First off - this isn't a salty "I lost" post so if your only answer is a link to the salt thread please go elsewhere. I'm also really focusing on standard as that's what I mostly play. There are two main points - OTK decks and Hall of Fame.
OTK
I feel like there's a lot of inconsistency in the design philosophy of the cards blizzard release when compared with previous statements, nerfs and hall-of-fames (HoF). In the past the general message appeared to be that decks should be "fun and interactive". Consequently mill and OTK decks which aim to stall and/or collect combo pieces were actively punished by nerfs and by having key cards rotated to HoF. Decks like mill rogue, freeze mage, get-in-here warrior no longer exist as a direct result of this. Yet the recent expansions have have introduced cards which appear aimed entirely at OTK decks (Time warp, Mecha'thun, Malygos shenanigans, Velen mind blast - there are too many to list!). Now either Blizz doesn't foresee how these cards will end up being used (which is an unlikely and slightly terrifying prospect) or they've decided OTK is now OK (which seems more likely). The argument that these decks are generally not competitive doesn't sit well with me as 1) they often are competitive and 2) losing a game because you've drawn against a OTK and you're playing control is terrible for the game. The decisions made in the game should be as important as those going in to the decks - after all, many people make no decisions about their decks and just copy the best ones off this site.
HoF
The existence of the hall of fame has always bothered me. The argument as I understand it is that some classic cards which will never rotate out are used in too many decks and limit the variability of the decks being built. I think this is bull. Cards only get used in too many decks when they're not properly balanced making them better than all alternatives. Take Ragnaros - Lord of fire. He was a staple in most control decks because he guaranteed 8 damage the turn he was played and was fairly immune to silence effects. Would he see play today - maybe. But the swarm nature of many of the decks would make him pretty ineffective in the current (and recent) meta. Were he nerfed to say 0/8 with the same effect + gain 8 attack battlecry he would see even less play as silence is so prevalent. Likewise azure drake would not feature in as many decks with a few tweaks. Which begs the question - why move them to HoF? Why do some cards get nerfed to oblivion (Warsong commander) while others get HoF? One argument which can't be made is that the HoF cards couldn't be nerfed without dramatically changing the essence of the card, as that's exactly what happened in the Warsong nerf. So many of the cards which have been HoF could have provided useful tech options to some of the current meta decks (e.g. Sylvanus might have helped against Shudder and Cubelock decks, ice block definitely helps against some OTK, Coldlight oracle could be a useful tool against OTK decks) and after all isn't that part of what this game is about - seeing what cards are getting used regularly and tweaking decks to counter it?
TL/DR - Does Blizz have a design philosophy at all and why does the HoF exist when we have nerfs? It feels to me like Blizz has no overarching ideology for how this game should play and is just making shit up as they go.
The HoF free's up space in a lazy way and I would argue that there isn't actually a need for space to be made. The deck limit of 30 cards already limits what cards can be used and old sets are rotated out regularly. Imagine you create a card with the same mana cost and an equally interesting (but different) effect as one of the HoF cards. You can't just add it to your current meta deck so you have to take something out. Which card prevails should depend on the current meta and the type of combinations your deck is trying to achieve. If new cards of the same mana cost never get played it's because they're simply not of the same power level of other cards (or the meta doesn't allow it). Azure drake is a fine example of this - it was simply too good for it's effect and so it featured in many, many decks. Would it get used as a 2/4 maybe - maybe not, but importantly the card effect (+1 spell and 1 card draw) would be a compromise with the stats and you would have to make some choices as to what was more important for your deck. All cards should have some compromise built in when compared with others of the same mana cost.
(I'll concede im slightly on the fence about ice block as it's effect was far too powerful and is not easy to change without completely reworking the card. You cant even change the mana cost as it's a secret).
I think hall of fame is a great idea because it gives you the chance to play your favourite decks in wild (if only barne's b*tch face didn't existed....). Nerfs on the other side kill the cards and their decks in both formats.
But i agree with you. They have proven that they have not design philosophy or even a general direction. They have went back to their words so many times, that at their statements have become meme worthy.
"We do not like uninteractive otks"-> they create in just two expansions multiple uninteractive otks decks
"Classic stays in game forever" -> they damp every year cards to hof. As i said i agree with the desicion but a lie is a lie non the less.
"We care about wild"-> barnes is still op. Ok this is half the truth since they have done nerfs to wild cards, but for the love of god just nerf this as well. Once I reach rank 10 and beyond in wild 2/3 of my games are vs big priest. This shit is fun killer for me and i think for majority of players.
I am planning a larger post about the HOF at some point. In general, I think HOFing card has not worked out, as the benefit is usually there short term, but in many cases, equally strong or stronger cards have been released shortly after, making the HOFing unnecessary. Examples:
Including The Lich King or Ragnaros the Firelord would be an interresting choice for many decks, and they could easily coexist in standard.
Sylvanas Windrunner is a very interresting card, she is weak to tempo decks, and having her in standard would make the gameplay more interresting. She lost a lot of power when N'Zoth, the Corruptor rotated.
