PISSEEDDD if it was nerfed afterwards.
That doesn't even get to the fact that a lot of cards are less 'bad' as they are 'off meta'. War golem, for example, is a bad constructed card, but he makes a pretty darn good arena card. Then there's situations when the meta switches ,making some cards bad and others good. Harrison was considered a laughing stock worthless card early on then, with no buffs, upgraded to a 'meta' card: a card good when the meta calls for him. Doomguard had a choir of folks demanding he be buffed for being so bad. That was before zoo took off, of course. Can you imagine if they DID buff him before then?
Thematic situations cannot be a reason to buff because the mechanics will go absolutely nuts if you try. As said at the top: if a person is just that popular, just give him a second card or else make new cards that help give purpose to the old card.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I see people calling for nerfs, buffs or whatever other balance issues they'd like to see and these ideas being met with "no".
Playing lots of other card games, I can say that there are often cards that need balancing for one of three reasons:
1. They're overpowered.
2. They're overplayed.
3. They're underpowered (and I guess then underplayed).
...yet in those other games, banning or changing a card would mean an errata or making a card useless as printed.
In Hearthstone, we have a dynamic digital environment in which the developers can easily change the stats, text and interactions of cards. I'm not saying this should be abused or even that the players know what is best for the cards. What I am saying is that there's a great opportunity to be able to constantly change things that get out of control and keep something interesting due to the electronic format.
Further, Blizzard is able to give a player something back when they take away their beloved broken card: you get the dust it takes to craft it. And that's actually far more than I even would need or want. I only just crafted Dr. Boom, but if they made him horrible tomorrow, I wouldn't so much as expect to get my dust back I spent on making him.
I suppose I'm the odd-ball person who would rather see a changing environment constantly striving for balance (with some likely missteps along the way) than what feels- to me- to be small steps between very static metas. Even if a card was nerfed or buffed incorrectly, in Hearthstone, changing it back isn't overwhelming.
Priest (60) / Warrior (49) / Hunter (47) / Mage (45) / Warlock (36) / Druid (35) / Shaman (34) / Paladin (33) / Rogue (19)
It's a vicious cycle. On one hand, you are pitting a group of developers tasked with balance and on other side millions of player, lead by some very creative and motivated people eager to exploit any hole. I dont think Blizz is willing to put such resources into this game. Heck, i wouldn't either. :)
Well said - I agree 100%.
The ability to nerf or buff cards is a key strength of a digital-only CCG. Clearly, this is the ideal tool for adjusting an undesirable metagame and face-to-face CCGs must be extremely envious of Hearthstone's ability to address issues without leaving the player-base incredibly salty about having cards which they have invested heavily in be banned.
With M:tG, WOTC are loathe to nerf cards because they know that a significant number of players will have paid large amounts of physical cash to acquire the most broken rare and mythic cards and that this money will not be recouped if the card is banned from tournament play.
However, Blizzard refunds the full dust cost whenever a nerf takes place so that players who crafted a card (as it became apparent that it was extremely powerful) will not lose any value when the nerf occurs.
This is a perfect situation and enables Blizzard to keep the metagame healthy.
Obviously, there are always liberal sprinklings of salt among archetype fanboys whenever a nerf occurs but this isn't because anyone feels ripped-off or out-of-pocket. They just happen to be fans of a broken archetype and the success which it brings. Most of these salty dogs would admit, privately, that their favourite deck was broken and thus harmful to a healthy meta. However, they still proliferate on forums such as this whining about how Blizzard keep targeting successful decks and tearing them down.
My answer to them is :
"OF COURSE THEY DO. DUH!!!"
Personally, I would go so far as to say that even a healthy metagame would benefit from nerfs/buffs if it has been in place for too long. One of the key attractions of a CCG is testing one's deck building skills and a long-established but balanced metagame doesn't require any reinvention of archetypes.
During such a phase in the metagame, I would start calling for buffs on weak cards instead of nerfs on strong ones. These should be done subtly and without risking the introduction of imbalance but this should certainly be a valid option available to Blizzard.
For example, Blizzard could trawl the various Hearthstone forums looking for popular requests for buffs and address two or three in an effort to stimulate some minor movement in the metagame. Simple changes such as the below would be fine :
War Golem becoming a 7/8 mech costing 7.
Lorewalker Cho buffing to 1/3 (so that it can perform suicide attacks).
Gurubashi Berserker buffing to 3/7.
The latter two buffs could, potentially, see the cards see some constructed play but would not be expected to imbalance the metagame. However, if they were able to alter a few match-ups and breathe life in to a stale metagame then that could only be a good thing.
None of those changes would affect constructed in the slightest. War Golem is actually NOT a bad card in itself. In Arena it's a pretty ok pick and can win you the game. The problem is that it doesn't fit into a constructed deck because it's 'fair'. you cannot make a good deck off of 'fair' cards. You need an unfair advantage in a proper constructed deck.
This is why Yeti, that most cherished card, never saw play even before GvG. it's 'fair'. It's a balanced card. What you want is a card that either creates an unfair advantage or a card that helps maintain the advantage other cards give. Thus you don't want a 7/8 at turn 7. You want a 8/8 at turn 4 and a 9/9 that does 2-8 damage on death at turn 7 (Dr. Boom).
And that's ONE problem with buffing cards. If you take a poor card and make it balanced then it still won't see proper play. However, let's say you made Lorewalker Cho into a mech. All of a sudden, you turned a poor card into a meta changer. Hundreds of mech builds will put him in a deck and just go full minions while working to punish spell based defenses. It will be a nightmare.
