Everyone's opinion is biased and subjective, and any one of us with a brain could come up with an argument about how any deck, card, or archtype could be labeled as boring to play against, not fun to play against, brainless, etc. Everyone can't be right, and yet the community wants to do just that. Everyone wants their opinion to be THE opinion, it is a human nature flaw, but if everyone had their way and balanced this game based on every Timmy and Sally who was salty about every little thing we wouldn't have almost any decent card or deck left.
Additionally, even when one deck or card is nerfed the incessant complaining doesn't end at that. Say that Odd Pally was nerfed to oblivion, or Shudderwok Shaman, or Haddronox Druid. The vocal minority wouldn't be appeased and instead of playing the dang game they would just move their pickets against something else to complain about, again another human nature flaw. The perfect example? The whole Jade Druid situation. Whether or not it was justified or not to send balance passes its way is besides the point now. What really stood out was that after Jade Druid was nerfed and mostly declined on ladder people just started complaining about Razakus Priest. After Razakus Priest? Tempo/Keleseth Rogue. The vocal minority was never happy with just one or two balance passes. This is why nerfing things based on taste is pointless. It never appeases those who complain.
The above two headaches should represent solid enough reasons why it is pretty pointless to nerf based on taste instead of power level. All it does it reduce the number of deck types players can play in standard and wild, and what is the point of reducing the number of things players can play? Wouldn't you rather have more options than less?
So how do you propose Blizzard go about labeling power levels to each card? Also, how do they go about depicting that power level onto the cards so the community can see that system in effect? After the power levels of each card is established, what do you think the community will do?
I like the idea, it would be great to have an established power ranking system, but there will always be a part of the community that will find a reason to complain. I respect your thoughts and efforts to find a medium to at least fix the taste nerfs rather then necessary power nerfs.
So how do you propose Blizzard go about labeling power levels to each card? Also, how do they go about depicting that power level onto the cards so the community can see that system in effect? After the power levels of each card is established, what do you think the community will do?
I like the idea, it would be great to have an established power ranking system, but there will always be a part of the community that will find a reason to complain. I respect your thoughts and efforts to find a medium to at least fix the taste nerfs rather then necessary power nerfs.
Well, one idea to tinker with could be for the design team to put together their own tier list (think sort of what they've done with arena in various forms) rating cards from most powerful to least powerful for each archtype (so control, aggro, midrange, control (OTK), etc). Such a list could include what they decide are the most powerful cards based on how often they are used, and limit the list for each archtype to 20 cards. These lists could be updated every few months with each new expansion after they get enough data to track how often cards are being used.
However, cards being used frequently wouldn't guarantee any potential balance checks, but they could also cross reference the occurrence a specific card with the deck that is using it to see if that card is occurring so often simply because it is a class/synergy staple vs a card that they feel could potentially be an actual overtuned card.
I'd much rather have the designers be in charge of how they balance their cards rather than suffering what WoW has long suffered and be pressured into strong-arm tactics from the vocal minority into nerfing decks and cards that those specific players dislike.
Everyone's opinion is biased and subjective, and any one of us with a brain could come up with an argument about how any deck, card, or archtype could be labeled as boring to play against, not fun to play against, brainless, etc. Everyone can't be right, and yet the community wants to do just that. Everyone wants their opinion to be THE opinion, it is a human nature flaw, but if everyone had their way and balanced this game based on every Timmy and Sally who was salty about every little thing we wouldn't have almost any decent card or deck left.
Additionally, even when one deck or card is nerfed the incessant complaining doesn't end at that. Say that Odd Pally was nerfed to oblivion, or Shudderwok Shaman, or Haddronox Druid. The vocal minority wouldn't be appeased and instead of playing the dang game they would just move their pickets against something else to complain about, again another human nature flaw. The perfect example? The whole Jade Druid situation. Whether or not it was justified or not to send balance passes its way is besides the point now. What really stood out was that after Jade Druid was nerfed and mostly declined on ladder people just started complaining about Razakus Priest. After Razakus Priest? Tempo/Keleseth Rogue. The vocal minority was never happy with just one or two balance passes. This is why nerfing things based on taste is pointless. It never appeases those who complain.
The above two headaches should represent solid enough reasons why it is pretty pointless to nerf based on taste instead of power level. All it does it reduce the number of deck types players can play in standard and wild, and what is the point of reducing the number of things players can play? Wouldn't you rather have more options than less?