About the otk decks, I think it is fine. Blizzard has also gotten pepper for nerfing combo decks too much in the past.
I started playing, when all of those cards were already in HoF, so I don't know what big of an impact those cards had back in the day. But in my opinion you could bring back many of those cards. I played some wild games after i got into the game and I never saw Azura drake for example. Sylvanas needed a bit of setup to even work and Ragnaros was only played in big priest. I wouldn't mind those cards at all.
I agree that Blizzard has flaws when it comes to creating OTK decks and the latest example is Mecha'thun. It's just too strong against any control deck that doesn't aim to beat you quickly: e.g. quest priest, control warrior, big spell mage etc. - actually it's is borderline oppressive as the matchup is unwinnable for control decks. Take Mecha'Thun Priest. If they draw Hemet a Priest can finish the combo by t10 - hell you could to it faster it weren't for too little mana. How can a slow deck beat that? They can't.
That's why Hearthstone needs disruption like Dirty Rat. Sure, they gave Warlock Demonic Project to counter combo decks. But what happens the disruptive card is not a neutral card? Yes, every person starts to play Warlock.
I have fun with Mecha'Thun Priest but it's really sad for just about every player who wants to enjoy a longer game.
eforeThe HoF is intended to be a place to put the cards that limit design in standard, no matter how crazy it seems. In fact, I believe that Molten Giant got moved for design space: I remember reading about a card that Blizz wanted to release but couldn’t because of holy wrath molten giant (it shuffled the highest cost card from your hand into your deck). Conceal was sent there because nearly guaranteeing a minions safety for a turn was too hard to balance around. Cold light Oracle was sent in partly because of Dollmaster Dorian. These are the kind of cards I think can be in the hall of fame: Cards that in combination with other cards are simply too strong or easy to pull off. However, that is not what blizzard is doing with it. They’re also moving cards that they think see too much play, or are not fun. As you said though, I don’t really think that these cards would still see play as much as they did before.
My proposal: make the Hall of Fame decisions based off of Fame. Don’t prematurely move the cards, but wait for players reaction to the combination. Then, if you don’t like it, move it. The hall of fame was a fitting name back when 2 iconic legendaries, 2 staple class cards, and 1 Swiss knife neutral minion left the game. This year, we lost a murloc, a card that doesn’t see play, and a card that should have been moved last year.
Yes - they have design philosophy, which revolves around using as much cocaine as possible during design team meetings. You can thank me later. Cheers.
First off - this isn't a salty "I lost" post so if your only answer is a link to the salt thread please go elsewhere. I'm also really focusing on standard as that's what I mostly play. There are two main points - OTK decks and Hall of Fame.
You're post seems interested in actually discussing the topic, complete with an opinion, a reason for the opinion, examples, and leaving room for counter arguments. This is EXACTLY the kind of critical post we should be having.
OTK
A small thing to note, btw, is that HoF was not used to deal with OTK or anything else that's a problem. HoF is meant to be for decks that SHOULD exist, but are bypassing their 2 year lifespan. essentially, it's a statement that the cards should've been in an expansion set so they could exist for 2 years then move to Wild. If Ice Block never existed, it would've been fine as, say, a Frozen Throne card. In any case, the real heart of your conversation:
I think what we're seeing is Blizzard experimenting with the Combo archetype. In card games, Combo is meant to be as normal as Control and Aggro. In fact, those three make up the original balance triangle.
However in practice, Aggro and Control worked fine (Aggro is meant to have an advantage over Control) but Combo ended up beating everyone. Eventually, Blizzard took up the 'no uninteractive' stance and threw out Combo decks while slowing down Aggro opting for a more Tempo style of play. The result was, as the public declared, "Tempostone". It was not liked.
Nowadays I think Blizzard is trying to figure out new ways of bringing back Combo. Instead of being the fast 'draw cards, hunt for win condition, win!" of Miracle or Patron, we instead get decks that are more Control in mindset. They drag the game out, SLOWLY find their key cards, then present their victory near fatigue.
The advantage to them is that they end up acting like very slow Control/combo hybrid decks with the combined weaknesses of early pressure and key card removal (i.e. Dirty Rat). Also they seem less polarizing and 'uninteractive' now. This was hard to tell during witchwood as aggro was basically dead (lots of Tempo decks, but not AGGRO, and Tempo has proven to be weak to Control) and there were no card removals. I'm noticing that Demonic project is proving to be VERY good at nuking combo decks. Meanwhile the revival of zoo has brought a faster game to help force decks to be less Combo reliant. Shudderwock is already shifting from Combo to Tempo for example, and that was THE combo deck of Witchwood.
Whether this can be balanced or not will determine if we can EVER have combo decks or if we are forced to choose between Aggro or Control as the only dominate deck type. For now it seems to be working if in need of more tweaks.
HoF
Ragnaros .. oh . I'll tell you now, you won't find many pro players taking your side on this one. And I think that's what happened to him.
