Although there are some sound arguments I can't help but to disagree with the part about the HoF. This reads like (and exercising prudence because I know how people are, I want to emphasize - it reads like) you are new to trading card games, especially the game design aspects related to variety and keeping the game "fresh".
Putting cards into the Hall of Fame is what corresponds to usual set rotations in other TCGs. Having something like a classic set that is always present in all formats actually limits design space for new cards and is what actually creates those problems. To better illustrate what I mean, let's compare our classic set to MTG's core sets, which usually reprints a lot of cards and effects from the older core sets, but also throws in some new things into the mix every time - and that is not that different to what we have going on with the Hall of Fame and the classic set in Hearthstone, if you think about it. Of course, some aspects are missing, like the addition or re-"print" of cards for the current standard block. Having said that, a rotation of HoF cards both in and out is certainly possible and would bring the system pretty close to the traditional procedure of TCGs like Magic.
-and card rotation, for the sake of variety, balancing and creating new design space, is always favourable over adjusting, or rather nerfing the cards themselves ... at least if you think about it rationally. :)
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?
One thing is that pure facerace aggro decks do not really exist, so the "aggro" decks would have passed as "tempo" or even "midrange" in other metas. Odd paladin run up to 3 7-drops and very rarely less than 2 or Leeroy.
Even shaman is a pretty pure midrange deck, and it is perfectly viable, just not popular.
These combo decks are very quickly becoming MEGA irritating. Same boring uninteractive crap every game. I just find it hilarious how a few expansions ago the 16 damage combo druid and OTK warrior was nerfed to oblivion, now we've got a list of about 10 viable OTK decks at the same time.
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?
That's the thing though, unless you test something with real players using real decks that are being used right now, as opposed to testing some weird combinations of cards that are not likely to happen outside of a sandbox environment then calling something potentially problematic IS guesswork. This game doesn't go through public PTRs so real players aren't actually finding any problems. Without a PTR we are at the mercy of responding retroactively if we hope to be accurate in assumptions that something is going to be a problem.
For example, in both standard and especially wild many players who overhyping Zilliax due to its combo with Glinda & Mechwarper. There is even technically an OTK when combining this combo with Thaurassan, Treachery, and Wrathguard. Want to tell me how often you've seen these scenarios in competitive player in either format. I certainly haven't seen it very often. If we trusted every 'brilliant' theorycrafter and doomsayer out there and preemptively moved cards to HoF based on a thereotical problem on paper then we might have seen a change to Mechwarper, Zilliax, or even Glinda based on a problem that never actually happened.
^ Should be an example that just because some players or even Blizzard themselves says something will be a problem that doesn't mean it actually will be, and this is why cards shouldn't be HoFed or nerfed preemptively without actual real data and results.
The direction changes over time. Just like the people involved change over time. The Warsong Commander nerd was nearly three years ago lots of things have changed. Also, freeze mage was nerfed not because it was a OTK, but because the same basic deck had been powerful the entire history of the game, that is more what the HOF was intended to do, force classes from their comfort zone
The HOF is a necessary idea if you don’t want to totally eclipse the power level of the evergreen set to get people to change things up. Sure Azur Drake isn’t the autoinclude in most decks anymore, while other five drops pretty much are, but the replacements will only be here for so long before they disappear. Now I would like to see rotations go both ways, though. Some cards return from the HOF or some come back from wild.
The direction changes over time. Just like the people involved change over time. The Warsong Commander nerd was nearly three years ago lots of things have changed. Also, freeze mage was nerfed not because it was a OTK, but because the same basic deck had been powerful the entire history of the game, that is more what the HOF was intended to do, force classes from their comfort zone
The HOF is a necessary idea if you don’t want to totally eclipse the power level of the evergreen set to get people to change things up. Sure Azur Drake isn’t the autoinclude in most decks anymore, while other five drops pretty much are, but the replacements will only be here for so long before they disappear. Now I would like to see rotations go both ways, though. Some cards return from the HOF or some come back from wild.
The thing is that T5 is not consistent in any of their decisions.
Quest Mage, Uther OTK, Mecha'Thun, Malygos, Topsy Turvy, Inner Fire, Cubelock, etc are fine with Blizzard and yet Grim Patron wasn't fine back in the day?
Ice Lance & Conceal were rotated from standard due to the decks always being an option as a viable deck each meta and yet cards like Mana Wyrm, Divine Favor, or Flame Imp aren't rotated for being a common tool in Tempo Mage, aggro paladin, and Zoolock (all of which are also decks that have persisted for almost every meta)?
Seems like some decks are intentionally targetted for a specific reason and yet others are ignored despite fitting the exact same criteria.
Also the concept of there being an "evergreen set" disappeared as soon as the first HoF was announced. Evergreen was supposed to be insurance that none of the classic and basic set would ever rotate. You can't have a concept of such a set if you're also rotating cards out of that insured set. You'd have to completely redfine what evergreen means.
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?
Reading back through my post, I realize I forgot to mention that I also don’t care about the year rotation thing with the HoF. I wouldn’t mind too much if it got updated mid year. Similar to the way bans work in mtg.
