I was thinking a bit about the future of Hearthstone and although it is still a bit early, with the next expansion being 4 months away, I think it is an interesting topic to discuss. I want to give you some of my own thoughts on what I think could or should happen, and I'd like to hear some opinions on what you guys think can or should change with the next year of Hearthstone. Please excuse the following wall of text. If you just want to make some predictions on what you think is going to change, feel free to skip it.
1. One of the things I expect (and really hope) most to happen is Wild content being reintroduced to the in-game store, allowing purchases of Wild sets with gold. There are many things that suggest this. First of all, as Ben Brode (and maybe other designers) has stated multiple times in the past year, the team would like to see players showing more interest in the Wild format, since the focus on Standard is more likely to cause some fatigue between expansions. Despite this, there was pretty much no support whatsoever for the format. To some extend, the game even discourages players from setting into the wild. New players are not made aware that the format exists for roughly a month of playing. Just to see older cards in the collection manager, you have to first hit the crafting button and then select older sets with that little (unmarked) button in the bottom left corner. And if you consider crafting an older card, the game even gives you a warning that it's not part of Standard anymore. Add to this, that Wild sets have been banned from Arena (probably a good move but not helping the format) and, as of late, are oftentimes not allowed/don't appear anymore in Tavern Brawl. Out of sight, out of mind, it seems. And older sets sort of being behind a paywall right now probably discourages most players from even giving it a try. It's no surprise that many players play wild just with standard decks, making the format rather "tame". If there really is an interest on the developer's side to make the format relevant again, the first step should be to make the cards more available than right now and actually give players the impression that the format matters to the developers. One of my favorite examples is that the nerf of Dreadsteed happend without an in-game notification. If you didn't know that Dreadsteed got nerfed, the game would not have told you so. That and the (in my opinion) rather ugly setup for wild with the brown paper in the collection and the tandrils everywhere really gives players the feeling of Wild as a dumpster. And irioncially, the so called "Hall of Fame" suggests that even more, with cards literally getting disposed from Standard.
Another reason why it should happen with the next rotation is that the in-game store right now features an Adventure-button, which only contains One Night in Karazhan. And as we know, Team 5 now rather includes sinlge player content with expansions and gave up the strategy of releasing low impact adventures. In other words, the button is going to be obsolete next year with no plans to revive it. At least "some" change of the interface HAS to happen. And I think with the considerations mentioned before, the most logical step would be to make this button the "Wild"-button, giving old content a seperate section in the store.
2. A rather artificial problem (explaining why it's artificial would be a different topic) that the developers continuously complain about is the relevance of Classic and Basic in Standard and the circumstance that new cards oftentimes don't have the impact on the constructed scene the developers would hope for. There are different ways to respond to that problem, but I think what is most likely to happen is that we will see another large chunk of Classic and Basic cards nerfed or added to the Hall of Fame. Not too long ago, Ben Brode argued on Reddit that the average Standard deck (or any deck really) should not contain more than 10 cards from the core set. But when you look at some classes, that is almost not possible. With Druid, they already enforced this rule by nerfing almost every class card in the Classic set that was not on the weak side to begin with (and I strongly expect Nourish to get hit as well), also forcing a reinvention of the class with every new expansion. Hunter, on the other hand, is a prime example of how to make such drastic nerfs necessary. The class has had one failed expansion after another, and aside from some odd novelties such as Secret Hunter in Karazhan, the Yogg-and-Load that some people tried and the (maybe successfull) invention of the Spell Hunter, all new Hunter cards are measured as "does it fit into Midrange Hunter?". That deck is one of the few archetypes remaining from the old days, about the only Hunter archetpye that has always more or less worked, and the decklist shows with cards like Savannah Highmane, Kill Command, Houndmaster, Animal Companion, Unleash the Hounds [/card] and some others being essential to the deck. Even worse, some new cards have further strengthened that archetype, like [card]Alleycat, Crackling Razormaw or Bearshark, which is why most Hunter players continued to play that same old deck with some little additions here and there. Other classes that heavily rely on their core set are Priest, Mage and to a lesser extend Rogue. In addition, many archetpyes only work because of the core set. There is no Control Paladin without Equality and Consecration, there is no Token/board-focused Shaman without Flametongue Totem and Bloodlust, and almost every Mage deck is either tempo-oriented with Mana Wyrm and Sorcerer's Apprentice being the baseline, or is build around Ice Block in one way or another for a control-ish type. I feel that Team 5 is not too happy about the core set actually being the core of some classes. So I assume that for "design space"-reasons, some of these cards will be removed at least from Standard.
3. In addition to the last point, I think we will also see yet another change in the release schedule. I think the developers are generally pretty happy with how the Year of the Mammoth has been going. And I have to agree, three full expansions per year really help to spice things up. But on the other hand, and I think many will agree with me, it's still not quite enough. The metagame is usually set about a month after the release of a new expansion, and in the 3rd and 4th month of a meta, it really starts getting painful to see the same decks over and over and over again. I think the game would be better off with content being added a bit more frequently, maybe every 2 or 3 months, and I think the developers would like to see these big changes happening more frequently as well. Question is, if they even have the resources to pull that off.
4. While it sounds a bit contradictory to what I said earlier, I think this year has shown more than any other, that the game can easily get stuck if there are too many cards in Standard. Many of the new ideas implemented in JTU, KFT and KnC got overshadowed by ONK and MSG, or worked a little too well with the older cards. So, I think in addition to releasing content more frequently, Blizzard might consider to make the Standard cycles shorter. I think the quality of new cards on average shows that the designers really want to avoid a second happening of TGT. They want to make strong cards that will have a large impact on the meta. But when every expansion is on that power level, it is more likely to happen that decks can get out of hand, as it happend with Jade Druid in KFT and might be happening with Priest or Rogue right now. This wasn't even the first time it happened, but the nerfs happen much sooner nowadays than they used to. On the one hand, that is a good thing, on the other, it shows that many things turn out stronger than the developers apparantly can anticipate, and it can easily cause a lot of frustration right after the launch of an expansion. And that actually should be the best time to enjoy Hearthstone. So, maybe they will consider to let a set expire on the 3rd or 4th expansion following it, so that each new set stays for roughly 12 months in Standard.