I don't completely agree. Although you're right there will always be people who complain about decks or cards or play-styles, there are certain decks that, in general, are not as hated, therefore nerfing a card or deck that is strongly hated by almost all players, will end up with a meta that is more agreeably "Balanced" than before, as long as an even worse deck doesn't arise, and while it is virtually impossible to be 100% sure that will the case, lately, Blizzard has seemed to be very good with predictions like that. For example, Cubelock was probably the most hated deck in the game, so Blizzard nerfed it. After the nerf even warlock became the new go-to warlock deck, and while i'm sure some people hate it, it has received far less hate than Cubelock did, and not every single fucking thread on this site is talking about how cancerous it is.
Also, I think it is pretty clear that nerfing cards does NOT decrease the number of playable decks. Just look at the latest nerfs, the are more viable decks than ever. Sure, no one plays even pally anymore, but those nerfs gave less popular decks a chance to rise up and we now have a meta more diverse than ever.
Hmm, so Kingsbane rogue is cool with you now? Because the deck wasn't even good enough for anyone to bring to the recent History of Hearthstone finals and clearly loses hard to aggro and bad draws. Its power level is objectively in line with, if now lower than, other wild decks and VS stats support this fact ;)
The above two headaches should represent solid enough reasons why it is pretty pointless to nerf based on taste instead of power level. All it does it reduce the number of deck types players can play in standard and wild, and what is the point of reducing the number of things players can play? Wouldn't you rather have more options than less?
Not necessarily true. Take the recent nerfs for example; the top few decks were nerfed which allowed the weaker decks to rise up and join them in the top tiers while most of the nerfed decks were still playable.
Hmm, so Kingsbane rogue is cool with you now? Because the deck wasn't even good enough for anyone to bring to the recent History of Hearthstone finals and clearly loses hard to aggro and bad draws. Its power level is objectively in line with, if now lower than, other wild decks and VS stats support this fact ;)
The above two headaches should represent solid enough reasons why it is pretty pointless to nerf based on taste instead of power level. All it does it reduce the number of deck types players can play in standard and wild, and what is the point of reducing the number of things players can play? Wouldn't you rather have more options than less?
Not necessarily true. Take the recent nerfs for example; the top few decks were nerfed which allowed the weaker decks to rise up and join them in the top tiers while most of the nerfed decks were still playable.
I may hate Kingsbane Rogue in wild, but that doesn't mean I'm going to be immature and cry until daddy blizzard nerfs the deck after threatening to quit the game. There are still plenty of decks that beat it and if stats showed that it wasn't an overtuned deck then by all means keep it as it is.
That may have happened with the recent decks, but looking at the past it is easy to be concerned about decks disappearing from the game completely due to pendulum nerfs that don't even try to make a more realistic nerf before putting down the ban hammer supreme. Patron Warrior was one of these decks. I remember vividly how many people suggested just changing Warsong Commander so that if a minion's attack goes above 2 or 3 attack just make the charge effect turn off. Nope, didn't even bother with something like that and just instantly broke the card so that it was utter garbage.
If nerfs weren't these exaggerated and drastic changes a third of time that are often spurred on by players complaining for a whole meta and were more gradual to see how small changes affected the deck and decks competing with them then I wouldn't be as concerned. However, that doesn't seem to be the trend typically, barring most of the recent non-NSW nerfs.
This game would be easy to have relatively balanced, but Blizz retains big spenders that crush poor people with OP decks.
That's it. You really think they are trying to balance the game with 1 change every 4 months?
It's not a matter of balanced fun or balanced power. It would be easy to have both.
Not all powerful decks are expensive decks.
No, it would be a wave of change (where it would actually be needed) every 4 months. The HS community has this weird expectation that changes are supposed to happen bi-weekly or monthly when you should be grateful that it isn't handled like in other card games like Yu-Gi-Oh where we had some variation of Chaos Control for over a year straight. Feel grateful.
I disagree that it is easy. What one group of players finds fun another group doesn't find fun. Plenty of players love combo and OTK decks and there are other players who want them all nerfed to the ground. There are no easy gray areas for subjective battles like that.
Also, I think it is pretty clear that nerfing cards does NOT decrease the number of playable decks.
About time someone pointed this out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Start of Year: Provoke the failure of 3 expansions, force nerfs on otherwise balanced cards, bring deckbuilding to an all-time low and get rotated one year earlier for being such a threat to the game's health. - Genn and Baku's historical entry on the White Book of Shit Design, shortly before retiring unpunished
Everyone's opinion is biased and subjective, and any one of us with a brain could come up with an argument about how any deck, card, or archtype could be labeled as boring to play against, not fun to play against, brainless, etc. Everyone can't be right, and yet the community wants to do just that. Everyone wants their opinion to be THE opinion, it is a human nature flaw, but if everyone had their way and balanced this game based on every Timmy and Sally who was salty about every little thing we wouldn't have almost any decent card or deck left.