I don’t think that bliz should print cards that they know for a fact to be broken. I think the opposite: they should balance the cards correctly before they release them. But if they think they have to nerf a card in order to print a new one, shouldn’t be releasing that said card. Now that I think about it, there hasn’t been any game breaking combo with hall of fame yet. There isn’t a single tier one deck using hall of fame cards in its core at wild.
Reading back through my post, I realize I forgot to mention that I also don’t care about the year rotation thing with the HoF. I wouldn’t mind too much if it got updated mid year. Similar to the way bans work in mtg.
I don’t think that bliz should print cards that they know for a fact to be broken. I think the opposite: they should balance the cards correctly before they release them. But if they think they have to nerf a card in order to print a new one, shouldn’t be releasing that said card. Now that I think about it, there hasn’t been any game breaking combo with hall of fame yet. There isn’t a single tier one deck using hall of fame cards in its core at wild.
Hof is NOT similar to the bans of MTG. It's not for broken cards. It's not for oppressive cards. If a card is worthy of a ban in MTG, it would be nerfed in Hearthstone. Nerfing is our Banning. We just get to do what MTG can't do: really REALLY get RID of the original card not just beg everyone to pretend the card doesn't exist.
The only exception are the cards that were nerfed during the first rotation, like Molten Giant, since Blizzard didn't think about moving them to Wild. They admitted it was a mistake and that the cards SHOULD'VE been HoFed. Though they are looking back to see if they really want to reverse the change. Molten was easy (and was the reason HoF exists in the first place) but they aren't sure they really want the original Force of Nature back. If the card is a problem it'll stay nerfed. If not it'll get brought back and HoFed.
HoF is literally just the Rotation system. It's a softer version of how Core sets work in MTG. In MTG, ALL of the 'base' cards are pushed off of Standard and they reprint new cards, and some old ones, for a new 'Classic Set'. HoF is Blizzard wanting to do a softer version of that. That's ALL that HoF really means.
ALL of the HoF cards would've been fine as Expansion cards. Even if it was a situation fo Design, Blizzard would've been fine waiting 2 years for the cards to rotate into wild, and would've been fine with the cards interacting in Wild. These are NOT problematic cards. These are just cards that should've been expansion cards.
If we're going to talk about the issues with HoF, we need to have a firm understanding of just HoF is used for. It's NOT a ban. It's not a way to get rid of bad cards. HoF is just a rotation tool. Nerfs are our ban feature. Please don't mix the two. It's already a mess to discuss it as it is.
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.
I see your point. However, as Mecha'Thun Priest works at the moment you draw your deck before they can play any big threads (which are removed by Psychic scream) so to adapt to beating such a deck they more or less have to play aggressive. And if that's the way the deck should go then we might as well remove fatique decks.
Let me stress that I don't see OTK decks as problematic. My concern is that Mecha'Thun beats an entire archtype easily especially when there are no counter plays. Other OTK decks like pre-nerf Raza Priest, Malygos decks, Velen combo shenanigans etc. can be 'countered' by a ton of armor gain but Mecha'Thun just kills you... and it's neutral.
Thus, there is a discrepancy between playing control decks and Hearthstones main point: "Fun and interactive".
Reading back through my post, I realize I forgot to mention that I also don’t care about the year rotation thing with the HoF. I wouldn’t mind too much if it got updated mid year. Similar to the way bans work in mtg.
I don’t think that bliz should print cards that they know for a fact to be broken. I think the opposite: they should balance the cards correctly before they release them. But if they think they have to nerf a card in order to print a new one, shouldn’t be releasing that said card. Now that I think about it, there hasn’t been any game breaking combo with hall of fame yet. There isn’t a single tier one deck using hall of fame cards in its core at wild.
Hof is NOT similar to the bans of MTG. It's not for broken cards. It's not for oppressive cards. If a card is worthy of a ban in MTG, it would be nerfed in Hearthstone. Nerfing is our Banning. We just get to do what MTG can't do: really REALLY get RID of the original card not just beg everyone to pretend the card doesn't exist.
The only exception are the cards that were nerfed during the first rotation, like Molten Giant, since Blizzard didn't think about moving them to Wild. They admitted it was a mistake and that the cards SHOULD'VE been HoFed. Though they are looking back to see if they really want to reverse the change. Molten was easy (and was the reason HoF exists in the first place) but they aren't sure they really want the original Force of Nature back. If the card is a problem it'll stay nerfed. If not it'll get brought back and HoFed.
HoF is literally just the Rotation system. It's a softer version of how Core sets work in MTG. In MTG, ALL of the 'base' cards are pushed off of Standard and they reprint new cards, and some old ones, for a new 'Classic Set'. HoF is Blizzard wanting to do a softer version of that. That's ALL that HoF really means.
ALL of the HoF cards would've been fine as Expansion cards. Even if it was a situation fo Design, Blizzard would've been fine waiting 2 years for the cards to rotate into wild, and would've been fine with the cards interacting in Wild. These are NOT problematic cards. These are just cards that should've been expansion cards.
If we're going to talk about the issues with HoF, we need to have a firm understanding of just HoF is used for. It's NOT a ban. It's not a way to get rid of bad cards. HoF is just a rotation tool. Nerfs are our ban feature. Please don't mix the two. It's already a mess to discuss it as it is.