5. A topic that somehow was always talked about but never tackled is the ladder for Ranked play, and several developers have already said they are not happy with it and are totally working on something right now. I think, next year we can expect a change of the ladder in some way, although I wonder if the change will be substantial enough. The main issue for most players is the grinding aspect of it, and I think that will be targeted by changing the "reset" of a new season, maybe setting players back only 5 ranks or giving them more bonus stars. What I think will NOT be targetted despite being a problem is the structure of the ladder. As Blizzard has oftentimes stated, more than 50% of all players are lower than rank 19 (iirc), and only about 20% of all players are at rank 15 or higher. Also, the ranks 25-21 can be considered the "new player zone", with most serious players never seeing these ranks at all. Even players who only rank up to 20 every season will start again on 23, if I'm not mistaken. To put it into perspective, we have about 4 ranks for new players and less serious players, 2-4 ranks for normal/casual players, and 15 for those who play more seriously. And while most people claim that the competitive scene really just starts at rank 5 or even later, it is a common issue for many players that netdecking starts as early as rank 19 or 18. Given how many cards per expansion are not even intended to be competitive and how much the developers want to emphasize the crazy and fun and weird aspects of Hearthstone, it doesn not really work that way if two, maybe three ranks out of 25 are a good playground for that. And as many others will likely confirm me, Casual is NOT the answer to that. Depending on how well you have been doing, there is virtually no difference between the decks you encounter in Casual and in Ranked. If the developers want a place for these "fun" decks and cards to see play, it shouldn't be just between rank 20 and 19 with the chance of still commonly facing the latest incarnation of Tempo Mage or Miracle Rogue. If Ranked is only meant to be for the most competitive players, it needs to be advertised differently and should be changed drastically. There is no point in establishing "new player ranks" and "little rewards to help your collection", giving them a place where they can only compete for at most 10 wins, if they ultimately are supposed to get stomped as soon as they get to 20. And for the serious scene, I doubt that you need 15 ranks with I don't know how many stars required to slow down your progress.
6. Finally, again continuing something I mentioned just a paragraph ago, the new player experience needs help, and I admit upfront I will get a little bit emotional here. This also was aknowledged by the developers, so we can expect "something" to happen, but given the latest endeavours, I'm not very optimistic on that. Or lets say, there have been improvements, and they were good ones, but they don't come close to solving the multitude of issues that have piled up over the years and I don't think we will get a good solution offered anytime soon. My hope is at least another small step comung up soon.
I think it is good that they got rid of duplicate legendaries and a guaranteed orange gem appearing in the first 10 packs of an unpurchased set. Still leaves you with the problem that one player can open an unconditionally good legendary like Sunkeeper Tarim, while another one gets a high requirement legendary like Krul the Unshackled or a straight up bad one like Millhouse Manastorm. I think it's worth pointing out here that more recent legendaries are designed to synergize with other legendaries and epics, such as Rhok'delar and To my side. Then again, since JTU, the quality of Commons in new expansions has increased a lot, and although decks on average got more expensive, budget decks leaning into the zoo/mid-agressive direction can still be somewhat successful. However, as already mentioned, ranked is not made for new players. They can have a good time for maybe 10 or 15 games, but when they get to 20 or 19, or maybe make it to 16, they will eventually get stomped hard. The whole "budget" thing is just not a thing anymore on ranked. Most players will disenchant their entire collection to make one, maybe two working decks and grind them at nauseum, killing the diversity and punishing those who like to keep their cards. Effectively, new players have to get themselves a good deck quickly, or they get eaten alive. Not much of a joyful journey of exploration left, is there?
I don't think bad cards or even the luck aspect of pack opening is the main issue that forces players into netdecking and trading a big collection for just one 10k dust deck. I think, it's more the reward system as a whole and the ratio of dust gained/needed. Getting a legendary in 10 packs is great, grinding with basics for 2 weeks to get 10 packs isn't. And you don't do this for one set like people could do during Beta and Vanilla, you do this for 6, and that's just Standard. I know, some people will say that Wild is only for veterans anyway, but come on, why make it a no go area for the increasing populace of the game, when you can easily change it? Anyway, the reward system with daily quests awarding about 50 gold, the 3 wins bonus and the occasional arena run worked really well when there was only one set to buy and the next expansions being a relatively cheap Adventures. Nowadays, we have at mininum Classic + 4 big expansions in Standard, and the next big 135 card expansion always on the horizon. The outlook of grinding for well over a month at low odds of success or spending about 100 $ upfront is unlikely to get new players hooked and invested into the game. I know this is a tricky topic, since there are many players that, for some reason, don't want the system to get cheaper, coming up with lines like "I've been playing since beta and I never spent a single cent and I have all legendaries and hit legend every month" or "just go infinite in arena and you'll have all the cards in just a few months". While these uhm... "arguments" might fit the whole F2P debate somewhat (although not really), it does not contribute to the problems new players are facing right now. Less than one pack per day, requiring extensive grinding and/or doing really well in arena for a minimum effort of about 2 hours per day, every day for over a month, just to get started, is NOT friendly to new players. And like it or not, the whole F2P model that Hearthstone embraces is specifically meant to attract as many players as possible and then get them to spent money when they like the game (although most other good F2P games don't want to create an absolute necessity to spend money at all, going for an "ethical" approach where money is mostly spent on cosmetics). I doubt that the game right now is in a state where it can be enjoyed without spending money upfront and having no experience whatsoever. Or lets say, the enjoyment dies down rather quickly.
