Good in theory, not good in practice. You'd have to get the power levels of all the buffed cards just right as opposed to getting it right for one or two nerfed cards. There are too many card interactions to be able to accurately predict power levels of cards to be buffed. Hopefully these cards are buffed just enough to make them viable choices in the metagame. I'm excited for these buffs, they should shake up the metagame quite a bit. But nerfs are more effective for game balance. Ultimately players want many viable paths to winning as opposed to few. This is experimental on Blizzards part. Should be interesting to see how it goes.
But buffs allow for more options, and considering Specialist is their new format, it makes sense for them to buff cards to try to give as much options as possible for all the classes.
Only nerfing means that the weak cards remain weak, and now there may be even more weak cards. Only buffing could make everything look OP and the game down to "who draws their stuff first". But coupling nerfs with buffs, more options should appear.
I maintain that the premise of the thread - that buffs are a better balancing tool than nerfs - is completely false, but I am intrigued to see Blizzard change their stance on this.
The way they've themed it is interesting - I could see them doing one per expansion, about mid-way, buffing the next expansion in line each time (so Rastakhan would be buffed next time, for example). I think that's a pretty workable way to do it.
I have an unpopular opinion right here: People said that "some cards are just bad is not crazy to buff them" but for me is more like, some cards are just too slow or bad value because other cards are stricly faster (or better). Buff one card will make others cards of the same slot worse because this card becomes better.
Buffing or Nerfing cards is not a "solution" there is not such a thing like a "solution" when there is not a problem in first play. When you play one game, any kind of game, there is always a "worse" and a "better" - In fighting games for example there is always attacks that are just too easy to punish to use them even when they look super good. Dev team job is not making everything useful but secure that some decks and some cards see play or rotate from competitive play one time or another. Some cards will never see play? yes but those where designed to be flavorful like the twisted versions of the minions in Whispers of the old gods.
If you make every card playable you will generate more problems than solutions because one class will have always better cards than other classes and if everyone get good stuff that class becomes even better sooner or later, you will buff that "OP class" in the same way you buff the weaker classes.
That is why when they buff cards almost never change their effects or dont touch too much stats or cost (only when a card is pretty interesting they really push that card to a better place like Morrigan for example reducing her mana cost by 2 is obviusly because how the card works with Plot Twist).
Nerf easier to control by far because you are just making one deck worse. But is not an okay deck or a okay class, its always an strong class or card. And yes that hurts other decks sometime but the one that suffer the most is the one that cause the nerf.
I support buffing cards which seem good and you want to make it work, but it's just impossible due to a certain class or certain cards consistently countering your plays. Maybe if the card is just 1 less mana cheaper, it would be more fair to play against meta decks and your strategy becomes more viable. Nerfs create a much bigger impact because it usually leaves open spots for new cards and strategies, but they easily destroy your whole deck strategy or even the whole class. Just look at dr. boom, mad genius. He was never mentioned as a problem during the death knight rotation because every class had a death knight available to them. Now it seems infuriatingly broken because other classes don't have access to a value generator or a viable counter. I think buffing cards should be handled with care, but if the goal is finding an equilibrium where many strategies are viable instead of a rock-paper-scissors meta with three tier 1 decks, then I'm all for it.
I support buffing cards which seem good and you want to make it work, but it's just impossible due to a certain class or certain cards consistently countering your plays. Maybe if the card is just 1 less mana cheaper, it would be more fair to play against meta decks and your strategy becomes more viable. Nerfs create a much bigger impact because it usually leaves open spots for new cards and strategies, but they easily destroy your whole deck strategy or even the whole class. Just look at dr. boom, mad genius. He was never mentioned as a problem during the death knight rotation because every class had a death knight available to them. Now it seems infuriatingly broken because other classes don't have access to a value generator or a viable counter. I think buffing cards should be handled with care, but if the goal is finding an equilibrium where many strategies are viable instead of a rock-paper-scissors meta with three tier 1 decks, then I'm all for it.