I honk HoF moves are more similar to mtg bans than nerfs are. A ban is to remove a card from its play environment, but does not actually change the card. If you own the card and play with it in a format where it’s allowed, it does the same thing. Nerfs on the other hand change the card in a way that effects all formats. If Wizards of the Coast ban Goblin Chainwhirler from standard, it would still be playable in other formats. Not to say it would see play, but it could. But if Wizards, say, removed First Strike from the card, every format would be affected.
I am NOT saying that this is how the HoF is being used, but I am saying I would like it if it was being used this way. It would give players more incentive to play wild, make more hype for the expansions, and remove the awful feeling you get when you craft a deck around a card that gets nerfed.
However, this is another topic. I may make a thread about it later. As for now, I am willing to discuss HoF as a rotation system for classic.
For people who don’t play mtg, Goblin chainwhirler is a powerful card, Wizards of the Coast are the creators, and first strike is basically a keyword which gives a minion divine shield if it were to trade and kill another minion.
I find the problem with the current OTK decks is the consistency. It's not just the combo cards themselves that are the problem. The problem is the cards that virtually guarantee you being able to play the combo without your opponent being able to do anything about it.
Psychic Scream / Shadow Visions. I don't have an issue with damage board clears, but IMO anything that denies deathrattles AND card advantage is excessive. When it can happen 4 times in a game and there is nothing your opponent can do to counter it, it's just silly. I realise that priest is/was at a bad place and they needed overpowered cards to make them decent, but this is just the opposite of fun. It's actually a lot like Ice Block / Primordial Glyph where you sit scratching your arse for half the game. At least with Vanish you keep card advantage and you can play around 2. At least taunt minions are a delaying tactic that allows the opponent to interact with the board.
Druid armor and card draw. Yes yes, another #nerfdruid to the pile, but lets be fair the class is becoming a little bit silly at this point. I just don't understand why druid has been given about 10 good cards over three expansions that would have been way more appropriate for warrior, which is struggling. For example, Ferocious Howl is just a better Shield Block. Their staple cards are so good at survival and card draw that they now have over 5 very competitive archetypes/win conditions just by changing 5-6 cards and keeping the base ones pretty much the same. The bulk of these cards are not minions, so again there is very little interactivity.
Hearthstone is a game that at it's core is (or at least should be) about minions and board control. As soon as you have a deck that is 90% spells you're pretty much playing solitaire. This goes for stuff like burn mage that just goes face with direct damage as well as OTK decks and abominations like Quest Rogue and Big Priest. Things like Quest Warrior might be boring, but they're still more interesting to play against than an OTK deck. If there were neutral tech options for all of these OTK decks then at least there would be thinking involved. Right now for most people your only choice is whether to play aggro and pray, or play control and concede if you face an OTK.
I'd hoped this Mech and experiment themed expansion was going to see completely new mech decks (Mecha'thun hardly counts) playing a big role, but at this point it's looking like a bit of a mess where most of the fun cards like Dr. Boom and the legendary spells are hardly seeing play. The "magnetic" keyword is barely used. It's hard to see a solution at this point except for nerfing half a dozen cards. Mecha'thun should at best be a deal x-damage to your opponent that could at least be countered by armor or high health. A straight "kill your opponent", while 'cool' is just poor design that was either going to be meme level useless or unfair to play against.
That's the thing though, unless you test something with real players using real decks that are being used right now, as opposed to testing some weird combinations of cards that are not likely to happen outside of a sandbox environment then calling something potentially problematic IS guesswork. This game doesn't go through public PTRs so real players aren't actually finding any problems.
That just goes to show how little you know about Blizzard's testing. You don't have to release cards to the public to know that some will be problematic. There's a reason that Blizzard hires real players to do balance testing. That's right, i said "real players", because the players doing the balance testing are "real players" with lots of experience in Hearthstone. They can't test the game to the full extent that millions of players can, but they can for sure find some problems (and have countless times).
For example, in both standard and especially wild many players who overhyping Zilliax due to its combo with Glinda & Mechwarper. There is even technically an OTK when combining this combo with Thaurassan, Treachery, and Wrathguard. Want to tell me how often you've seen these scenarios in competitive player in either format. I certainly haven't seen it very often.
What does that have to do with anything I've said? It makes for a great anecdote, but it has nothing to do with this conversation. We're not talking about what players think of cards, that is completely irrelevant.
Just because Blizzard themselves says something will be a problem that doesn't mean it actually will be, and this is why cards shouldn't be HoFed or nerfed preemptively without actual real data and results.
What do you call balance testing using real players? That sounds like real data to me. That doesn't mean they will be right every single time, and even if they are wrong 99 times out of 100 it is still better than ignoring their test data and letting that one time slip through the cracks and ruin the game.
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.
big priest is always the death of me. It is clearly a fun killer
I don’t think that bliz should print cards that they know for a fact to be broken. I think the opposite: they should balance the cards correctly before they release them. But if they think they have to nerf a card in order to print a new one, shouldn’t be releasing that said card. Now that I think about it, there hasn’t been any game breaking combo with hall of fame yet. There isn’t a single tier one deck using hall of fame cards in its core at wild.