Another issue that the developers have successfully ignored for years is the really worthelss tutorial and the fact that even the Innkeeper decks were never updated at all. Even his "expert" decks feature such nerf victims as Starving Buzzard, Warsong Commander and Keeper of the Grove. Truly, I've mastered the game, for I have beaten the Expert Innkeeper and his overnerfed trash cards that nobody dared playing in years. The tutorial and the Innkeeper are supposed to get new players into the game, letting them learn the mechanics, the cards and refine their skills to a point they feel confident in taking on real players. In reality, these modes are helplessly outdated and new players might indeed learn the basic mechanics, but only to find out that about every single card they encounter in Play mode has 2 keywords they never heard of, huge battlecries, or just the word "random" slapped on it without note what this "random" even means. An experienced player knows and fears, that a Firelands Portal can spit out a Doomguard, and what cards are generated by The Lich King. They know that a mage secret without obvious triggers is likely Iceblock and they need to be fast or lose the game inevitably. A new player doesn't and is likely not enjoying the experience.
Also, the starting decks have always been weak and were meant to be refined, even with just basic cards, by new players. It was supposed to be a part of the learning experience and introduce them to the fun of deck building. However, the quality of the Basic set has been drastically lowered over the years with more changes to be expected. Not only are the starter decks a joke, and plenty of the good basic cards nerfed into oblivion, the decks you can make with basic cards are a joke in comparison to even the cheapest decks one could make these days. It's not just that Boulderfist Ogre got powercreeped like 5 times already, it's that the game's pace has changed so much that you are likely dead before you even get to play the ogre. And while some might claim otherwise, that has not always been the case. As I said earlier, it's good that common cards got more powerful. Players will eventually open a lot of commons and it's a good thing that even the "pack fillers" can help them to make their decks more powerful and interesting. But at the same time, I think it is a bit alarming how much the powerlevel of the game has gone up. When Standard launched, the developers argued that one of the reasons for the new format was to avoid powercreeping. They didn't want to be forced to make new cards much better than old time favorites like Sludge Belcher and Piloted Shredder. Well, I think we are a bit beyond that now, aren't we? The supposed "balance", the well maintained power level of Standard, is completely out the window by now. That also makes the game a bit more interesting, sure, but it creates and even fiercer environment for new players to set foot in; something that the developers were specifically trying to avoid, when they opted for Standard. Oops?!
The super minimalistic interface of the game also doesn't help. Quite literally in fact, as it does not even provide a help button or an info section on what was recently changed or what to expect in the upcoming months. Sure, this is not a big issue for those players who are in touch with the community and the developers, visiting sites like this one almost every day. But if you would sell Hearthstone as a standalone product right now, it really lacks some polishment. I am not saying that every other game does it way better, but if you truly care for new players, you do have to go the extra mile to help them get started and find out about everything. And I think Hearthstone has a few more miles to walk, since it has been standing still for the last couple years in that department.
It's just that I really want to see the game get better. As much crap as you can legitimately give Blizzard, I really want them to succeed. Hearthstone can be a great and fun game, and I wish for more people to enjoy it. But it is all these problems that just give me a bad feeling. I have been a new player, I was in that position where I got really intimidated by one of my first opponents in constructed playing Doctor Boom and Muster for Battle. And on other accounts, I do see the lower ranks and can still have some of that new player experience, and at times, it is outright soulcrushing. You struggle with cheap and basic cards, you try to complete the "play 10 cards that cost 8 or more" quest, when your best bet is Ironbark Protector. And then, for completely unrelated reasons, the developers think that Innervate is problematic and should get nerfed. It just pushes a button for me, how they not only solve some issues, but make others even worse. So... I'm sorry for the rant at the end, but I'm just passionate about the game. And I hope, at least some of these things are considered by the people in charge.
Well, that's all from me for now. Congratulations and my thanks to those few who made it to the end of reading all this, and I'm curious about your thoughts regarding the new year and the future of Hearthstone! :)
I must agree with every thing you wrote, except for the shorter schelude times. I mean they would be good for the game and players, because it would keep the game fresh and amusing, but look at it from the other point of view. Many releases per yer leads to many sleepless nights of creating and testing. Even with a bigger crew this is still gonna be hard to keep up to. If Blizzard decides to do this we can surely expect a huge powercreep created solely accidentally. After that we as the community will struggle to play for at least two months before Blizzard nerfs those cards.
I must agree with every thing you wrote, except for the shorter schelude times. I mean they would be good for the game and players, because it would keep the game fresh and amusing, but look at it from the other point of view. Many releases per yer leads to many sleepless nights of creating and testing. Even with a bigger crew this is still gonna be hard to keep up to. If Blizzard decides to do this we can surely expect a huge powercreep created solely accidentally. After that we as the community will struggle to play for at least two months before Blizzard nerfs those cards.
Again, I'm sorry. It got way longer than I initially expected. Thanks for reading though!
Anyway, the increase in workload is probably why it is rather unlikely to happen. As I said, I'm not sure if this is even managable for Team 5 right now. It's also hard to estimate if this is even practical, with so many sets being developed ahead of time already, and the design process can probably not be made much more efficient than it already is. However, the current schedule feels too slow and while nerfs between expansions can help things a little bit, they are more like hotfixes, solving one or two pressing issues rather than actually giving new input to the metagame.
I think the developers are aware that "something" should be done about it, with the question being what would be a better approach. Maybe more but smaller expansions, or releasing sets over time instead of as a whole. The accidental powercreep and decks getting out of hand might just solve itself with releases and rotations happening more frequently. This is, of course, pure speculation, but I think, the community could handle rough phases better with the perspective of them not lasting as long. I mean, it can and does happen already, that things get out of hand, but right now, the new input is about 4 months away and some combos will continue to exist for another 12 months. Reducing these times significantly will contribute a lot to lower the frustration level, and gives the developers more occasions to intervene if necessary.
Less time for testing and (maybe) more bugs is probably the bigger issue here, I'd say. Although the way the game updates might also get in the way, as routinely reinstalling 1,6 GB is not fun for everyone. I don't know if this can actually be helped somehow.