When Rag was around he wasn't always a viable card. However, during times when he was there was a similar...ring to how Control decks played him. Control decks always ended up using him in a 'drop and pray' mentality. Your opponent drops a big minion. You drop Rag and hope he hits. If he hits you win, if not they win. In many cases that 'big minion' was a Rag. SO many control games ended up as a literal coin flip of who's Rag won. Made for fun games to watch but, when I listened to the pros talk about it, he was a HATED necessary evil.
And when he wasn't able to be used that way, he was literally not played. Not even for memes. So basically he was a card that was either used in the same exact way that few liked using him for, or left to rot outside the deck. For some he represents perfectly the Old Way of hearthstone's design (the mentality that brought the GvG set).
True, we have a lot more good cards now, but he honestly wouldn't BRING anything new to the game beyond the 'drop and pray' mentality I just mentioned many DON'T want. He's not overpowered or broken: he can exist and he would be fine if he was first added right now in, say, Un'Goro though probably tweaked. But like Loatheb or Reno, he's old. And the entire point of HoF is to force us to do something NEW.
And that's the point of HoF. You CANNOT bring up the idea of 'oppressive' or 'overpowered' or even 'annoying' in conversations about HoF. The point of HoF is to deal with OLD. Old Cards, old strategies. Old tricks that never ever *EVER* leave. That is one of the main purposes of HoF. The other is Design Space.
Design Space is not a player matter but a Blizzard matter. We play cards, not design them. So really it's a matter of what Blizzard feels is bothering them when it comes to designing cards. If Blizzard doesn't like having to deal with a particular card, but the card isn't actually causing PROBLEMS with the game itself, then it's a HoF target. This was the fate of Coldlight, and Sylvanas had a bit of this as well. Are the wrong or right, perhaps, but without a deep dive into what's going on in the design side (including knowing what the next two expansions are as they do) there's not much we can discuss.
Though I will note that Coldlight went out at the time that Blizzard knew what Witchwood and Boomsday was going to look like, and I'm not sure we would've liked a coldlight packing Shudderwock Shaman or Togwoggle Druid. Or a Priest or Hunter packing Sylvanas.
Note btw that the whole concept of the HoF is a response to us having an Evergreen set in Classic, something that's different for us compared to MTG. There's folks who argue that we should've even have a HoF or an Evergreen set and that the entire thing should be pushed to Wild and a new 'core set' be made from scratch. As such HoF is NOT a solidified thing yet as far as what it should be and if we should be doing something else instead. Myself I think it should be MUCH more dynamic with A LOT more cards being put into it AND be put back into standard. Basically turning Classic into a rotating 'core set' that's allowed to shift in and out at will.
In fact, do that for the Basic set as well except be willing to literally throw those cards away and add new ones. We get them for free so you aren't dumping anyone's money or alientating them due to lack of cards. They don't HAVE to change, but Blizzard should feel free to change ANYTHING about them, even trademarks like Wild Growth and Fireball in rotation time. Thus they fit the set to the Year and not force the Year to fit a set made in 2013.
TL/DR - Does Blizz have a design philosophy at all and why does the HoF exist when we have nerfs? It feels to me like Blizz has no overarching ideology for how this game should play and is just making shit up as they go.
What they have is a changing philosophy. And they've been clear that they are doing just that. I still remember when they first added rotations and flat out told us that it could end up completely screwed up and they were ready to revamp/remove/anything with it if everything went FUBAR.
Team 9 seems to have an idea of what they want for the game, but also know they are babies at card design and are probably wrong with about 90% of those ideas. Thus they are trying to keep themselves open to experimentation and changing course as things go on. The hearthstone of today is a much better place than it was in 2014 and it was due to them making, and realizing the mistakes along the way. It's a good thing IMO. Hearthstone is 5 years, at least, too early to have a rock solid philosophy and a stubbornness to change.
Which is the big thing I like most about Boomsday. It very much flies in the face of A LOT of how Blizzard used to think about hearthstone and it's clear they made a lot of cards that made them go "Ok, I'll add this, but I'm NOT going to be reading the hate mail after this goes in."
We do need a final answer of what we should do about Combo and without the memories of 2014 Miracle or 2015 Patron. A LOT of how hearthstone will play will hang in the balance so it's time to figure that out. We DO need to come to terms with HoF and the Evergreen sets. So change and dialogue is welcome on both.
With Combo they need to give players tool to disrupt the Combo or stop Combo decks from reaching it so damn quickly. The Combo decks we have now are safe, easy and fast. People complain about fast aggro decks? Well, they have to be when there's so much defensive cards and it's so easy to cycle through an entire deck.
It also makes me sad that no one mentions Midrange decks anymore. Did we forget those used to exist too?
I agree that Blizzard has flaws when it comes to creating OTK decks and the latest example is Mecha'thun. It's just too strong against any control deck that doesn't aim to beat you quickly: e.g. quest priest, control warrior, big spell mage etc. - actually it's is borderline oppressive as the matchup is unwinnable for control decks. Take Mecha'Thun Priest. If they draw Hemet a Priest can finish the combo by t10 - hell you could to it faster it weren't for too little mana. How can a slow deck beat that? They can't.