Obviously there hasn't been any game breaking combos with hall of fame cards yet, they aren't allowed to be played in standard anymore. Wild is a different format, and what can be broken in standard could be completely underwhelming in wild.
Well - I think they are just terrible card designers. They sent Ice Lance, Ice Block to HoF because "tHeY wErE aLlOWiNg pEoPlE tO pLaY OtK dEcKs" - And then printed cards like Eureka! ( OTK Malygos shaman ), Shudderwock, Boomsday OTK druid pack, mage quest....
- B-b-b-ut they just wanted to destroy deck that was around for like 3 years ( Freeze mage ) Well, then they should also ruin zoolock, control warrior, malygos druid and many other decks. This argument is just incorrect.
- But it was really frustrating to play against someone who had 2-4 Ice Blocks in single game. Yeah, it was, but so is playing against Shudderwock shamans or OTK boar priests. Easiest solution would be nerfing Primordial Glyph.
Not even talking about cards they print for Hunter ( Bombs, spells, control cards - Erhm, did i mention that hunter is tempo class? ), Shaman ( Murlocs, Freeze, Overload, Elementals...) and Warrior.
I honk HoF moves are more similar to mtg bans than nerfs are. A ban is to remove a card from its play environment, but does not actually change the card. If you own the card and play with it in a format where it’s allowed, it does the same thing. Nerfs on the other hand change the card in a way that effects all formats. If Wizards of the Coast ban Goblin Chainwhirler from standard, it would still be playable in other formats. Not to say it would see play, but it could. But if Wizards, say, removed First Strike from the card, every format would be affected.
The trick is that WofC uses bans because they CAN'T change the card. even if they reprint the card with a new effect, the original card still exists and can be purchased from other players. Thus "ban from all formats" is the best they can do, and even then they can't do a thing when the players just ignore them.
Digital card games aren't limited in this way, which is why you have to move a bit away from how physical card games work compared to digital versions. Blizzard has the option of completely tweaking or even eliminating the card from the game (warsong is NOT meant to be a played card nowadays. They even declared that it was just Bad). That is the purpose of nerfs: it's a 'ban from all formats' followed by a 'reprint'.
I am NOT saying that this is how the HoF is being used, but I am saying I would like it if it was being used this way. It would give players more incentive to play wild, make more hype for the expansions, and remove the awful feeling you get when you craft a deck around a card that gets nerfed.
The issue is that the card remains in Wild. Remember that nerfing isn't done for merely bothersome or annoying cards. We never nerfed Jade Idol. We never nerfed Reno. Nerfing is reserved specifically for cards that are problems. If we HoF it, wouldn't that just mean we are punishing Wild, whicih probably hates the card just as badly as Standard, and treating Wild as 'the trash yard' for cards we don't like?
If we don't want the card, it shouldn't be rotated. It should be GONE. If it is ok for Wild to have it, where cards can be even more insane, why does it need to be removed from Standard, barring the mere fact that it's been around for too long? Which is exactly what HoF/Rotation is doing right now?
What specific cards are we talking about that is perfectly healthy for Wild but not good for Standard BEFORE the 2 year lifetime?
However, this is another topic. I may make a thread about it later. As for now, I am willing to discuss HoF as a rotation system for classic.
That's the thing though, unless you test something with real players using real decks that are being used right now, as opposed to testing some weird combinations of cards that are not likely to happen outside of a sandbox environment then calling something potentially problematic IS guesswork. This game doesn't go through public PTRs so real players aren't actually finding any problems.
That just goes to show how little you know about Blizzard's testing. You don't have to release cards to the public to know that some will be problematic. There's a reason that Blizzard hires real players to do balance testing. That's right, i said "real players", because the players doing the balance testing are "real players" with lots of experience in Hearthstone. They can't test the game to the full extent that millions of players can, but they can for sure find some problems (and have countless times).
For example, in both standard and especially wild many players who overhyping Zilliax due to its combo with Glinda & Mechwarper. There is even technically an OTK when combining this combo with Thaurassan, Treachery, and Wrathguard. Want to tell me how often you've seen these scenarios in competitive player in either format. I certainly haven't seen it very often.
What does that have to do with anything I've said? It makes for a great anecdote, but it has nothing to do with this conversation. We're not talking about what players think of cards, that is completely irrelevant.
Just because Blizzard themselves says something will be a problem that doesn't mean it actually will be, and this is why cards shouldn't be HoFed or nerfed preemptively without actual real data and results.
What do you call balance testing using real players? That sounds like real data to me. That doesn't mean they will be right every single time, and even if they are wrong 99 times out of 100 it is still better than ignoring their test data and letting that one time slip through the cracks and ruin the game.
Yes you should release cards to be tested to more than just Blizzard employees or the rare player that is hired to test cards for them lol. T5 and even pro players/streamers have been wrong all of the time. Cards that both of those parties that would be good or a problem have been wrong constantly. Want me to list the countless cards that went under the radar because everyday players weren't testing cards before they came out (Quest Rogue is a great example here)? Would you like me to list many of the cards that T5/streamers thought were going to be powerful or problematic and ended up not happening that way?