Hi, I'm speaking as a newcomer to the game 1~2 months in.
You're spot on about 5. and 6. I can speak less for standard/wild and power creep, but with everything you said about the ladder and the newcomer experience, I completely agree with you. Going from the tutorial to "ranked" mode was a pretty rough transition, and it sort of felt like I either had to immediately sink $60 on packs to play a viable deck, or use my crocolisks and yetis against all these opponents with golden portraits. I bought the starter pack and dusted all of my cards so I could get myself a playable deck (a budget one at that), and now I can sort of hop on the gold grind. I've spent some money on packs since then, but it's not nearly enough to get enough cards from classic + the 4(!) expansion packs. It really does feel like a $100 entry fee to have fun.
I'm interested in how the ladder experience could be improved. Or casual mode?
3. In addition to the last point, I think we will also see yet another change in the release schedule. I think the developers are generally pretty happy with how the Year of the Mammoth has been going. And I have to agree, three full expansions per year really help to spice things up. But on the other hand, and I think many will agree with me, it's still not quite enough. The metagame is usually set about a month after the release of a new expansion, and in the 3rd and 4th month of a meta, it really starts getting painful to see the same decks over and over and over again. I think the game would be better off with content being added a bit more frequently, maybe every 2 or 3 months, and I think the developers would like to see these big changes happening more frequently as well. Question is, if they even have the resources to pull that off.
The current release shedule is already a lot to keep up for not paying players, so please no
Hi, I'm speaking as a newcomer to the game 1~2 months in.
You're spot on about 5. and 6. I can speak less for standard/wild and power creep, but with everything you said about the ladder and the newcomer experience, I completely agree with you. Going from the tutorial to "ranked" mode was a pretty rough transition, and it sort of felt like I either had to immediately sink $60 on packs to play a viable deck, or use my crocolisks and yetis against all these opponents with golden portraits. I bought the starter pack and dusted all of my cards so I could get myself a playable deck (a budget one at that), and now I can sort of hop on the gold grind. I've spent some money on packs since then, but it's not nearly enough to get enough cards from classic + the 4(!) expansion packs. It really does feel like a $100 entry fee to have fun.
I'm interested in how the ladder experience could be improved. Or casual mode?
First of all, congratulations for surviving the first two months! It can only get better from here. ;) As for your experience so far, I really feel with you. I know all too well how frustrating it can be to struggle with low quality cards and decks, and my impression is it only got worse over the years.
Just recently, a change to the ladder system was announced, largely as I expected (less of a reset/less grind), but with the perhaps important change that the lower ranks will also consist of 5 stars each. Ideally, this would mean that players will more commonly meet opponents on the same level of play. With "bigger" low ranks, there is more space to spread out, with a bigger difference between rank 21, 20 and 19. Whether it will work out or not, remains to be seen. I am actually not all that optimistic because I oftentimes get the impression there are just not all that many "new players" around to make the lower ranks adequately new-player friendly, but maybe it will make things a little better.
Unfortunately, there is nothing good to be said about costs and so far, nothing has been announced in that direction either. If we wanted to come up with a number, I'm not even sure if 100$ is covering it. Of course, there are different opinions about what would be a good starting point, but considering that you want to have at least "some" cards from all non-rotating expansions in Standard plus a few more from Classic, you'd have to spend 3-4x30$+. So, 100$ is actually somewhat optimistic. I personally also consider it an issue if you can only play one or two classes somewhat decently. I can see why some people like to specialize, but to me it feels like not having access to a large portion of the game, and it certainly makes completing daily quests harder.
An issue I haven't even addressed is the "catching up". Not only is the reward system insufficient to keep up, it's entirely impossible to catch up when you just jump into the game or took a break or just were unlucky in previous expansions. The gold you can realistically make between expansions is barely enough to get started on the new set, and all the gold you make after release goes into the next set. You can't really spend gold between expansions on older sets without falling behind when the new one comes out. Naturally, this hurts new players even more.
3. In addition to the last point, I think we will also see yet another change in the release schedule. I think the developers are generally pretty happy with how the Year of the Mammoth has been going. And I have to agree, three full expansions per year really help to spice things up. But on the other hand, and I think many will agree with me, it's still not quite enough. The metagame is usually set about a month after the release of a new expansion, and in the 3rd and 4th month of a meta, it really starts getting painful to see the same decks over and over and over again. I think the game would be better off with content being added a bit more frequently, maybe every 2 or 3 months, and I think the developers would like to see these big changes happening more frequently as well. Question is, if they even have the resources to pull that off.
The current release shedule is already a lot to keep up for not paying players, so please no
I suggest this purely from the game-perspective. It would be better for the game if more cards were released per year. But of course, it should also be good for the players. If Blizzard wants to release more content per year, an update of the reward system would be even more necessary, which I strongly advocate. As I said, the gold you can make per day nowadays is barely enough to keep you in the game. This actually should have already been addressed well over a year ago.
Hi, I'm speaking as a newcomer to the game 1~2 months in.
You're spot on about 5. and 6. I can speak less for standard/wild and power creep, but with everything you said about the ladder and the newcomer experience, I completely agree with you. Going from the tutorial to "ranked" mode was a pretty rough transition, and it sort of felt like I either had to immediately sink $60 on packs to play a viable deck, or use my crocolisks and yetis against all these opponents with golden portraits. I bought the starter pack and dusted all of my cards so I could get myself a playable deck (a budget one at that), and now I can sort of hop on the gold grind. I've spent some money on packs since then, but it's not nearly enough to get enough cards from classic + the 4(!) expansion packs. It really does feel like a $100 entry fee to have fun.
I'm interested in how the ladder experience could be improved. Or casual mode?
First of all, congratulations for surviving the first two months! It can only get better from here. ;) As for your experience so far, I really feel with you. I know all too well how frustrating it can be to struggle with low quality cards and decks, and my impression is it only got worse over the years.