That's why Hearthstone needs disruption like Dirty Rat. Sure, they gave Warlock Demonic Project to counter combo decks. But what happens the disruptive card is not a neutral card? Yes, every person starts to play Warlock.
I have fun with Mecha'Thun Priest but it's really sad for just about every player who wants to enjoy a longer game.
I'll pose a question for you. Is it the fault of OTK decks that they win against many control decks or is it the fault of so many control decks not aiming to actually kill you?
The way that I see it many control players don't want to have to change their game plan and they always want to play their playtyle the exact same regardless of what they face and not to have to adapt based on the match-up. They don't want to have to make aggressive plays ever, they never want to have to play things on curve and value-inefficiently, so they ask for nerfs on things like OTK decks or aggro decks because they are owed playing every match-up super slow and super greedy.
My proposal: make the Hall of Fame decisions based off of Fame. Don’t prematurely move the cards, but wait for players reaction to the combination. Then, if you don’t like it, move it.
Most people call for nerfs or rotations of cards before they become a problem. You're in the very small minority of people that would rather they break the game first and wait until there is a large public outcry before fixing it.
My proposal: make the Hall of Fame decisions based off of Fame. Don’t prematurely move the cards, but wait for players reaction to the combination. Then, if you don’t like it, move it.
Most people call for nerfs or rotations of cards before they become a problem. You're in the very small minority of people that would rather they break the game first and wait until there is a large public outcry before fixing it.
Except that most of the time players who want things moved or nerfed prematurely aren't doing so because they think it will be a particular problem for the game in general, but they do so because they have a beef with a particular deck or entire playstyle and want to never play against that playstyle. Aggro and OTK decks are typically targeted by these players because they only want HS to be a minion-to-minion attrition-based game. In other words bias is heavily affecting why they are wanting something prematurely affected before seeing how it does. Personal like/dislike should never be a factor in game changing decisions.
Also need to mention how often regular players and streamers alike have been wrong about the power level of cards prior to metas actually forming? Why make decisions on HoFing recent cards when chances are relatively high that their guess work is nothing but over trumped BS that will end up wrong about many of said cards?
I think hall of fame is a great idea because it gives you the chance to play your favourite decks in wild (if only barne's b*tch face didn't existed....). Nerfs on the other side kill the cards and their decks in both formats.
But i agree with you. They have proven that they have not design philosophy or even a general direction. They have went back to their words so many times, that at their statements have become meme worthy.
"We do not like uninteractive otks"-> they create in just two expansions multiple uninteractive otks decks
"Classic stays in game forever" -> they damp every year cards to hof. As i said i agree with the desicion but a lie is a lie non the less.
"We care about wild"-> barnes is still op. Ok this is half the truth since they have done nerfs to wild cards, but for the love of god just nerf this as well. Once I reach rank 10 and beyond in wild 2/3 of my games are vs big priest. This shit is fun killer for me and i think for majority of players.
Barnes is a massive problem in wild, they really ought to nerf just to let the format to breathe a bit. It's even more annoying that big priest is a bottable auto-play deck.
I've accepted at this point that HoF is atleast half about selling reprints , or equally powered cards. Ragnaros - Lich King is a clear example. much of what Blizzard say to us is PR lip service - they can't just come out an say "Yeah, our plan moving forwards is about selling more packs, though that would be more honest.
I'll pose a question for you. Is it the fault of OTK decks that they win against many control decks or is it the fault of so many control decks not aiming to actually kill you?
The way that I see it many control players don't want to have to change their game plan and they always want to play their playtyle the exact same regardless of what they face and not to have to adapt based on the match-up. They don't want to have to make aggressive plays ever, they never want to have to play things on curve and value-inefficiently, so they ask for nerfs on things like OTK decks or aggro decks because they are owed playing every match-up super slow and super greedy.
It's actually neither. You can't blame control players for not changing their game plan if they don't have access to cards that can push the other player out of the game. A lot of the control decks I've played in the past only really had one win condition and that was to run the opponent out of options. Cards like N'zoth and Guldan give control decks a viable way to end the game another way, but not all control classes have access to cards like that anymore. Is it the player's fault that cards like that don't exist for them, or is that Blizzard's fault?
Aggro, midrange, and combo decks rarely have alternate win conditions, but you think it is greedy that control players don't have an alternate win condition? That's not true, control players would love to have an alternate win condition. That's not always an option though.
I do hope we get a 'Core' set it the beginning of next year. I think it is ironic that we have come to a point where the 2 exodia conditions (quest mage and 4 horseman paladin) are considered to be fair to the point of seeing little to no play anymore. Meanwhile, OTK is running rampant with more variations than I can ever remember and with all the tutoring available in Standard. When quest mage was released, I hated it because of how many creative decks would be DOA because of its existence (see also: Quest Rogue before nerfs). I could never have imagined the state of the game 1 year later where 3-6 card combos are destroying everything but aggro!
Slightly off topic, but I feel still relevant to the conversation.
Kibler made a pretty good video about how the Basic and Classic sets are, or can be, problematic for design.