A more real example is Unleash the Hounds, which went from an unusable 4 mana to 2 mana, and completely warped the entire game for months.
And yes, they could just keep making changes in a "ok, let's make Cho a mech.. Ug it ruined everything, change it back!" way, but then your creating a permanently unstable meta in a game where people spend months (or a lot of money) to develop decks they plan to rely on for some time. And most of the changes will be fixing the problems caused by past changes. And for little gain. Again, buffing, more times than not, will either make a 'fair' card that won't find a good use or an 'unfair' card that completely dominates the meta.
Yes, changes happen and we want them, but it's better to set them in new cards instead. Instead of warping Cho, which may find a use elsewhere, just make a new mech card. Instead of giving War Golem more stats just make a Tank Max. The public will prefer new cards put in regularly to seeing the same old cards go up and down in stats in unpredictable ways.
Does that mean to NEVER do anything? No. But it's rarely worthwhile to buff a card when you can just create a card anyway, and nerfs should be rare and really really studied first. And good gosh, NOT just based on public opinion.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
It creates a very unhealthy community where players would rather bitch and wait for the next nerf than actually try and figure out the meta and counter appropriately. It also encourages Blizzard to create less new content when they can just keep nerfing the top dogs to force a change in the meta.
Under no circumstances should a card ever be buffed, period. Every change made to a card, no matter how minor, runs the risk of throwing the game into complete imbalance and ruining the season. Nerfs are reserved only for situations when there is overwhelming evidence of a card diminishing the game play experience. I applaud the conservative approach Blizzard has taken.
Free to try and find a game, dealing cards for sorrow, cards for pain.
This is actually a really good point I hadn't considered.
Pretend we lived in a world where there was a mature and even-headed community. Would it be acceptable then?
Priest (60) / Warrior (49) / Hunter (47) / Mage (45) / Warlock (36) / Druid (35) / Shaman (34) / Paladin (33) / Rogue (19)
Assuming that this game wasn't filled with literal five year olds, I still think that Blizzard would have no choice. They painted themselves into a corner by releasing cards that were clearly not balanced from the very beginning, probably due to the small amount of manpower available to the HS Team. If they hadn't nerfed anything since release, then all we would see today would be 2-mana Unleash Hunter and Miracle Rogue.
I'm not trolling and I respect your opinion here, but I have to ask... why?
Why should cards never be buffed?
Why do changes run such a risk when there already exist imbalances?
Why are nerfs so reserved and why is a conservative approach overwhelmingly good?
I only ask because I feel this way about other games, but not about Hearthstone. The developers (who I think do a great job) clearly have cultivated a game where randomness is applauded and even seen as a hurdle for those with skill to overcome. How does allowing the card pool to be evolutionary endanger that, exactly?
Priest (60) / Warrior (49) / Hunter (47) / Mage (45) / Warlock (36) / Druid (35) / Shaman (34) / Paladin (33) / Rogue (19)
The devs themselves have said that "cutting the long leg off of a table is easier than making the other 3 legs longer". Nerfing is much easier and practical since it is targeted and the effects are much more predictable.
If the devs buff 2 cards and nerf 2 cards, and the resulting meta is not what they would like, fixing it is a lot harder. Which one of the cards was the issue?
I see what you're saying, Sonserf. And to explain a bit, were I to even theorize on what cards to buff/nerf, I'd probably do horribly. I can't think of anything I feel needs a buff badly just for mechanical reasons. There's a few cards that aren't played much, but there's none that come to mind as just being dismissed from ever being in any deck ever.
But let me approach this from another point of view.
One of my friends thinks Illidan is just so cool (well, Malfurion and that shadow hunter Maiev, too). They couldn't build a deck around Illidan that they felt worked, so they kind of gave up on it. Personally, it's not a big deal to me. But let's say some amazing popular character is released as a card- like Arthas. And let's just say he sucks. I'd think that- themeatically- that calls for a buff.
Priest (60) / Warrior (49) / Hunter (47) / Mage (45) / Warlock (36) / Druid (35) / Shaman (34) / Paladin (33) / Rogue (19)
I agree with the OP, in printed card games you ban or restrict cards, but you can't actually adjust the card like in HS. Sure people will always complain about stuff, but when 75% or more of people are in agreement that something is wrong, they are usually right. There's plenty of cards that are long overdue for a nerf or buff, it would be nice to get a bunch done at once instead of just 1 card after months and months.
I've played in some card games where important characters received more than one card. The cards were named differently (say, you could have an Jaina and a Young Jaina-marking her during War 3). Thus that might be a better way of handling popular but off meta cards.
Otherwise, you'd get cases like Arthas getting buffed, becoming OP, then getting nerfed, and if I was so big on a card that i demanded a buff to it then I'd be PISSEEDDD if it was nerfed afterwards.
That doesn't even get to the fact that a lot of cards are less 'bad' as they are 'off meta'. War golem, for example, is a bad constructed card, but he makes a pretty darn good arena card. Then there's situations when the meta switches ,making some cards bad and others good. Harrison was considered a laughing stock worthless card early on then, with no buffs, upgraded to a 'meta' card: a card good when the meta calls for him. Doomguard had a choir of folks demanding he be buffed for being so bad. That was before zoo took off, of course. Can you imagine if they DID buff him before then?
Thematic situations cannot be a reason to buff because the mechanics will go absolutely nuts if you try. As said at the top: if a person is just that popular, just give him a second card or else make new cards that help give purpose to the old card.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.