I support buffing cards which seem good and you want to make it work, but it's just impossible due to a certain class or certain cards consistently countering your plays. Maybe if the card is just 1 less mana cheaper, it would be more fair to play against meta decks and your strategy becomes more viable. Nerfs create a much bigger impact because it usually leaves open spots for new cards and strategies, but they easily destroy your whole deck strategy or even the whole class. Just look at dr. boom, mad genius. He was never mentioned as a problem during the death knight rotation because every class had a death knight available to them. Now it seems infuriatingly broken because other classes don't have access to a value generator or a viable counter. I think buffing cards should be handled with care, but if the goal is finding an equilibrium where many strategies are viable instead of a rock-paper-scissors meta with three tier 1 decks, then I'm all for it.
Principle of never nerfing dr boom
Not exactly. Lets put what he said in other Terms. When everyone have access to combo winning decks that dont care about your armor or your amount of resources Dr. Boom was "not broken" - Last expansion DK heroes was not the only thing that we lose. Most of the OTK decks become useless or rotate. That is the true reason why now people finally finds that one card that give every single minion in your deck (cause almost every minion you play on late game are mech) rush and also give you multiple options of hero power is a little too much. If you compare Dr Boom with Aghata for example your will find that the Shaman hero is a lot worse cause you cant go infinite with her and neither decide or have a notion of what kind of valueshe will give to you. Also technically speaking you "lose" your Hero power for a pasive effect that only triggers IF you spend mana playing a minion. You cant control if you use this pasive or not.
DK Heroes (the playable ones atleast) provide a similar Value. If i need to Choose what Heroe card is the better in a top 5 i will but DK rexxar and Dr Boom in the same spot at first place and DK jaina in the second spot when DK anduyn go for the 3rd becuase he cant go infinite anymore. Heroes that give you infinite resources that you can control in some way are by far very restrictive cards against any deck that cares about winning with Minions and now that there is no suck a thing like consistent OTK decks the ony way to effectively counter this effects is put massive threats on board that your opponent cant dealt with which is pretty unlikely to happen if you consider that warrior IS THE BEST class for dealing with minions.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but what I can't stomach is someone writing alot on their opinion but don't come up with a single solution to a problem they are talking about or examples, just a stand in for a debate war.
Let me preface this by saying that I am a published game designer, so I have some insight into game design and balance, especially card and board games...
That said ... I feel that you need to take a balanced approach when buffing or nerfing cards. The fact that Blizzard is now buffing cards shows that they are open to this strategy. But they still need to nerf cards that are limiting future designs or cards that are driving business away from their game. After all they are a business and without making money they won't be making cards.
As far as balancing the game. It would certainly be ideal if there were at least one deck that was viable in their new "specialist" tournament format for every class. No one wants to play Rogue v Rogue every match for an entire tournament. Hence we get nerfs to the overly powerful/popular class and it seems to now be followed by buffs to all classes that can help take some tier 2 or 3 decks archetypes and bring them up a touch power.
As far as how they nerf and buff, well I suspect that complex interactions take some higher level of coding to accomplish and that numerical changes to mana, attack, and health are much more easily changed via an in game update system vs the larger patch to be made available which for anyone that has worked with the apple store can attest, is an extremely painful approval process. Text changes carry with them an overhead as well, you need to localize that text across multiple languages and that translation is often not done in house and costs extra as well as taking time to coordinate with an out of house firm.
One reality of collectible card game design is that you need to have both good and bad cards. Deckbuilding is part of the game and you need to include those cards. Yea people call them pack-filler and that is what they are, they are basically the same as putting some amount of dust in place of a card in the pack. Buffs allow them to pick and choose these lower powered cards and bring them up a touch to help a bit with the overall power level of a deck.
In the end Blizzard probably has many reasons that they choose to nerf cards over buffing cards. But I am happy to see what some perceive as a slaughtering of a "sacred cow" of hearthstone game design with these latest buffs. I hope we see more of this at the half way point of every expansion cycle as well as the continued introduction of new cards or return of older cards to fill the holes left by cards rotating into the hall of fame.
The buffs Blizzard are providing have nothing to do with this subject. The buffs aren't aimed at fixing problematic cards, they're aimed at pushing underused cards to the front so they'll see more play.
When a specific card is problematic, it is FAR easier and less dangerous to nerf that one card. If you start buffing other cards instead trying to fix the problem, you get the following issues:
First off, which cards do you buff? Let's say Omega Devastator is problematic (ok it is :P) but Blizzard doesn't want to nerf it but buff something else instead. What the hell do you buff instead? E.M.P. Operative? That's still an extremely specific tech card and affects ALL mechs, not just Omega Devastator. What else do you buff? A lot of cards don't have specific counters.
