Yeah, but there are two factors to determining when to nerf something. The first, and primary metric, is simply perception. Decks that are perceived as being unfun to play against (usually because they're strong in a particularly domineering way) will get the boot even if they're fine in actual power level. The second metric is indeed the power level. It has happened before that a deck was particularly impressive in performance, but didn't really get perceived by the general playerbase as such, but got nerfed because of that.
Basically what I'm saying is just that the game is balanced around both of those factors, and as long as *any* of the two are a problem, it's a target for nerfs. It's not a guaranteed one, of course, but it becomes very likely. In reality, both factors are crucial to the health of a meta-game.
You seem to have a particularly high degree of insight into Blizz's decision making process with regard to balancing, did you read about all of this somewhere or do you have experience in this area? Jc
I'm going off mostly what they've said all the other times we've had a situation like this before. Its pretty common for a slightly above average card (that is numerically balanced, but not fun) to get slapped down. Honestly, what people need to remember for all of this to make sense is the Baku/Genn situation. Baku/Genn created problems of both types, but in reality most of the decks using them were fine in terms of numerical balance. But instead of doing touch-ups to the worst offenders, they just rotated early entirely. The reason for this comes down to the "fun"-factor I was talking about. Baku/Genn led to matches against very consistent and very same-y but above average decks. Most of them weren't straight up busted, but every game played out the same.
That's ultimately why I don't really think no changes are an option when it comes to Warrior Quest. They kind of have to fix it, or rotate the quests early, because the problem inherent in the quest designs are also very much the same problems we ran into with Genn/Baku.
I'm not sure why you guys are bringing up legend so much. Most people aren't legend, and HS as a game has never been balanced around legend either, not primarily. If something is fine in Legend but feels miserable for everyone else, it gets hit. It really is that simple. The goal of nerfs is not game balance per se, but fun for the core playerbase. Sometimes, they're the same thing. Sometimes, they're not.
I'm not certain if this is true, but it does make sense. I think the reason people keep bringing up legend, if I had to speculate, is that people may think that how a deck plays in legend is a better representation of its actual power level relative to how well it does at lower ranks, and thus that play in legend is a more reliable instrument for the purpose of determining whether nerfs are needed.
Yeah, but there are two factors to determining when to nerf something. The first, and primary metric, is simply perception. Decks that are perceived as being unfun to play against (usually because they're strong in a particularly domineering way) will get the boot even if they're fine in actual power level. The second metric is indeed the power level. It has happened before that a deck was particularly impressive in performance, but didn't really get perceived by the general playerbase as such, but got nerfed because of that.
Basically what I'm saying is just that the game is balanced around both of those factors, and as long as *any* of the two are a problem, it's a target for nerfs. It's not a guaranteed one, of course, but it becomes very likely. In reality, both factors are crucial to the health of a meta-game.
I'm not sure why you guys are bringing up legend so much. Most people aren't legend, and HS as a game has never been balanced around legend either, not primarily. If something is fine in Legend but feels miserable for everyone else, it gets hit. It really is that simple. The goal of nerfs is not game balance per se, but fun for the core playerbase. Sometimes, they're the same thing. Sometimes, they're not.
I'm going off mostly what they've said all the other times we've had a situation like this before. Its pretty common for a slightly above average card (that is numerically balanced, but not fun) to get slapped down. Honestly, what people need to remember for all of this to make sense is the Baku/Genn situation. Baku/Genn created problems of both types, but in reality most of the decks using them were fine in terms of numerical balance. But instead of doing touch-ups to the worst offenders, they just rotated early entirely. The reason for this comes down to the "fun"-factor I was talking about. Baku/Genn led to matches against very consistent and very same-y but above average decks. Most of them weren't straight up busted, but every game played out the same.
That's ultimately why I don't really think no changes are an option when it comes to Warrior Quest. They kind of have to fix it, or rotate the quests early, because the problem inherent in the quest designs are also very much the same problems we ran into with Genn/Baku.
Yeah, but there are two factors to determining when to nerf something. The first, and primary metric, is simply perception. Decks that are perceived as being unfun to play against (usually because they're strong in a particularly domineering way) will get the boot even if they're fine in actual power level. The second metric is indeed the power level. It has happened before that a deck was particularly impressive in performance, but didn't really get perceived by the general playerbase as such, but got nerfed because of that.
Basically what I'm saying is just that the game is balanced around both of those factors, and as long as *any* of the two are a problem, it's a target for nerfs. It's not a guaranteed one, of course, but it becomes very likely. In reality, both factors are crucial to the health of a meta-game.
I'm not sure why you guys are bringing up legend so much. Most people aren't legend, and HS as a game has never been balanced around legend either, not primarily. If something is fine in Legend but feels miserable for everyone else, it gets hit. It really is that simple. The goal of nerfs is not game balance per se, but fun for the core playerbase. Sometimes, they're the same thing. Sometimes, they're not.
If they're gonna do anything, they're gonna change the progression. The juggernaut is kind of fine, but the deck is too strong on the way there.