He suggests more of a “core set” like MtG where Hearthstone would have no “evergreen” set, but when needed to help balance an upcoming meta and limiting broken combos, you update the core cards. This helps make it easier for Blizzard to both print what they want to in new cards while hopefully keeping the playing field a little more fair.
I’m probably not giving his thoughts justice. Link below.
My proposal: make the Hall of Fame decisions based off of Fame. Don’t prematurely move the cards, but wait for players reaction to the combination. Then, if you don’t like it, move it.
Most people call for nerfs or rotations of cards before they become a problem. You're in the very small minority of people that would rather they break the game first and wait until there is a large public outcry before fixing it.
Except that most of the time players who want things moved or nerfed prematurely aren't doing so because they think it will be a particular problem for the game in general, but they do so because they have a beef with a particular deck or entire playstyle and want to never play against that playstyle. Aggro and OTK decks are typically targeted by these players because they only want HS to be a minion-to-minion attrition-based game. In other words bias is heavily affecting why they are wanting something prematurely affected before seeing how it does. Personal like/dislike should never be a factor in game changing decisions.
Also need to mention how often regular players and streamers alike have been wrong about the power level of cards prior to metas actually forming? Why make decisions on HoFing recent cards when chances are relatively high that their guess work is nothing but over trumped BS that will end up wrong about many of said cards?
My post had nothing to do with why people ask for nerfs or how accurate they were, in fact that is completely irrelevant. My comment was to the point that players would rather Blizzard fix problems before they happen, not after. Blizzard tests cards before an expansion comes out, and can identify problems based on actual testing and not just guesses, and most people would rather they use that testing to make balancing decisions instead of just releasing cards they already know are broken.
Why do you think that Blizzard should release cards they know are broken based on actual testing? Is there a legitimate reason for it?
First off - this isn't a salty "I lost" post so if your only answer is a link to the salt thread please go elsewhere. I'm also really focusing on standard as that's what I mostly play. There are two main points - OTK decks and Hall of Fame.
OTK
I feel like there's a lot of inconsistency in the design philosophy of the cards blizzard release when compared with previous statements, nerfs and hall-of-fames (HoF). In the past the general message appeared to be that decks should be "fun and interactive". Consequently mill and OTK decks which aim to stall and/or collect combo pieces were actively punished by nerfs and by having key cards rotated to HoF. Decks like mill rogue, freeze mage, get-in-here warrior no longer exist as a direct result of this. Yet the recent expansions have have introduced cards which appear aimed entirely at OTK decks (Time warp, Mecha'thun, Malygos shenanigans, Velen mind blast - there are too many to list!). Now either Blizz doesn't foresee how these cards will end up being used (which is an unlikely and slightly terrifying prospect) or they've decided OTK is now OK (which seems more likely). The argument that these decks are generally not competitive doesn't sit well with me as 1) they often are competitive and 2) losing a game because you've drawn against a OTK and you're playing control is terrible for the game. The decisions made in the game should be as important as those going in to the decks - after all, many people make no decisions about their decks and just copy the best ones off this site.
HoF
The existence of the hall of fame has always bothered me. The argument as I understand it is that some classic cards which will never rotate out are used in too many decks and limit the variability of the decks being built. I think this is bull. Cards only get used in too many decks when they're not properly balanced making them better than all alternatives. Take Ragnaros - Lord of fire. He was a staple in most control decks because he guaranteed 8 damage the turn he was played and was fairly immune to silence effects. Would he see play today - maybe. But the swarm nature of many of the decks would make him pretty ineffective in the current (and recent) meta. Were he nerfed to say 0/8 with the same effect + gain 8 attack battlecry he would see even less play as silence is so prevalent. Likewise azure drake would not feature in as many decks with a few tweaks. Which begs the question - why move them to HoF? Why do some cards get nerfed to oblivion (Warsong commander) while others get HoF? One argument which can't be made is that the HoF cards couldn't be nerfed without dramatically changing the essence of the card, as that's exactly what happened in the Warsong nerf. So many of the cards which have been HoF could have provided useful tech options to some of the current meta decks (e.g. Sylvanus might have helped against Shudder and Cubelock decks, ice block definitely helps against some OTK, Coldlight oracle could be a useful tool against OTK decks) and after all isn't that part of what this game is about - seeing what cards are getting used regularly and tweaking decks to counter it?
TL/DR - Does Blizz have a design philosophy at all and why does the HoF exist when we have nerfs? It feels to me like Blizz has no overarching ideology for how this game should play and is just making shit up as they go.
The HoF free's up space in a lazy way and I would argue that there isn't actually a need for space to be made. The deck limit of 30 cards already limits what cards can be used and old sets are rotated out regularly. Imagine you create a card with the same mana cost and an equally interesting (but different) effect as one of the HoF cards. You can't just add it to your current meta deck so you have to take something out. Which card prevails should depend on the current meta and the type of combinations your deck is trying to achieve. If new cards of the same mana cost never get played it's because they're simply not of the same power level of other cards (or the meta doesn't allow it). Azure drake is a fine example of this - it was simply too good for it's effect and so it featured in many, many decks. Would it get used as a 2/4 maybe - maybe not, but importantly the card effect (+1 spell and 1 card draw) would be a compromise with the stats and you would have to make some choices as to what was more important for your deck. All cards should have some compromise built in when compared with others of the same mana cost.