Secondly, buffing a card has far wider reaching effects than just nerfing the problematic card itself. The card that gets buffed could very well become problematic itself. Or push a deck/meta out of existence that didn't have any issues. Say that you wanted to buff against Skull of the Man'ari so you buff all the weapon removal cards. Suddenly everyone and their Mr. Bigglesworth are playing weapon removal. Warrior, Paladin and Rogue are all heavily impacted by such a change. And why? To balance against a Warlock weapon. Isn't it far better to just nerf Skull of the Man'ari?
Nerfs are the way to go when a specific card gets too powerful. The nerf can target that card and that card only. Now I'll grant you that Blizzard has a tendency to use a sledge hammer rather than a scalpel to nerf some of their cards but nerfing is still the way to go.
Buffing cards should be reserved for improving cards that no-one is playing for the simple reason that they either outright suck, are rarely seeing play due to being mostly a niche card or because they have no place/viability in any deck. And so far the buffs Blizzard has provided seem to follow that quite well. I doubt a 5 mana Luna's Pocket Galaxy is suddenly going to destroy the meta, but players will be motivated to try and put it in a deck.
Hopefully Blizzard will recieve a lot of positive feedback from the buffs and will consider doing more buffing of weak/underused cards in the future.
Technically, this isn't the first buff from Blizzard.
Remember when Deathstalker Rexxar didn't have access to beasts from Kobolds & Catacombs or The Witchwood? People complained about that and Blizzard caved in and changed it, after initially saying they wouldn't.
We ended up with OP zombeasts. Before the change, Deathstalker Rexxar was pretty mediocre. After the change came the zombeasts with multi-hit, lifesteal, poison ...
Thus began the ongoing year of Hunterstone and Rexxar probably being the No. 1 deathknight people no longer wanted to see. So be careful what you wish for.
/I f--king hate Hunter pre-nerf Yogg or Shudderwock, er, Zul'jin, too
The real answer is to fix the damn evergreen set. That set was created with no data or balance taken into consideration and now they are taking a weed whacker to it all the time gutting core cards. They need to rotate cards out of it and put new ones in to balance out the classes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Good in theory, not good in practice. You'd have to get the power levels of all the buffed cards just right as opposed to getting it right for one or two nerfed cards. There are too many card interactions to be able to accurately predict power levels of cards to be buffed. Hopefully these cards are buffed just enough to make them viable choices in the metagame. I'm excited for these buffs, they should shake up the metagame quite a bit. But nerfs are more effective for game balance. Ultimately players want many viable paths to winning as opposed to few. This is experimental on Blizzards part. Should be interesting to see how it goes.
Nerfs affect the meta and balance much more.
But buffs allow for more options, and considering Specialist is their new format, it makes sense for them to buff cards to try to give as much options as possible for all the classes.
Only nerfing means that the weak cards remain weak, and now there may be even more weak cards. Only buffing could make everything look OP and the game down to "who draws their stuff first". But coupling nerfs with buffs, more options should appear.
We wan guys.
Looks like Blizzard actually listened to the community with this round of buffs.
I am very happy.
Nice job everyone. Treat yourself to a self back pat
I maintain that the premise of the thread - that buffs are a better balancing tool than nerfs - is completely false, but I am intrigued to see Blizzard change their stance on this.
The way they've themed it is interesting - I could see them doing one per expansion, about mid-way, buffing the next expansion in line each time (so Rastakhan would be buffed next time, for example). I think that's a pretty workable way to do it.
You can find me here! Good luck everyone!
I have an unpopular opinion right here: People said that "some cards are just bad is not crazy to buff them" but for me is more like, some cards are just too slow or bad value because other cards are stricly faster (or better). Buff one card will make others cards of the same slot worse because this card becomes better.
Buffing or Nerfing cards is not a "solution" there is not such a thing like a "solution" when there is not a problem in first play. When you play one game, any kind of game, there is always a "worse" and a "better" - In fighting games for example there is always attacks that are just too easy to punish to use them even when they look super good. Dev team job is not making everything useful but secure that some decks and some cards see play or rotate from competitive play one time or another. Some cards will never see play? yes but those where designed to be flavorful like the twisted versions of the minions in Whispers of the old gods.