Additionally, even when one deck or card is nerfed the incessant complaining doesn't end at that. Say that Odd Pally was nerfed to oblivion, or Shudderwok Shaman, or Haddronox Druid. The vocal minority wouldn't be appeased and instead of playing the dang game they would just move their pickets against something else to complain about, again another human nature flaw. The perfect example? The whole Jade Druid situation. Whether or not it was justified or not to send balance passes its way is besides the point now. What really stood out was that after Jade Druid was nerfed and mostly declined on ladder people just started complaining about Razakus Priest. After Razakus Priest? Tempo/Keleseth Rogue. The vocal minority was never happy with just one or two balance passes. This is why nerfing things based on taste is pointless. It never appeases those who complain.
The above two headaches should represent solid enough reasons why it is pretty pointless to nerf based on taste instead of power level. All it does it reduce the number of deck types players can play in standard and wild, and what is the point of reducing the number of things players can play? Wouldn't you rather have more options than less?
Yeah, you might be right about that - but only if Blizzard was mainly interested in balance. All they want as a game developer is (understandably) earning money. That is also why they hit unloved cards/decks.
We could now cry how evil Blizzard is, but after all they want to earn their money, just as we consumers do. And after all Blizzard is more of a good-guy-developer than most other big developers (I am not just looking at EA) even though they were more player-friendly in the past.
There have been nerfs for various reasons, the most common being that a deck or card is too dominant, and shapes the whole metagame around itself, counter it, counter the conters or forget it.
The worst nerfs imo have been to combo decks that are hard to play and have never been on top of win- nor playrates, but Blizzard seems to not like that playstyle in their game.
Anyway, I could see some cards being nerfed for the sole purpose of changing the metagame, but it often means screwing people over who crafted other cards for the nerfed decks.
Everyone's opinion is biased and subjective, and any one of us with a brain could come up with an argument about how any deck, card, or archtype could be labeled as boring to play against, not fun to play against, brainless, etc. Everyone can't be right, and yet the community wants to do just that. Everyone wants their opinion to be THE opinion, it is a human nature flaw, but if everyone had their way and balanced this game based on every Timmy and Sally who was salty about every little thing we wouldn't have almost any decent card or deck left.
Additionally, even when one deck or card is nerfed the incessant complaining doesn't end at that. Say that Odd Pally was nerfed to oblivion, or Shudderwok Shaman, or Haddronox Druid. The vocal minority wouldn't be appeased and instead of playing the dang game they would just move their pickets against something else to complain about, again another human nature flaw. The perfect example? The whole Jade Druid situation. Whether or not it was justified or not to send balance passes its way is besides the point now. What really stood out was that after Jade Druid was nerfed and mostly declined on ladder people just started complaining about Razakus Priest. After Razakus Priest? Tempo/Keleseth Rogue. The vocal minority was never happy with just one or two balance passes. This is why nerfing things based on taste is pointless. It never appeases those who complain.
The above two headaches should represent solid enough reasons why it is pretty pointless to nerf based on taste instead of power level. All it does it reduce the number of deck types players can play in standard and wild, and what is the point of reducing the number of things players can play? Wouldn't you rather have more options than less?
So how do you propose Blizzard go about labeling power levels to each card? Also, how do they go about depicting that power level onto the cards so the community can see that system in effect? After the power levels of each card is established, what do you think the community will do?
I like the idea, it would be great to have an established power ranking system, but there will always be a part of the community that will find a reason to complain. I respect your thoughts and efforts to find a medium to at least fix the taste nerfs rather then necessary power nerfs.
Cute, ineffective, but cute.
Well, one idea to tinker with could be for the design team to put together their own tier list (think sort of what they've done with arena in various forms) rating cards from most powerful to least powerful for each archtype (so control, aggro, midrange, control (OTK), etc). Such a list could include what they decide are the most powerful cards based on how often they are used, and limit the list for each archtype to 20 cards. These lists could be updated every few months with each new expansion after they get enough data to track how often cards are being used.
However, cards being used frequently wouldn't guarantee any potential balance checks, but they could also cross reference the occurrence a specific card with the deck that is using it to see if that card is occurring so often simply because it is a class/synergy staple vs a card that they feel could potentially be an actual overtuned card.
I'd much rather have the designers be in charge of how they balance their cards rather than suffering what WoW has long suffered and be pressured into strong-arm tactics from the vocal minority into nerfing decks and cards that those specific players dislike.
I don't completely agree. Although you're right there will always be people who complain about decks or cards or play-styles, there are certain decks that, in general, are not as hated, therefore nerfing a card or deck that is strongly hated by almost all players, will end up with a meta that is more agreeably "Balanced" than before, as long as an even worse deck doesn't arise, and while it is virtually impossible to be 100% sure that will the case, lately, Blizzard has seemed to be very good with predictions like that. For example, Cubelock was probably the most hated deck in the game, so Blizzard nerfed it. After the nerf even warlock became the new go-to warlock deck, and while i'm sure some people hate it, it has received far less hate than Cubelock did, and not every single fucking thread on this site is talking about how cancerous it is.