(I'll concede im slightly on the fence about ice block as it's effect was far too powerful and is not easy to change without completely reworking the card. You cant even change the mana cost as it's a secret).
I think hall of fame is a great idea because it gives you the chance to play your favourite decks in wild (if only barne's b*tch face didn't existed....). Nerfs on the other side kill the cards and their decks in both formats.
But i agree with you. They have proven that they have not design philosophy or even a general direction. They have went back to their words so many times, that at their statements have become meme worthy.
"We do not like uninteractive otks"-> they create in just two expansions multiple uninteractive otks decks
"Classic stays in game forever" -> they damp every year cards to hof. As i said i agree with the desicion but a lie is a lie non the less.
"We care about wild"-> barnes is still op. Ok this is half the truth since they have done nerfs to wild cards, but for the love of god just nerf this as well. Once I reach rank 10 and beyond in wild 2/3 of my games are vs big priest. This shit is fun killer for me and i think for majority of players.
I am planning a larger post about the HOF at some point. In general, I think HOFing card has not worked out, as the benefit is usually there short term, but in many cases, equally strong or stronger cards have been released shortly after, making the HOFing unnecessary. Examples:
Including The Lich King or Ragnaros the Firelord would be an interresting choice for many decks, and they could easily coexist in standard.
Azure Drake would be outclassed by Cobalt Scalebane, Fungalmancer and lately Giggling Inventor. If it returned to standard, it would barely be noticed.
Sylvanas Windrunner is a very interresting card, she is weak to tempo decks, and having her in standard would make the gameplay more interresting. She lost a lot of power when N'Zoth, the Corruptor rotated.
About the otk decks, I think it is fine. Blizzard has also gotten pepper for nerfing combo decks too much in the past.
Editor of the Heartpwn Legendary Crafting Guide:
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/card-discussion/205920-legendary-tier-list-crafting-guide
I started playing, when all of those cards were already in HoF, so I don't know what big of an impact those cards had back in the day. But in my opinion you could bring back many of those cards. I played some wild games after i got into the game and I never saw Azura drake for example. Sylvanas needed a bit of setup to even work and Ragnaros was only played in big priest. I wouldn't mind those cards at all.
I agree that Blizzard has flaws when it comes to creating OTK decks and the latest example is Mecha'thun. It's just too strong against any control deck that doesn't aim to beat you quickly: e.g. quest priest, control warrior, big spell mage etc. - actually it's is borderline oppressive as the matchup is unwinnable for control decks. Take Mecha'Thun Priest. If they draw Hemet a Priest can finish the combo by t10 - hell you could to it faster it weren't for too little mana. How can a slow deck beat that? They can't.
That's why Hearthstone needs disruption like Dirty Rat. Sure, they gave Warlock Demonic Project to counter combo decks. But what happens the disruptive card is not a neutral card? Yes, every person starts to play Warlock.
I have fun with Mecha'Thun Priest but it's really sad for just about every player who wants to enjoy a longer game.
eforeThe HoF is intended to be a place to put the cards that limit design in standard, no matter how crazy it seems. In fact, I believe that Molten Giant got moved for design space: I remember reading about a card that Blizz wanted to release but couldn’t because of holy wrath molten giant (it shuffled the highest cost card from your hand into your deck). Conceal was sent there because nearly guaranteeing a minions safety for a turn was too hard to balance around. Cold light Oracle was sent in partly because of Dollmaster Dorian. These are the kind of cards I think can be in the hall of fame: Cards that in combination with other cards are simply too strong or easy to pull off. However, that is not what blizzard is doing with it. They’re also moving cards that they think see too much play, or are not fun. As you said though, I don’t really think that these cards would still see play as much as they did before.
My proposal: make the Hall of Fame decisions based off of Fame. Don’t prematurely move the cards, but wait for players reaction to the combination. Then, if you don’t like it, move it. The hall of fame was a fitting name back when 2 iconic legendaries, 2 staple class cards, and 1 Swiss knife neutral minion left the game. This year, we lost a murloc, a card that doesn’t see play, and a card that should have been moved last year.
Yes - they have design philosophy, which revolves around using as much cocaine as possible during design team meetings. You can thank me later. Cheers.
You're post seems interested in actually discussing the topic, complete with an opinion, a reason for the opinion, examples, and leaving room for counter arguments. This is EXACTLY the kind of critical post we should be having.
A small thing to note, btw, is that HoF was not used to deal with OTK or anything else that's a problem. HoF is meant to be for decks that SHOULD exist, but are bypassing their 2 year lifespan. essentially, it's a statement that the cards should've been in an expansion set so they could exist for 2 years then move to Wild. If Ice Block never existed, it would've been fine as, say, a Frozen Throne card. In any case, the real heart of your conversation:
I think what we're seeing is Blizzard experimenting with the Combo archetype. In card games, Combo is meant to be as normal as Control and Aggro. In fact, those three make up the original balance triangle.