If you make every card playable you will generate more problems than solutions because one class will have always better cards than other classes and if everyone get good stuff that class becomes even better sooner or later, you will buff that "OP class" in the same way you buff the weaker classes.
That is why when they buff cards almost never change their effects or dont touch too much stats or cost (only when a card is pretty interesting they really push that card to a better place like Morrigan for example reducing her mana cost by 2 is obviusly because how the card works with Plot Twist).
Nerf easier to control by far because you are just making one deck worse. But is not an okay deck or a okay class, its always an strong class or card. And yes that hurts other decks sometime but the one that suffer the most is the one that cause the nerf.
I support buffing cards which seem good and you want to make it work, but it's just impossible due to a certain class or certain cards consistently countering your plays. Maybe if the card is just 1 less mana cheaper, it would be more fair to play against meta decks and your strategy becomes more viable. Nerfs create a much bigger impact because it usually leaves open spots for new cards and strategies, but they easily destroy your whole deck strategy or even the whole class. Just look at dr. boom, mad genius. He was never mentioned as a problem during the death knight rotation because every class had a death knight available to them. Now it seems infuriatingly broken because other classes don't have access to a value generator or a viable counter. I think buffing cards should be handled with care, but if the goal is finding an equilibrium where many strategies are viable instead of a rock-paper-scissors meta with three tier 1 decks, then I'm all for it.
It's not rng if you call - Amaz
Basic cards maybe
DJ
Principle of never nerfing dr boom
DJ
Not exactly. Lets put what he said in other Terms. When everyone have access to combo winning decks that dont care about your armor or your amount of resources Dr. Boom was "not broken" - Last expansion DK heroes was not the only thing that we lose. Most of the OTK decks become useless or rotate. That is the true reason why now people finally finds that one card that give every single minion in your deck (cause almost every minion you play on late game are mech) rush and also give you multiple options of hero power is a little too much. If you compare Dr Boom with Aghata for example your will find that the Shaman hero is a lot worse cause you cant go infinite with her and neither decide or have a notion of what kind of valueshe will give to you. Also technically speaking you "lose" your Hero power for a pasive effect that only triggers IF you spend mana playing a minion. You cant control if you use this pasive or not.
DK Heroes (the playable ones atleast) provide a similar Value. If i need to Choose what Heroe card is the better in a top 5 i will but DK rexxar and Dr Boom in the same spot at first place and DK jaina in the second spot when DK anduyn go for the 3rd becuase he cant go infinite anymore. Heroes that give you infinite resources that you can control in some way are by far very restrictive cards against any deck that cares about winning with Minions and now that there is no suck a thing like consistent OTK decks the ony way to effectively counter this effects is put massive threats on board that your opponent cant dealt with which is pretty unlikely to happen if you consider that warrior IS THE BEST class for dealing with minions.
LOL AFTER THIS POST BUFFS CAME TO HEARTHSTONE
OMEGALUL
Favorite Cards: 1. Lord Jaraxxus | 2. Malygos| 3. Edwin VanCleef | 4. Zephrys the Great| 5. Deathwing
To be fair, I've been crying for buffs for a while. Maybe the poll did it? Bliz wasnt aware they could just ask
A lot of replies here didn't age well.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but what I can't stomach is someone writing alot on their opinion but don't come up with a single solution to a problem they are talking about or examples, just a stand in for a debate war.
Let me preface this by saying that I am a published game designer, so I have some insight into game design and balance, especially card and board games...
That said ... I feel that you need to take a balanced approach when buffing or nerfing cards. The fact that Blizzard is now buffing cards shows that they are open to this strategy. But they still need to nerf cards that are limiting future designs or cards that are driving business away from their game. After all they are a business and without making money they won't be making cards.
As far as balancing the game. It would certainly be ideal if there were at least one deck that was viable in their new "specialist" tournament format for every class. No one wants to play Rogue v Rogue every match for an entire tournament. Hence we get nerfs to the overly powerful/popular class and it seems to now be followed by buffs to all classes that can help take some tier 2 or 3 decks archetypes and bring them up a touch power.