Just recently, a change to the ladder system was announced, largely as I expected (less of a reset/less grind), but with the perhaps important change that the lower ranks will also consist of 5 stars each. Ideally, this would mean that players will more commonly meet opponents on the same level of play. With "bigger" low ranks, there is more space to spread out, with a bigger difference between rank 21, 20 and 19. Whether it will work out or not, remains to be seen. I am actually not all that optimistic because I oftentimes get the impression there are just not all that many "new players" around to make the lower ranks adequately new-player friendly, but maybe it will make things a little better.
Unfortunately, there is nothing good to be said about costs and so far, nothing has been announced in that direction either. If we wanted to come up with a number, I'm not even sure if 100$ is covering it. Of course, there are different opinions about what would be a good starting point, but considering that you want to have at least "some" cards from all non-rotating expansions in Standard plus a few more from Classic, you'd have to spend 3-4x30$+. So, 100$ is actually somewhat optimistic. I personally also consider it an issue if you can only play one or two classes somewhat decently. I can see why some people like to specialize, but to me it feels like not having access to a large portion of the game, and it certainly makes completing daily quests harder.
An issue I haven't even addressed is the "catching up". Not only is the reward system insufficient to keep up, it's entirely impossible to catch up when you just jump into the game or took a break or just were unlucky in previous expansions. The gold you can realistically make between expansions is barely enough to get started on the new set, and all the gold you make after release goes into the next set. You can't really spend gold between expansions on older sets without falling behind when the new one comes out. Naturally, this hurts new players even more.
3. In addition to the last point, I think we will also see yet another change in the release schedule. I think the developers are generally pretty happy with how the Year of the Mammoth has been going. And I have to agree, three full expansions per year really help to spice things up. But on the other hand, and I think many will agree with me, it's still not quite enough. The metagame is usually set about a month after the release of a new expansion, and in the 3rd and 4th month of a meta, it really starts getting painful to see the same decks over and over and over again. I think the game would be better off with content being added a bit more frequently, maybe every 2 or 3 months, and I think the developers would like to see these big changes happening more frequently as well. Question is, if they even have the resources to pull that off.
The current release shedule is already a lot to keep up for not paying players, so please no
I suggest this purely from the game-perspective. It would be better for the game if more cards were released per year. But of course, it should also be good for the players. If Blizzard wants to release more content per year, an update of the reward system would be even more necessary, which I strongly advocate. As I said, the gold you can make per day nowadays is barely enough to keep you in the game. This actually should have already been addressed well over a year ago.
I think the problem is squarely with game modes, not cards, even if you take free-to-play out of the equation. The current domination of Ranked ensures that only 10% of cards are even used. Creativity with limited game modes can solve that problem beautifully even if fewer cards are released. Releasing more and more cards won't increase the number of cards used, only the number of cards not used, and make it harder for everyone to collect.
If you increase adventure size by one wing you could give away around 60 Cards per adventure. In return the adventure could be a little more expensive, like 25€ (instead of 20€). That way you would get 2 adventures = 120 Cards for 50€, which would be roughly the same as 1 expansion and the cost of a preorder...
This would:
- ad more PvE Content (which i like a lot)
- decrease the time between releases to 3 Month
- give us the same amount of cards for deckbuilding as we have now (and the same amount of cards to test for blizz)
Release-cycle would be expansion->Adventure->expansion->Adventure->
The adventures would not even have to be "bigger". Nax and BRM were more expensive than LoE and OnK, despite rewarding less cards in total. But yes, a 5 or 6 wing adventure with maybe 10 to 12 cards per wing would be a nice solution to introduce more cards, or at least add cards more frequently, without increasing the overall costs for players even more. I like the idea, but I think it is unlikely at this point with their stance on adventures.
As far as I know it already has been confirmed, that in the near future you will drop only 4 ranks from your current rank, so legend players will start at rank 4.
I know. But if you look at the date of the post, I wrote that last year in December. ;)
I think the problem is squarely with game modes, not cards, even if you take free-to-play out of the equation. The current domination of Ranked ensures that only 10% of cards are even used. Creativity with limited game modes can solve that problem beautifully even if fewer cards are released. Releasing more and more cards won't increase the number of cards used, only the number of cards not used, and make it harder for everyone to collect.
You have a point there. It's certainly true that just adding more cards doesn't do anything if most of the cards aren't used by anyone. In fact, all "good" cards from an expansion would oftentimes fit in an adventure, if you leave all the bad ones out. Many of the cards that don't matter in constructed are at least adding something to Arena, but I think it's at least debatable if all those cards are really necessary. Though I think it is a problem of itself, that only a small fraction of all cards ends up being good enough for constructed play. This is partially because a competitive scene will naturally drive itself to only use the strongest cards and decks available, but also because a large number of cards or entire strategies are designed in a way they could never hope to be competitive, such as Freeze Shaman and all cards related to it. Not only are they just weaker, they don't have any noteworthy advantages to begin with. In the end, it would always come to a point that only a handful of decks are at the top, and only a limited number of cards from a given set would be used for these decks, but the cards that are not at the top are oftentimes at the very bottom. That can definitely be improved.
Anyways, having less cards available could fuel creativity more, I can see that. I actually was discussing with a friend that Ranked could have a blacklist to change the meta every season without nerfs and such. Just ban a few cards from ranked play (still playable in Casual and anywhere else), and players would have to come up with replacements or entire new deck strategies. Not a perfect solution, but I think it could be interesting to try.
I think a "Limited" game mode could be an option as well, maybe having a new ruleset every two weeks or so. However, I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this. I guess I'd like to see a basic draft for that mode, maybe have it in a trial phase for a month or two. But Blizzard isn't too hot about "just trying things out". At least with Arena they are more open to try out new things, but when the actual game would require an update, they tend to shy away from that. Probably also because of release-issues with App Stores, but I wish they would get a bit more daring.