However in practice, Aggro and Control worked fine (Aggro is meant to have an advantage over Control) but Combo ended up beating everyone. Eventually, Blizzard took up the 'no uninteractive' stance and threw out Combo decks while slowing down Aggro opting for a more Tempo style of play. The result was, as the public declared, "Tempostone". It was not liked.
Nowadays I think Blizzard is trying to figure out new ways of bringing back Combo. Instead of being the fast 'draw cards, hunt for win condition, win!" of Miracle or Patron, we instead get decks that are more Control in mindset. They drag the game out, SLOWLY find their key cards, then present their victory near fatigue.
The advantage to them is that they end up acting like very slow Control/combo hybrid decks with the combined weaknesses of early pressure and key card removal (i.e. Dirty Rat). Also they seem less polarizing and 'uninteractive' now. This was hard to tell during witchwood as aggro was basically dead (lots of Tempo decks, but not AGGRO, and Tempo has proven to be weak to Control) and there were no card removals. I'm noticing that Demonic project is proving to be VERY good at nuking combo decks. Meanwhile the revival of zoo has brought a faster game to help force decks to be less Combo reliant. Shudderwock is already shifting from Combo to Tempo for example, and that was THE combo deck of Witchwood.
Whether this can be balanced or not will determine if we can EVER have combo decks or if we are forced to choose between Aggro or Control as the only dominate deck type. For now it seems to be working if in need of more tweaks.
Ragnaros .. oh . I'll tell you now, you won't find many pro players taking your side on this one. And I think that's what happened to him.
When Rag was around he wasn't always a viable card. However, during times when he was there was a similar...ring to how Control decks played him. Control decks always ended up using him in a 'drop and pray' mentality. Your opponent drops a big minion. You drop Rag and hope he hits. If he hits you win, if not they win. In many cases that 'big minion' was a Rag. SO many control games ended up as a literal coin flip of who's Rag won. Made for fun games to watch but, when I listened to the pros talk about it, he was a HATED necessary evil.
And when he wasn't able to be used that way, he was literally not played. Not even for memes. So basically he was a card that was either used in the same exact way that few liked using him for, or left to rot outside the deck. For some he represents perfectly the Old Way of hearthstone's design (the mentality that brought the GvG set).
True, we have a lot more good cards now, but he honestly wouldn't BRING anything new to the game beyond the 'drop and pray' mentality I just mentioned many DON'T want. He's not overpowered or broken: he can exist and he would be fine if he was first added right now in, say, Un'Goro though probably tweaked. But like Loatheb or Reno, he's old. And the entire point of HoF is to force us to do something NEW.
And that's the point of HoF. You CANNOT bring up the idea of 'oppressive' or 'overpowered' or even 'annoying' in conversations about HoF. The point of HoF is to deal with OLD. Old Cards, old strategies. Old tricks that never ever *EVER* leave. That is one of the main purposes of HoF. The other is Design Space.
Design Space is not a player matter but a Blizzard matter. We play cards, not design them. So really it's a matter of what Blizzard feels is bothering them when it comes to designing cards. If Blizzard doesn't like having to deal with a particular card, but the card isn't actually causing PROBLEMS with the game itself, then it's a HoF target. This was the fate of Coldlight, and Sylvanas had a bit of this as well. Are the wrong or right, perhaps, but without a deep dive into what's going on in the design side (including knowing what the next two expansions are as they do) there's not much we can discuss.
Though I will note that Coldlight went out at the time that Blizzard knew what Witchwood and Boomsday was going to look like, and I'm not sure we would've liked a coldlight packing Shudderwock Shaman or Togwoggle Druid. Or a Priest or Hunter packing Sylvanas.
Note btw that the whole concept of the HoF is a response to us having an Evergreen set in Classic, something that's different for us compared to MTG. There's folks who argue that we should've even have a HoF or an Evergreen set and that the entire thing should be pushed to Wild and a new 'core set' be made from scratch. As such HoF is NOT a solidified thing yet as far as what it should be and if we should be doing something else instead. Myself I think it should be MUCH more dynamic with A LOT more cards being put into it AND be put back into standard. Basically turning Classic into a rotating 'core set' that's allowed to shift in and out at will.
In fact, do that for the Basic set as well except be willing to literally throw those cards away and add new ones. We get them for free so you aren't dumping anyone's money or alientating them due to lack of cards. They don't HAVE to change, but Blizzard should feel free to change ANYTHING about them, even trademarks like Wild Growth and Fireball in rotation time. Thus they fit the set to the Year and not force the Year to fit a set made in 2013.
What they have is a changing philosophy. And they've been clear that they are doing just that. I still remember when they first added rotations and flat out told us that it could end up completely screwed up and they were ready to revamp/remove/anything with it if everything went FUBAR.
Team 9 seems to have an idea of what they want for the game, but also know they are babies at card design and are probably wrong with about 90% of those ideas. Thus they are trying to keep themselves open to experimentation and changing course as things go on. The hearthstone of today is a much better place than it was in 2014 and it was due to them making, and realizing the mistakes along the way. It's a good thing IMO. Hearthstone is 5 years, at least, too early to have a rock solid philosophy and a stubbornness to change.