Also, I think it is pretty clear that nerfing cards does NOT decrease the number of playable decks. Just look at the latest nerfs, the are more viable decks than ever. Sure, no one plays even pally anymore, but those nerfs gave less popular decks a chance to rise up and we now have a meta more diverse than ever.
I think I know what I'm talking about.
Not necessarily true. Take the recent nerfs for example; the top few decks were nerfed which allowed the weaker decks to rise up and join them in the top tiers while most of the nerfed decks were still playable.
Legend with : S65 Freeze Mage, S57 Maly Gonk Druid, S57 "Okay" Shaman, S53 Boom-zooka Hunter, S53 Maly Tog Druid, S52 Wild Tog Druid ft.Blingtron, S50 Quest Rogue, S49 Dead Man's Warrior, S41 Wild Clown Fiesta Druid, S41 Hadronox Jade Druid, S40 Wild OTK Dragon Druid, S35 SMOrc Shaman, S33 Jade Druid, S22 Control Priest, S19 Control Priest
I may hate Kingsbane Rogue in wild, but that doesn't mean I'm going to be immature and cry until daddy blizzard nerfs the deck after threatening to quit the game. There are still plenty of decks that beat it and if stats showed that it wasn't an overtuned deck then by all means keep it as it is.
That may have happened with the recent decks, but looking at the past it is easy to be concerned about decks disappearing from the game completely due to pendulum nerfs that don't even try to make a more realistic nerf before putting down the ban hammer supreme. Patron Warrior was one of these decks. I remember vividly how many people suggested just changing Warsong Commander so that if a minion's attack goes above 2 or 3 attack just make the charge effect turn off. Nope, didn't even bother with something like that and just instantly broke the card so that it was utter garbage.
If nerfs weren't these exaggerated and drastic changes a third of time that are often spurred on by players complaining for a whole meta and were more gradual to see how small changes affected the deck and decks competing with them then I wouldn't be as concerned. However, that doesn't seem to be the trend typically, barring most of the recent non-NSW nerfs.
This game would be easy to have relatively balanced, but Blizz retains big spenders that crush poor people with OP decks.
That's it. You really think they are trying to balance the game with 1 change every 4 months?
It's not a matter of balanced fun or balanced power. It would be easy to have both.
Not all powerful decks are expensive decks.
No, it would be a wave of change (where it would actually be needed) every 4 months. The HS community has this weird expectation that changes are supposed to happen bi-weekly or monthly when you should be grateful that it isn't handled like in other card games like Yu-Gi-Oh where we had some variation of Chaos Control for over a year straight. Feel grateful.
I disagree that it is easy. What one group of players finds fun another group doesn't find fun. Plenty of players love combo and OTK decks and there are other players who want them all nerfed to the ground. There are no easy gray areas for subjective battles like that.
I love the f2p vs p2w arguments. That in itself is a biased argument. And doesn't have anything to do with this thread at its core.
@Bennoloth: However please enlighten us as to how the game would be easier to balance if there wasn't the apparent greed factor you are referencing.
Cute, ineffective, but cute.
About time someone pointed this out.
Start of Year: Provoke the failure of 3 expansions, force nerfs on otherwise balanced cards, bring deckbuilding to an all-time low and get rotated one year earlier for being such a threat to the game's health.
- Genn and Baku's historical entry on the White Book of Shit Design, shortly before retiring unpunished
As far as i remember, all the nerfs happened based on contextualised powerlevel (in current and potential meta).
Or, please name a card that was nerfed based exclusively on collective taste.
Yeah, you might be right about that - but only if Blizzard was mainly interested in balance. All they want as a game developer is (understandably) earning money. That is also why they hit unloved cards/decks.
We could now cry how evil Blizzard is, but after all they want to earn their money, just as we consumers do. And after all Blizzard is more of a good-guy-developer than most other big developers (I am not just looking at EA) even though they were more player-friendly in the past.
There have been nerfs for various reasons, the most common being that a deck or card is too dominant, and shapes the whole metagame around itself, counter it, counter the conters or forget it.
The worst nerfs imo have been to combo decks that are hard to play and have never been on top of win- nor playrates, but Blizzard seems to not like that playstyle in their game.
Anyway, I could see some cards being nerfed for the sole purpose of changing the metagame, but it often means screwing people over who crafted other cards for the nerfed decks.
Editor of the Heartpwn Legendary Crafting Guide:
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/card-discussion/205920-legendary-tier-list-crafting-guide