The example does relate to this conversation. It stands as what could happen if cards are targeted as being problematic when they aren't and then end up getting HoFed or nerfed if such an action is ever taken preemptively.
You'd rather cards be HoFed and/or nerfed those 99/100 times then just to maybe avoid one problematic card, if it is even problematic? That is called fixing something that is not broken. Accurate data for a game like this isn't going to happen without mass testing from creative players. Whatever T5 did they completely missed things like Quest Rogue (Clearly their testing of the card only tested it in a vacuum without using the card in the version everyday players ended up running and/or they did not test the deck against slow meta decks). Real players playing the cards in a mass public test realm would do a much better job at testing whether something is going to be powerful or not, not trusting a small handful of people to decide what will or will not be strong/weak.
The direction changes over time. Just like the people involved change over time. The Warsong Commander nerd was nearly three years ago lots of things have changed. Also, freeze mage was nerfed not because it was a OTK, but because the same basic deck had been powerful the entire history of the game, that is more what the HOF was intended to do, force classes from their comfort zone
The HOF is a necessary idea if you don’t want to totally eclipse the power level of the evergreen set to get people to change things up. Sure Azur Drake isn’t the autoinclude in most decks anymore, while other five drops pretty much are, but the replacements will only be here for so long before they disappear. Now I would like to see rotations go both ways, though. Some cards return from the HOF or some come back from wild.
The thing is that T5 is not consistent in any of their decisions.
Quest Mage, Uther OTK, Mecha'Thun, Malygos, Topsy Turvy, Inner Fire, Cubelock, etc are fine with Blizzard and yet Grim Patron wasn't fine back in the day?
Ice Lance & Conceal were rotated from standard due to the decks always being an option as a viable deck each meta and yet cards like Mana Wyrm, Divine Favor, or Flame Imp aren't rotated for being a common tool in Tempo Mage, aggro paladin, and Zoolock (all of which are also decks that have persisted for almost every meta)?
Seems like some decks are intentionally targetted for a specific reason and yet others are ignored despite fitting the exact same criteria.
Also the concept of there being an "evergreen set" disappeared as soon as the first HoF was announced. Evergreen was supposed to be insurance that none of the classic and basic set would ever rotate. You can't have a concept of such a set if you're also rotating cards out of that insured set. You'd have to completely redfine what evergreen means.
Keep in mind these decisions are made over time. Personnel and opinions change. Maybe there was a shift in the team’s ideas and goals.
There is also more to some things than the obvious, for example Warsong Commander was already on Blizzard’s shit list because it made it risky to design powerful low attack minions (or even less powerful ones). In general charge was just broken.
Ice Lance is imo the best HOF inclusions, but that is because Aluneth is a card. Agressive burn mage decks are already pretty strong, so 8 extra burn for 2 mana (or 0 with girl) could be too much, and force several decks without a lot of lifegain away.
About design philosophy, I think an important goal is variety: different playstyles (aggro, tempo, midrange, combo, control) and different classes take turns being the top dog. And they are succeeding pretty well at it; all the different playstyles and classes have had hated decks on the forums. Even the most balanced metagames will become boring when the room for invention dries up.
You'd rather cards be HoFed and/or nerfed those 99/100 times then just to maybe avoid one problematic card, if it is even problematic? That is called fixing something that is not broken.
Yes, I would rather that be the case, and so does an overwhelming majority of people. It is better to fix something that is not broken than to release something broken. I work in software, and I would be fired if I released something that I thought might be broken, but just decided I would let the end users test it to see if it was broken or not. Fixing 99 things that aren't broken is a whole lot better than releasing something that is.
Real world testing is obviously better than internal testing, but you don't use production as a testing environment. That is a really quick way to lose users and go out of business. If Blizzard adopted your style of thinking then Hearthstone likely wouldn't be around today. I don't think you have any idea how many broken cards Blizzard has nerfed or changed before release based on balance testing, if you did you wouldn't have the opinion that balance testing is pointless.
Although there are some sound arguments I can't help but to disagree with the part about the HoF. This reads like (and exercising prudence because I know how people are, I want to emphasize - it reads like) you are new to trading card games, especially the game design aspects related to variety and keeping the game "fresh".
Putting cards into the Hall of Fame is what corresponds to usual set rotations in other TCGs. Having something like a classic set that is always present in all formats actually limits design space for new cards and is what actually creates those problems. To better illustrate what I mean, let's compare our classic set to MTG's core sets, which usually reprints a lot of cards and effects from the older core sets, but also throws in some new things into the mix every time - and that is not that different to what we have going on with the Hall of Fame and the classic set in Hearthstone, if you think about it. Of course, some aspects are missing, like the addition or re-"print" of cards for the current standard block. Having said that, a rotation of HoF cards both in and out is certainly possible and would bring the system pretty close to the traditional procedure of TCGs like Magic.
-and card rotation, for the sake of variety, balancing and creating new design space, is always favourable over adjusting, or rather nerfing the cards themselves ... at least if you think about it rationally. :)
One thing is that pure facerace aggro decks do not really exist, so the "aggro" decks would have passed as "tempo" or even "midrange" in other metas. Odd paladin run up to 3 7-drops and very rarely less than 2 or Leeroy.