Hello everyone.
I was thinking a bit about the future of Hearthstone and although it is still a bit early, with the next expansion being 4 months away, I think it is an interesting topic to discuss. I want to give you some of my own thoughts on what I think could or should happen, and I'd like to hear some opinions on what you guys think can or should change with the next year of Hearthstone. Please excuse the following wall of text. If you just want to make some predictions on what you think is going to change, feel free to skip it.
1. One of the things I expect (and really hope) most to happen is Wild content being reintroduced to the in-game store, allowing purchases of Wild sets with gold. There are many things that suggest this. First of all, as Ben Brode (and maybe other designers) has stated multiple times in the past year, the team would like to see players showing more interest in the Wild format, since the focus on Standard is more likely to cause some fatigue between expansions. Despite this, there was pretty much no support whatsoever for the format. To some extend, the game even discourages players from setting into the wild. New players are not made aware that the format exists for roughly a month of playing. Just to see older cards in the collection manager, you have to first hit the crafting button and then select older sets with that little (unmarked) button in the bottom left corner. And if you consider crafting an older card, the game even gives you a warning that it's not part of Standard anymore. Add to this, that Wild sets have been banned from Arena (probably a good move but not helping the format) and, as of late, are oftentimes not allowed/don't appear anymore in Tavern Brawl. Out of sight, out of mind, it seems. And older sets sort of being behind a paywall right now probably discourages most players from even giving it a try. It's no surprise that many players play wild just with standard decks, making the format rather "tame". If there really is an interest on the developer's side to make the format relevant again, the first step should be to make the cards more available than right now and actually give players the impression that the format matters to the developers. One of my favorite examples is that the nerf of Dreadsteed happend without an in-game notification. If you didn't know that Dreadsteed got nerfed, the game would not have told you so. That and the (in my opinion) rather ugly setup for wild with the brown paper in the collection and the tandrils everywhere really gives players the feeling of Wild as a dumpster. And irioncially, the so called "Hall of Fame" suggests that even more, with cards literally getting disposed from Standard.
Another reason why it should happen with the next rotation is that the in-game store right now features an Adventure-button, which only contains One Night in Karazhan. And as we know, Team 5 now rather includes sinlge player content with expansions and gave up the strategy of releasing low impact adventures. In other words, the button is going to be obsolete next year with no plans to revive it. At least "some" change of the interface HAS to happen. And I think with the considerations mentioned before, the most logical step would be to make this button the "Wild"-button, giving old content a seperate section in the store.
2. A rather artificial problem (explaining why it's artificial would be a different topic) that the developers continuously complain about is the relevance of Classic and Basic in Standard and the circumstance that new cards oftentimes don't have the impact on the constructed scene the developers would hope for. There are different ways to respond to that problem, but I think what is most likely to happen is that we will see another large chunk of Classic and Basic cards nerfed or added to the Hall of Fame. Not too long ago, Ben Brode argued on Reddit that the average Standard deck (or any deck really) should not contain more than 10 cards from the core set. But when you look at some classes, that is almost not possible. With Druid, they already enforced this rule by nerfing almost every class card in the Classic set that was not on the weak side to begin with (and I strongly expect Nourish to get hit as well), also forcing a reinvention of the class with every new expansion. Hunter, on the other hand, is a prime example of how to make such drastic nerfs necessary. The class has had one failed expansion after another, and aside from some odd novelties such as Secret Hunter in Karazhan, the Yogg-and-Load that some people tried and the (maybe successfull) invention of the Spell Hunter, all new Hunter cards are measured as "does it fit into Midrange Hunter?". That deck is one of the few archetypes remaining from the old days, about the only Hunter archetpye that has always more or less worked, and the decklist shows with cards like Savannah Highmane, Kill Command, Houndmaster, Animal Companion, Unleash the Hounds [/card] and some others being essential to the deck. Even worse, some new cards have further strengthened that archetype, like [card]Alleycat, Crackling Razormaw or Bearshark, which is why most Hunter players continued to play that same old deck with some little additions here and there. Other classes that heavily rely on their core set are Priest, Mage and to a lesser extend Rogue. In addition, many archetpyes only work because of the core set. There is no Control Paladin without Equality and Consecration, there is no Token/board-focused Shaman without Flametongue Totem and Bloodlust, and almost every Mage deck is either tempo-oriented with Mana Wyrm and Sorcerer's Apprentice being the baseline, or is build around Ice Block in one way or another for a control-ish type. I feel that Team 5 is not too happy about the core set actually being the core of some classes. So I assume that for "design space"-reasons, some of these cards will be removed at least from Standard.
3. In addition to the last point, I think we will also see yet another change in the release schedule. I think the developers are generally pretty happy with how the Year of the Mammoth has been going. And I have to agree, three full expansions per year really help to spice things up. But on the other hand, and I think many will agree with me, it's still not quite enough. The metagame is usually set about a month after the release of a new expansion, and in the 3rd and 4th month of a meta, it really starts getting painful to see the same decks over and over and over again. I think the game would be better off with content being added a bit more frequently, maybe every 2 or 3 months, and I think the developers would like to see these big changes happening more frequently as well. Question is, if they even have the resources to pull that off.
4. While it sounds a bit contradictory to what I said earlier, I think this year has shown more than any other, that the game can easily get stuck if there are too many cards in Standard. Many of the new ideas implemented in JTU, KFT and KnC got overshadowed by ONK and MSG, or worked a little too well with the older cards. So, I think in addition to releasing content more frequently, Blizzard might consider to make the Standard cycles shorter. I think the quality of new cards on average shows that the designers really want to avoid a second happening of TGT. They want to make strong cards that will have a large impact on the meta. But when every expansion is on that power level, it is more likely to happen that decks can get out of hand, as it happend with Jade Druid in KFT and might be happening with Priest or Rogue right now. This wasn't even the first time it happened, but the nerfs happen much sooner nowadays than they used to. On the one hand, that is a good thing, on the other, it shows that many things turn out stronger than the developers apparantly can anticipate, and it can easily cause a lot of frustration right after the launch of an expansion. And that actually should be the best time to enjoy Hearthstone. So, maybe they will consider to let a set expire on the 3rd or 4th expansion following it, so that each new set stays for roughly 12 months in Standard.