Which is the big thing I like most about Boomsday. It very much flies in the face of A LOT of how Blizzard used to think about hearthstone and it's clear they made a lot of cards that made them go "Ok, I'll add this, but I'm NOT going to be reading the hate mail after this goes in."
We do need a final answer of what we should do about Combo and without the memories of 2014 Miracle or 2015 Patron. A LOT of how hearthstone will play will hang in the balance so it's time to figure that out. We DO need to come to terms with HoF and the Evergreen sets. So change and dialogue is welcome on both.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
I'm still mad af since they nerfed Fiery War Axe.
Zoo/Odd Rogue/Tempo Mage/etc wouldn't have been as troublesome as they are now.
With Combo they need to give players tool to disrupt the Combo or stop Combo decks from reaching it so damn quickly. The Combo decks we have now are safe, easy and fast. People complain about fast aggro decks? Well, they have to be when there's so much defensive cards and it's so easy to cycle through an entire deck.
It also makes me sad that no one mentions Midrange decks anymore. Did we forget those used to exist too?
I'll pose a question for you. Is it the fault of OTK decks that they win against many control decks or is it the fault of so many control decks not aiming to actually kill you?
The way that I see it many control players don't want to have to change their game plan and they always want to play their playtyle the exact same regardless of what they face and not to have to adapt based on the match-up. They don't want to have to make aggressive plays ever, they never want to have to play things on curve and value-inefficiently, so they ask for nerfs on things like OTK decks or aggro decks because they are owed playing every match-up super slow and super greedy.
Most people call for nerfs or rotations of cards before they become a problem. You're in the very small minority of people that would rather they break the game first and wait until there is a large public outcry before fixing it.
Except that most of the time players who want things moved or nerfed prematurely aren't doing so because they think it will be a particular problem for the game in general, but they do so because they have a beef with a particular deck or entire playstyle and want to never play against that playstyle. Aggro and OTK decks are typically targeted by these players because they only want HS to be a minion-to-minion attrition-based game. In other words bias is heavily affecting why they are wanting something prematurely affected before seeing how it does. Personal like/dislike should never be a factor in game changing decisions.
Also need to mention how often regular players and streamers alike have been wrong about the power level of cards prior to metas actually forming? Why make decisions on HoFing recent cards when chances are relatively high that their guess work is nothing but over trumped BS that will end up wrong about many of said cards?
Barnes is a massive problem in wild, they really ought to nerf just to let the format to breathe a bit. It's even more annoying that big priest is a bottable auto-play deck.
I've accepted at this point that HoF is atleast half about selling reprints , or equally powered cards. Ragnaros - Lich King is a clear example. much of what Blizzard say to us is PR lip service - they can't just come out an say "Yeah, our plan moving forwards is about selling more packs, though that would be more honest.
It's actually neither. You can't blame control players for not changing their game plan if they don't have access to cards that can push the other player out of the game. A lot of the control decks I've played in the past only really had one win condition and that was to run the opponent out of options. Cards like N'zoth and Guldan give control decks a viable way to end the game another way, but not all control classes have access to cards like that anymore. Is it the player's fault that cards like that don't exist for them, or is that Blizzard's fault?
Aggro, midrange, and combo decks rarely have alternate win conditions, but you think it is greedy that control players don't have an alternate win condition? That's not true, control players would love to have an alternate win condition. That's not always an option though.
I do hope we get a 'Core' set it the beginning of next year. I think it is ironic that we have come to a point where the 2 exodia conditions (quest mage and 4 horseman paladin) are considered to be fair to the point of seeing little to no play anymore. Meanwhile, OTK is running rampant with more variations than I can ever remember and with all the tutoring available in Standard. When quest mage was released, I hated it because of how many creative decks would be DOA because of its existence (see also: Quest Rogue before nerfs). I could never have imagined the state of the game 1 year later where 3-6 card combos are destroying everything but aggro!
Slightly off topic, but I feel still relevant to the conversation.
Kibler made a pretty good video about how the Basic and Classic sets are, or can be, problematic for design.
He suggests more of a “core set” like MtG where Hearthstone would have no “evergreen” set, but when needed to help balance an upcoming meta and limiting broken combos, you update the core cards. This helps make it easier for Blizzard to both print what they want to in new cards while hopefully keeping the playing field a little more fair.
I’m probably not giving his thoughts justice. Link below.
https://youtu.be/d3JaCLSrLZc
The design philosophy is this:
My post had nothing to do with why people ask for nerfs or how accurate they were, in fact that is completely irrelevant. My comment was to the point that players would rather Blizzard fix problems before they happen, not after. Blizzard tests cards before an expansion comes out, and can identify problems based on actual testing and not just guesses, and most people would rather they use that testing to make balancing decisions instead of just releasing cards they already know are broken.
Why do you think that Blizzard should release cards they know are broken based on actual testing? Is there a legitimate reason for it?