Even shaman is a pretty pure midrange deck, and it is perfectly viable, just not popular.
Editor of the Heartpwn Legendary Crafting Guide:
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/card-discussion/205920-legendary-tier-list-crafting-guide
These combo decks are very quickly becoming MEGA irritating. Same boring uninteractive crap every game. I just find it hilarious how a few expansions ago the 16 damage combo druid and OTK warrior was nerfed to oblivion, now we've got a list of about 10 viable OTK decks at the same time.
That's the thing though, unless you test something with real players using real decks that are being used right now, as opposed to testing some weird combinations of cards that are not likely to happen outside of a sandbox environment then calling something potentially problematic IS guesswork. This game doesn't go through public PTRs so real players aren't actually finding any problems. Without a PTR we are at the mercy of responding retroactively if we hope to be accurate in assumptions that something is going to be a problem.
For example, in both standard and especially wild many players who overhyping Zilliax due to its combo with Glinda & Mechwarper. There is even technically an OTK when combining this combo with Thaurassan, Treachery, and Wrathguard. Want to tell me how often you've seen these scenarios in competitive player in either format. I certainly haven't seen it very often. If we trusted every 'brilliant' theorycrafter and doomsayer out there and preemptively moved cards to HoF based on a thereotical problem on paper then we might have seen a change to Mechwarper, Zilliax, or even Glinda based on a problem that never actually happened.
^ Should be an example that just because some players or even Blizzard themselves says something will be a problem that doesn't mean it actually will be, and this is why cards shouldn't be HoFed or nerfed preemptively without actual real data and results.
The direction changes over time. Just like the people involved change over time. The Warsong Commander nerd was nearly three years ago lots of things have changed. Also, freeze mage was nerfed not because it was a OTK, but because the same basic deck had been powerful the entire history of the game, that is more what the HOF was intended to do, force classes from their comfort zone
The HOF is a necessary idea if you don’t want to totally eclipse the power level of the evergreen set to get people to change things up. Sure Azur Drake isn’t the autoinclude in most decks anymore, while other five drops pretty much are, but the replacements will only be here for so long before they disappear. Now I would like to see rotations go both ways, though. Some cards return from the HOF or some come back from wild.
The thing is that T5 is not consistent in any of their decisions.
Quest Mage, Uther OTK, Mecha'Thun, Malygos, Topsy Turvy, Inner Fire, Cubelock, etc are fine with Blizzard and yet Grim Patron wasn't fine back in the day?
Ice Lance & Conceal were rotated from standard due to the decks always being an option as a viable deck each meta and yet cards like Mana Wyrm, Divine Favor, or Flame Imp aren't rotated for being a common tool in Tempo Mage, aggro paladin, and Zoolock (all of which are also decks that have persisted for almost every meta)?
Seems like some decks are intentionally targetted for a specific reason and yet others are ignored despite fitting the exact same criteria.
Also the concept of there being an "evergreen set" disappeared as soon as the first HoF was announced. Evergreen was supposed to be insurance that none of the classic and basic set would ever rotate. You can't have a concept of such a set if you're also rotating cards out of that insured set. You'd have to completely redfine what evergreen means.
Reading back through my post, I realize I forgot to mention that I also don’t care about the year rotation thing with the HoF. I wouldn’t mind too much if it got updated mid year. Similar to the way bans work in mtg.
I don’t think that bliz should print cards that they know for a fact to be broken. I think the opposite: they should balance the cards correctly before they release them. But if they think they have to nerf a card in order to print a new one, shouldn’t be releasing that said card. Now that I think about it, there hasn’t been any game breaking combo with hall of fame yet. There isn’t a single tier one deck using hall of fame cards in its core at wild.
Hof is NOT similar to the bans of MTG. It's not for broken cards. It's not for oppressive cards. If a card is worthy of a ban in MTG, it would be nerfed in Hearthstone. Nerfing is our Banning. We just get to do what MTG can't do: really REALLY get RID of the original card not just beg everyone to pretend the card doesn't exist.
The only exception are the cards that were nerfed during the first rotation, like Molten Giant, since Blizzard didn't think about moving them to Wild. They admitted it was a mistake and that the cards SHOULD'VE been HoFed. Though they are looking back to see if they really want to reverse the change. Molten was easy (and was the reason HoF exists in the first place) but they aren't sure they really want the original Force of Nature back. If the card is a problem it'll stay nerfed. If not it'll get brought back and HoFed.
HoF is literally just the Rotation system. It's a softer version of how Core sets work in MTG. In MTG, ALL of the 'base' cards are pushed off of Standard and they reprint new cards, and some old ones, for a new 'Classic Set'. HoF is Blizzard wanting to do a softer version of that. That's ALL that HoF really means.
ALL of the HoF cards would've been fine as Expansion cards. Even if it was a situation fo Design, Blizzard would've been fine waiting 2 years for the cards to rotate into wild, and would've been fine with the cards interacting in Wild. These are NOT problematic cards. These are just cards that should've been expansion cards.