5. A topic that somehow was always talked about but never tackled is the ladder for Ranked play, and several developers have already said they are not happy with it and are totally working on something right now. I think, next year we can expect a change of the ladder in some way, although I wonder if the change will be substantial enough. The main issue for most players is the grinding aspect of it, and I think that will be targeted by changing the "reset" of a new season, maybe setting players back only 5 ranks or giving them more bonus stars. What I think will NOT be targetted despite being a problem is the structure of the ladder. As Blizzard has oftentimes stated, more than 50% of all players are lower than rank 19 (iirc), and only about 20% of all players are at rank 15 or higher. Also, the ranks 25-21 can be considered the "new player zone", with most serious players never seeing these ranks at all. Even players who only rank up to 20 every season will start again on 23, if I'm not mistaken. To put it into perspective, we have about 4 ranks for new players and less serious players, 2-4 ranks for normal/casual players, and 15 for those who play more seriously. And while most people claim that the competitive scene really just starts at rank 5 or even later, it is a common issue for many players that netdecking starts as early as rank 19 or 18. Given how many cards per expansion are not even intended to be competitive and how much the developers want to emphasize the crazy and fun and weird aspects of Hearthstone, it doesn not really work that way if two, maybe three ranks out of 25 are a good playground for that. And as many others will likely confirm me, Casual is NOT the answer to that. Depending on how well you have been doing, there is virtually no difference between the decks you encounter in Casual and in Ranked. If the developers want a place for these "fun" decks and cards to see play, it shouldn't be just between rank 20 and 19 with the chance of still commonly facing the latest incarnation of Tempo Mage or Miracle Rogue. If Ranked is only meant to be for the most competitive players, it needs to be advertised differently and should be changed drastically. There is no point in establishing "new player ranks" and "little rewards to help your collection", giving them a place where they can only compete for at most 10 wins, if they ultimately are supposed to get stomped as soon as they get to 20. And for the serious scene, I doubt that you need 15 ranks with I don't know how many stars required to slow down your progress.
6. Finally, again continuing something I mentioned just a paragraph ago, the new player experience needs help, and I admit upfront I will get a little bit emotional here. This also was aknowledged by the developers, so we can expect "something" to happen, but given the latest endeavours, I'm not very optimistic on that. Or lets say, there have been improvements, and they were good ones, but they don't come close to solving the multitude of issues that have piled up over the years and I don't think we will get a good solution offered anytime soon. My hope is at least another small step comung up soon.
I think it is good that they got rid of duplicate legendaries and a guaranteed orange gem appearing in the first 10 packs of an unpurchased set. Still leaves you with the problem that one player can open an unconditionally good legendary like Sunkeeper Tarim, while another one gets a high requirement legendary like Krul the Unshackled or a straight up bad one like Millhouse Manastorm. I think it's worth pointing out here that more recent legendaries are designed to synergize with other legendaries and epics, such as Rhok'delar and To my side. Then again, since JTU, the quality of Commons in new expansions has increased a lot, and although decks on average got more expensive, budget decks leaning into the zoo/mid-agressive direction can still be somewhat successful. However, as already mentioned, ranked is not made for new players. They can have a good time for maybe 10 or 15 games, but when they get to 20 or 19, or maybe make it to 16, they will eventually get stomped hard. The whole "budget" thing is just not a thing anymore on ranked. Most players will disenchant their entire collection to make one, maybe two working decks and grind them at nauseum, killing the diversity and punishing those who like to keep their cards. Effectively, new players have to get themselves a good deck quickly, or they get eaten alive. Not much of a joyful journey of exploration left, is there?
I don't think bad cards or even the luck aspect of pack opening is the main issue that forces players into netdecking and trading a big collection for just one 10k dust deck. I think, it's more the reward system as a whole and the ratio of dust gained/needed. Getting a legendary in 10 packs is great, grinding with basics for 2 weeks to get 10 packs isn't. And you don't do this for one set like people could do during Beta and Vanilla, you do this for 6, and that's just Standard. I know, some people will say that Wild is only for veterans anyway, but come on, why make it a no go area for the increasing populace of the game, when you can easily change it? Anyway, the reward system with daily quests awarding about 50 gold, the 3 wins bonus and the occasional arena run worked really well when there was only one set to buy and the next expansions being a relatively cheap Adventures. Nowadays, we have at mininum Classic + 4 big expansions in Standard, and the next big 135 card expansion always on the horizon. The outlook of grinding for well over a month at low odds of success or spending about 100 $ upfront is unlikely to get new players hooked and invested into the game. I know this is a tricky topic, since there are many players that, for some reason, don't want the system to get cheaper, coming up with lines like "I've been playing since beta and I never spent a single cent and I have all legendaries and hit legend every month" or "just go infinite in arena and you'll have all the cards in just a few months". While these uhm... "arguments" might fit the whole F2P debate somewhat (although not really), it does not contribute to the problems new players are facing right now. Less than one pack per day, requiring extensive grinding and/or doing really well in arena for a minimum effort of about 2 hours per day, every day for over a month, just to get started, is NOT friendly to new players. And like it or not, the whole F2P model that Hearthstone embraces is specifically meant to attract as many players as possible and then get them to spent money when they like the game (although most other good F2P games don't want to create an absolute necessity to spend money at all, going for an "ethical" approach where money is mostly spent on cosmetics). I doubt that the game right now is in a state where it can be enjoyed without spending money upfront and having no experience whatsoever. Or lets say, the enjoyment dies down rather quickly.