As far as how they nerf and buff, well I suspect that complex interactions take some higher level of coding to accomplish and that numerical changes to mana, attack, and health are much more easily changed via an in game update system vs the larger patch to be made available which for anyone that has worked with the apple store can attest, is an extremely painful approval process. Text changes carry with them an overhead as well, you need to localize that text across multiple languages and that translation is often not done in house and costs extra as well as taking time to coordinate with an out of house firm.
One reality of collectible card game design is that you need to have both good and bad cards. Deckbuilding is part of the game and you need to include those cards. Yea people call them pack-filler and that is what they are, they are basically the same as putting some amount of dust in place of a card in the pack. Buffs allow them to pick and choose these lower powered cards and bring them up a touch to help a bit with the overall power level of a deck.
In the end Blizzard probably has many reasons that they choose to nerf cards over buffing cards. But I am happy to see what some perceive as a slaughtering of a "sacred cow" of hearthstone game design with these latest buffs. I hope we see more of this at the half way point of every expansion cycle as well as the continued introduction of new cards or return of older cards to fill the holes left by cards rotating into the hall of fame.
=D13=
The buffs Blizzard are providing have nothing to do with this subject. The buffs aren't aimed at fixing problematic cards, they're aimed at pushing underused cards to the front so they'll see more play.
When a specific card is problematic, it is FAR easier and less dangerous to nerf that one card. If you start buffing other cards instead trying to fix the problem, you get the following issues:
First off, which cards do you buff? Let's say Omega Devastator is problematic (ok it is :P) but Blizzard doesn't want to nerf it but buff something else instead. What the hell do you buff instead? E.M.P. Operative? That's still an extremely specific tech card and affects ALL mechs, not just Omega Devastator. What else do you buff? A lot of cards don't have specific counters.
Secondly, buffing a card has far wider reaching effects than just nerfing the problematic card itself. The card that gets buffed could very well become problematic itself. Or push a deck/meta out of existence that didn't have any issues. Say that you wanted to buff against Skull of the Man'ari so you buff all the weapon removal cards. Suddenly everyone and their Mr. Bigglesworth are playing weapon removal. Warrior, Paladin and Rogue are all heavily impacted by such a change. And why? To balance against a Warlock weapon. Isn't it far better to just nerf Skull of the Man'ari?
Nerfs are the way to go when a specific card gets too powerful. The nerf can target that card and that card only. Now I'll grant you that Blizzard has a tendency to use a sledge hammer rather than a scalpel to nerf some of their cards but nerfing is still the way to go.
Buffing cards should be reserved for improving cards that no-one is playing for the simple reason that they either outright suck, are rarely seeing play due to being mostly a niche card or because they have no place/viability in any deck. And so far the buffs Blizzard has provided seem to follow that quite well. I doubt a 5 mana Luna's Pocket Galaxy is suddenly going to destroy the meta, but players will be motivated to try and put it in a deck.
Hopefully Blizzard will recieve a lot of positive feedback from the buffs and will consider doing more buffing of weak/underused cards in the future.
I agree about the buffs.
I however think there is no such thing as too powerful card.
Cards need to be powerful, always more powerful, the more power the better.
I want to see powerful cards for everyone. That's what makes the game feel great, not the bad cards.
How can a card seem powerful if all the other cards are equally powerful? They are all just mediocre at that point.
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
Technically, this isn't the first buff from Blizzard.
Remember when Deathstalker Rexxar didn't have access to beasts from Kobolds & Catacombs or The Witchwood? People complained about that and Blizzard caved in and changed it, after initially saying they wouldn't.
We ended up with OP zombeasts. Before the change, Deathstalker Rexxar was pretty mediocre. After the change came the zombeasts with multi-hit, lifesteal, poison ...
Thus began the ongoing year of Hunterstone and Rexxar probably being the No. 1 deathknight people no longer wanted to see. So be careful what you wish for.
/I f--king hate Hunter pre-nerf Yogg or Shudderwock, er, Zul'jin, too
The real answer is to fix the damn evergreen set. That set was created with no data or balance taken into consideration and now they are taking a weed whacker to it all the time gutting core cards. They need to rotate cards out of it and put new ones in to balance out the classes.