If we're going to talk about the issues with HoF, we need to have a firm understanding of just HoF is used for. It's NOT a ban. It's not a way to get rid of bad cards. HoF is just a rotation tool. Nerfs are our ban feature. Please don't mix the two. It's already a mess to discuss it as it is.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
I see your point. However, as Mecha'Thun Priest works at the moment you draw your deck before they can play any big threads (which are removed by Psychic scream) so to adapt to beating such a deck they more or less have to play aggressive. And if that's the way the deck should go then we might as well remove fatique decks.
Let me stress that I don't see OTK decks as problematic. My concern is that Mecha'Thun beats an entire archtype easily especially when there are no counter plays. Other OTK decks like pre-nerf Raza Priest, Malygos decks, Velen combo shenanigans etc. can be 'countered' by a ton of armor gain but Mecha'Thun just kills you... and it's neutral.
Thus, there is a discrepancy between playing control decks and Hearthstones main point: "Fun and interactive".
I honk HoF moves are more similar to mtg bans than nerfs are. A ban is to remove a card from its play environment, but does not actually change the card. If you own the card and play with it in a format where it’s allowed, it does the same thing. Nerfs on the other hand change the card in a way that effects all formats. If Wizards of the Coast ban Goblin Chainwhirler from standard, it would still be playable in other formats. Not to say it would see play, but it could. But if Wizards, say, removed First Strike from the card, every format would be affected.
I am NOT saying that this is how the HoF is being used, but I am saying I would like it if it was being used this way. It would give players more incentive to play wild, make more hype for the expansions, and remove the awful feeling you get when you craft a deck around a card that gets nerfed.
However, this is another topic. I may make a thread about it later. As for now, I am willing to discuss HoF as a rotation system for classic.
For people who don’t play mtg, Goblin chainwhirler is a powerful card, Wizards of the Coast are the creators, and first strike is basically a keyword which gives a minion divine shield if it were to trade and kill another minion.
I find the problem with the current OTK decks is the consistency. It's not just the combo cards themselves that are the problem. The problem is the cards that virtually guarantee you being able to play the combo without your opponent being able to do anything about it.
Psychic Scream / Shadow Visions. I don't have an issue with damage board clears, but IMO anything that denies deathrattles AND card advantage is excessive. When it can happen 4 times in a game and there is nothing your opponent can do to counter it, it's just silly. I realise that priest is/was at a bad place and they needed overpowered cards to make them decent, but this is just the opposite of fun. It's actually a lot like Ice Block / Primordial Glyph where you sit scratching your arse for half the game. At least with Vanish you keep card advantage and you can play around 2. At least taunt minions are a delaying tactic that allows the opponent to interact with the board.
Druid armor and card draw. Yes yes, another #nerfdruid to the pile, but lets be fair the class is becoming a little bit silly at this point. I just don't understand why druid has been given about 10 good cards over three expansions that would have been way more appropriate for warrior, which is struggling. For example, Ferocious Howl is just a better Shield Block. Their staple cards are so good at survival and card draw that they now have over 5 very competitive archetypes/win conditions just by changing 5-6 cards and keeping the base ones pretty much the same. The bulk of these cards are not minions, so again there is very little interactivity.
Hearthstone is a game that at it's core is (or at least should be) about minions and board control. As soon as you have a deck that is 90% spells you're pretty much playing solitaire. This goes for stuff like burn mage that just goes face with direct damage as well as OTK decks and abominations like Quest Rogue and Big Priest. Things like Quest Warrior might be boring, but they're still more interesting to play against than an OTK deck. If there were neutral tech options for all of these OTK decks then at least there would be thinking involved. Right now for most people your only choice is whether to play aggro and pray, or play control and concede if you face an OTK.
I'd hoped this Mech and experiment themed expansion was going to see completely new mech decks (Mecha'thun hardly counts) playing a big role, but at this point it's looking like a bit of a mess where most of the fun cards like Dr. Boom and the legendary spells are hardly seeing play. The "magnetic" keyword is barely used. It's hard to see a solution at this point except for nerfing half a dozen cards. Mecha'thun should at best be a deal x-damage to your opponent that could at least be countered by armor or high health. A straight "kill your opponent", while 'cool' is just poor design that was either going to be meme level useless or unfair to play against.
That just goes to show how little you know about Blizzard's testing. You don't have to release cards to the public to know that some will be problematic. There's a reason that Blizzard hires real players to do balance testing. That's right, i said "real players", because the players doing the balance testing are "real players" with lots of experience in Hearthstone. They can't test the game to the full extent that millions of players can, but they can for sure find some problems (and have countless times).
What does that have to do with anything I've said? It makes for a great anecdote, but it has nothing to do with this conversation. We're not talking about what players think of cards, that is completely irrelevant.
What do you call balance testing using real players? That sounds like real data to me. That doesn't mean they will be right every single time, and even if they are wrong 99 times out of 100 it is still better than ignoring their test data and letting that one time slip through the cracks and ruin the game.
big priest is always the death of me. It is clearly a fun killer
Obviously there hasn't been any game breaking combos with hall of fame cards yet, they aren't allowed to be played in standard anymore. Wild is a different format, and what can be broken in standard could be completely underwhelming in wild.
Well - I think they are just terrible card designers.