Another issue that the developers have successfully ignored for years is the really worthelss tutorial and the fact that even the Innkeeper decks were never updated at all. Even his "expert" decks feature such nerf victims as Starving Buzzard, Warsong Commander and Keeper of the Grove. Truly, I've mastered the game, for I have beaten the Expert Innkeeper and his overnerfed trash cards that nobody dared playing in years. The tutorial and the Innkeeper are supposed to get new players into the game, letting them learn the mechanics, the cards and refine their skills to a point they feel confident in taking on real players. In reality, these modes are helplessly outdated and new players might indeed learn the basic mechanics, but only to find out that about every single card they encounter in Play mode has 2 keywords they never heard of, huge battlecries, or just the word "random" slapped on it without note what this "random" even means. An experienced player knows and fears, that a Firelands Portal can spit out a Doomguard, and what cards are generated by The Lich King. They know that a mage secret without obvious triggers is likely Iceblock and they need to be fast or lose the game inevitably. A new player doesn't and is likely not enjoying the experience.
Also, the starting decks have always been weak and were meant to be refined, even with just basic cards, by new players. It was supposed to be a part of the learning experience and introduce them to the fun of deck building. However, the quality of the Basic set has been drastically lowered over the years with more changes to be expected. Not only are the starter decks a joke, and plenty of the good basic cards nerfed into oblivion, the decks you can make with basic cards are a joke in comparison to even the cheapest decks one could make these days. It's not just that Boulderfist Ogre got powercreeped like 5 times already, it's that the game's pace has changed so much that you are likely dead before you even get to play the ogre. And while some might claim otherwise, that has not always been the case. As I said earlier, it's good that common cards got more powerful. Players will eventually open a lot of commons and it's a good thing that even the "pack fillers" can help them to make their decks more powerful and interesting. But at the same time, I think it is a bit alarming how much the powerlevel of the game has gone up. When Standard launched, the developers argued that one of the reasons for the new format was to avoid powercreeping. They didn't want to be forced to make new cards much better than old time favorites like Sludge Belcher and Piloted Shredder. Well, I think we are a bit beyond that now, aren't we? The supposed "balance", the well maintained power level of Standard, is completely out the window by now. That also makes the game a bit more interesting, sure, but it creates and even fiercer environment for new players to set foot in; something that the developers were specifically trying to avoid, when they opted for Standard. Oops?!
The super minimalistic interface of the game also doesn't help. Quite literally in fact, as it does not even provide a help button or an info section on what was recently changed or what to expect in the upcoming months. Sure, this is not a big issue for those players who are in touch with the community and the developers, visiting sites like this one almost every day. But if you would sell Hearthstone as a standalone product right now, it really lacks some polishment. I am not saying that every other game does it way better, but if you truly care for new players, you do have to go the extra mile to help them get started and find out about everything. And I think Hearthstone has a few more miles to walk, since it has been standing still for the last couple years in that department.
It's just that I really want to see the game get better. As much crap as you can legitimately give Blizzard, I really want them to succeed. Hearthstone can be a great and fun game, and I wish for more people to enjoy it. But it is all these problems that just give me a bad feeling. I have been a new player, I was in that position where I got really intimidated by one of my first opponents in constructed playing Doctor Boom and Muster for Battle. And on other accounts, I do see the lower ranks and can still have some of that new player experience, and at times, it is outright soulcrushing. You struggle with cheap and basic cards, you try to complete the "play 10 cards that cost 8 or more" quest, when your best bet is Ironbark Protector. And then, for completely unrelated reasons, the developers think that Innervate is problematic and should get nerfed. It just pushes a button for me, how they not only solve some issues, but make others even worse. So... I'm sorry for the rant at the end, but I'm just passionate about the game. And I hope, at least some of these things are considered by the people in charge.
Well, that's all from me for now. Congratulations and my thanks to those few who made it to the end of reading all this, and I'm curious about your thoughts regarding the new year and the future of Hearthstone! :)
Such a huge wall of text!
I must agree with every thing you wrote, except for the shorter schelude times. I mean they would be good for the game and players, because it would keep the game fresh and amusing, but look at it from the other point of view. Many releases per yer leads to many sleepless nights of creating and testing. Even with a bigger crew this is still gonna be hard to keep up to. If Blizzard decides to do this we can surely expect a huge powercreep created solely accidentally. After that we as the community will struggle to play for at least two months before Blizzard nerfs those cards.
Hi, I'm speaking as a newcomer to the game 1~2 months in.
You're spot on about 5. and 6. I can speak less for standard/wild and power creep, but with everything you said about the ladder and the newcomer experience, I completely agree with you. Going from the tutorial to "ranked" mode was a pretty rough transition, and it sort of felt like I either had to immediately sink $60 on packs to play a viable deck, or use my crocolisks and yetis against all these opponents with golden portraits. I bought the starter pack and dusted all of my cards so I could get myself a playable deck (a budget one at that), and now I can sort of hop on the gold grind. I've spent some money on packs since then, but it's not nearly enough to get enough cards from classic + the 4(!) expansion packs. It really does feel like a $100 entry fee to have fun.
I'm interested in how the ladder experience could be improved. Or casual mode?
The current release shedule is already a lot to keep up for not paying players, so please no
As for your experience so far, I really feel with you. I know all too well how frustrating it can be to struggle with low quality cards and decks, and my impression is it only got worse over the years.
Though I think it is a problem of itself, that only a small fraction of all cards ends up being good enough for constructed play. This is partially because a competitive scene will naturally drive itself to only use the strongest cards and decks available, but also because a large number of cards or entire strategies are designed in a way they could never hope to be competitive, such as Freeze Shaman and all cards related to it. Not only are they just weaker, they don't have any noteworthy advantages to begin with. In the end, it would always come to a point that only a handful of decks are at the top, and only a limited number of cards from a given set would be used for these decks, but the cards that are not at the top are oftentimes at the very bottom. That can definitely be improved.
Feels like the latter half its lifespan with the Kobolds expansion, tbh.