They sent Ice Lance, Ice Block to HoF because "tHeY wErE aLlOWiNg pEoPlE tO pLaY OtK dEcKs" - And then printed cards like Eureka! ( OTK Malygos shaman ), Shudderwock, Boomsday OTK druid pack, mage quest....
- B-b-b-ut they just wanted to destroy deck that was around for like 3 years ( Freeze mage )
Well, then they should also ruin zoolock, control warrior, malygos druid and many other decks. This argument is just incorrect.
- But it was really frustrating to play against someone who had 2-4 Ice Blocks in single game.
Yeah, it was, but so is playing against Shudderwock shamans or OTK boar priests.
Easiest solution would be nerfing Primordial Glyph.
Another one - They sent Coldlight Oracle because it allowed people to "burn enemy cards and disrupt combos" - And then they printed Demonic Project and Gnomeferatu.
Not even talking about cards they print for Hunter ( Bombs, spells, control cards - Erhm, did i mention that hunter is tempo class? ), Shaman ( Murlocs, Freeze, Overload, Elementals...) and Warrior.
The trick is that WofC uses bans because they CAN'T change the card. even if they reprint the card with a new effect, the original card still exists and can be purchased from other players. Thus "ban from all formats" is the best they can do, and even then they can't do a thing when the players just ignore them.
Digital card games aren't limited in this way, which is why you have to move a bit away from how physical card games work compared to digital versions. Blizzard has the option of completely tweaking or even eliminating the card from the game (warsong is NOT meant to be a played card nowadays. They even declared that it was just Bad). That is the purpose of nerfs: it's a 'ban from all formats' followed by a 'reprint'.
The issue is that the card remains in Wild. Remember that nerfing isn't done for merely bothersome or annoying cards. We never nerfed Jade Idol. We never nerfed Reno. Nerfing is reserved specifically for cards that are problems. If we HoF it, wouldn't that just mean we are punishing Wild, whicih probably hates the card just as badly as Standard, and treating Wild as 'the trash yard' for cards we don't like?
If we don't want the card, it shouldn't be rotated. It should be GONE. If it is ok for Wild to have it, where cards can be even more insane, why does it need to be removed from Standard, barring the mere fact that it's been around for too long? Which is exactly what HoF/Rotation is doing right now?
What specific cards are we talking about that is perfectly healthy for Wild but not good for Standard BEFORE the 2 year lifetime?
Join the club. We have cookies!
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
Yes you should release cards to be tested to more than just Blizzard employees or the rare player that is hired to test cards for them lol. T5 and even pro players/streamers have been wrong all of the time. Cards that both of those parties that would be good or a problem have been wrong constantly. Want me to list the countless cards that went under the radar because everyday players weren't testing cards before they came out (Quest Rogue is a great example here)? Would you like me to list many of the cards that T5/streamers thought were going to be powerful or problematic and ended up not happening that way?
The example does relate to this conversation. It stands as what could happen if cards are targeted as being problematic when they aren't and then end up getting HoFed or nerfed if such an action is ever taken preemptively.
You'd rather cards be HoFed and/or nerfed those 99/100 times then just to maybe avoid one problematic card, if it is even problematic? That is called fixing something that is not broken. Accurate data for a game like this isn't going to happen without mass testing from creative players. Whatever T5 did they completely missed things like Quest Rogue (Clearly their testing of the card only tested it in a vacuum without using the card in the version everyday players ended up running and/or they did not test the deck against slow meta decks). Real players playing the cards in a mass public test realm would do a much better job at testing whether something is going to be powerful or not, not trusting a small handful of people to decide what will or will not be strong/weak.
Keep in mind these decisions are made over time. Personnel and opinions change. Maybe there was a shift in the team’s ideas and goals.
There is also more to some things than the obvious, for example Warsong Commander was already on Blizzard’s shit list because it made it risky to design powerful low attack minions (or even less powerful ones). In general charge was just broken.
Ice Lance is imo the best HOF inclusions, but that is because Aluneth is a card. Agressive burn mage decks are already pretty strong, so 8 extra burn for 2 mana (or 0 with girl) could be too much, and force several decks without a lot of lifegain away.
About design philosophy, I think an important goal is variety: different playstyles (aggro, tempo, midrange, combo, control) and different classes take turns being the top dog. And they are succeeding pretty well at it; all the different playstyles and classes have had hated decks on the forums. Even the most balanced metagames will become boring when the room for invention dries up.
Editor of the Heartpwn Legendary Crafting Guide:
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/card-discussion/205920-legendary-tier-list-crafting-guide
Yes, I would rather that be the case, and so does an overwhelming majority of people. It is better to fix something that is not broken than to release something broken. I work in software, and I would be fired if I released something that I thought might be broken, but just decided I would let the end users test it to see if it was broken or not. Fixing 99 things that aren't broken is a whole lot better than releasing something that is.
Real world testing is obviously better than internal testing, but you don't use production as a testing environment. That is a really quick way to lose users and go out of business. If Blizzard adopted your style of thinking then Hearthstone likely wouldn't be around today. I don't think you have any idea how many broken cards Blizzard has nerfed or changed before release based on balance testing, if you did you wouldn't have the opinion that balance testing is pointless.