Ben Brode on Classic, Formats, F2P Legend, and Asks a Community Question
Earlier today, we posted an article which brought to attention Ben Brode's comments on possibly rotating cards from the Classic set into the Wild format. He has since come out to address concerns some players have with it and to open up the conversation. We feel it's important to highlight, from Ben:
- Classic is the most powerful set in the game.
- Nerfs to a few Classic cards still keeps the "evergreen" set stable.
- The Classic set introduces players to the game and lays down generic Warcraft flavor.
- Standard is designed more for players who like to see a fresh meta whereas Wild will change less often.
- Charge was nerfed due to the Grimy Goons mechanic being added in Gadgetzan.
- New players should continue to be able to reach legend after the changes as F2P players are still able to reach Legend after all the 2016 nerfs.
- Not every card in the game is targeted for competitive play.
Ben Asks: Do you prefer some evergreen cards to be nerfed, rotated to wild, or kept in Standard even if it results in a staler meta?
Quote from Ben BrodeOur intention is to keep Basic and Classic evergreen. This does have severe disadvantages if cards from Classic end up making Standard fail at its goal of being fresh each year. It's feedback we've been hearing since the introduction of Standard: 'This isn't enough - we will eventually end up in a stale Standard without additional changes.' And we've always said that we didn't consider our work here 'done'. If Standard is at risk for becoming stale thanks to the evergreen sets, we'll consider additional nerfs. This isn't the first time we've said this, and we said it even before Standard launched. We've reiterated it over the past year: http://www.pcgamesn.com/hearthstone/hearthstone-standard-2017-nerfsAssuming both avenues resulted in full dust refunds of the affected cards, would people prefer:
- Nerfs
- Rotation to Wild (like Old Murk Eye)
- Staler Meta in Standard
Please leave the Classic Legendaries Alone
I should add this is a general question about all Classic cards and not specifically about Legendaries. We're not sure which cards would be the right ones to target, if any, just yet. (Source)
Quote from Ben BrodeJust create a Core Set finally.
We have a core set - it's called Classic. Is there something you're pitching that Classic isn't doing for us? (Source)The entire point of classic was to have a stable base set on top of the basic set.
There are close to 400 cards in Basic and Classic. Nerfing a few of them, or moving them to Wild, still keeps a stable evergreen set. Also, that isn't the entire point of Classic. It introduces players to the game at a slightly lower complexity level. It lays a baseline for generic Warcraft flavor (Hogger, Mukla, etc). (Source)Now you are admitting that retaining classic was a mistake, and instead of rotating it out. We are just going change cards and bend it to where it is no longer a complete set by rotating out random cards and... what!? Just rotate Classic out!
We believe there are real benefits to an evergreen basic and classic set. What we are talking about is very similar to the 12 nerfs we made when Standard launched, to help it succeed in its goals. Standard needs to be fresh each year. (Source)Blizzard doesn't like that F2P players are using classic/basic cards all the time and when making their decks so they want to nerf those cards to oblivion in order to force them to spend money/gold on adventures/expansions pack.
That's just not true. Some players like it when Hearthstone has a fresh meta, where you can explore new deck types. It's one of two reasons we introduced the Standard Format (the other was making sure new players wouldn't have to collect every card ever made to be competitive). Wild is going to change a lot less often. Some players like that too. But we have a commitment to keep Standard fresh and ever-changing. We've been hearing a lot of feedback that Classic and Basic as they currently stand are a real threat to that. (Source)And then when F2P players finally found a way to reach Rank 1 with a cheap OTK Warrior deck, they decide to nerf Charge while saying "omg guiz u have no idea how gud dis iz!!!11".
I see you took the time to look up my exact quote! :) We nerfed Charge (the spell) because we knew the upcoming Grimy Goons mechanic in combination with Enraged Worgen and Charge was not really fair or fun. There have always been F2P players at Legend, and there have continued to be since that change. (Source)Almost all cards that get nerfed (or "changed" as Blizzard likes to put it) never gets played again.
Maybe you're intentionally exaggerating, but you can count 'em and it's not "almost all". And not every card is targeted at competitive play. We do intentionally make bad cards. Here's a video, if you're curious about some of the reasons why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1ioY1KO79A (Source)love how you're trying to put out the fire created by greed :) it's not working to well though, why not just be honest & tell everyone you are rotating out good core cards because you want new players to pay up or be 100% irrelevant? :) why lie about it? "fresh"? gimmi a break.
We did this in 2016 when we nerfed 12 classic cards and it made a huge difference in how much the meta was able to change with the release of Old Gods (instead of just continuing to be Druid Combo). New players were able to reach legend without spending money after that change, and I expect that will be continue to be true if we change a few more cards in 2017. (Source)I don't understand why can't they just buff cards? What is so drastically different that they can nerf cards but they can never buff anything?
If you're curious about some of the challenges and other thoughts about buffing bad cards, I made a video a while back about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1ioY1KO79ARIP any good cards in classic.
Classic is by far the most powerful set. Nerfing 12 cards in 2016 didn't change that. A few more in 2017 probably won't either. (Source)
You've seriously spent thousands of dollars on this game?
I agree. At some point you have to assume that the people who get payed the big bucks to spend their work week making the game grow are doing whats best...
Its a rollercoaster fellas, just ride the bitch and try to be the best.
"Why team 5 is not more open to the community??" ask the community before asking Ben Brode a bunch of questions, some with a needless ammount of bile and acusatory language.
What I'd like to propose is: write down your question, then read it and imagine it being asked that way to you in real life, and then ask yourself, would I want to be civil with this person? Would I like to have an engaging and interesting conversation with this person? Is this person or myself going to benefit from this time that I'm investing in them? Then decide if that is how you want to be seen.
I'm forced to say that I do share some of the concerns of the community, but I don't aprove of it's methods. The way that we are engaging this problem is more acusatory and self serving rather than informative or to seek a solution.
It didn't start this way. It's come to a boiling point in the community because when you ask hard and straight questions for years, and receive mostly the same scripted responses meanwhile the core issues affecting gameplay remain unaddressed, you become a little ticked off.
Consider how childish those questions were put forward, then consider the answers. Well you go back a year to find another one of these Q&A's, you'll notice the questions were succinct and polite but the answers were exactly the same.
"Why no buffs?" asks a person
"Go watch this video that doesn't really answer the question" is the reply
Now enjoy your non-answer and remember to never get mad as this scene repeats with some permutations across all Q&As. Remember to be civil, everyone, the tone argument is the only argument that matters!
I geuss the idea of balancing itself is fine. However, my inner voice tells me that they will just nerf/rotate out again some roguish cards. Rogue always was the hardest class, but they are making it just unplayable. Wish that 12 nerfed cards will be quite fair decision. -_-
BTW why did everyone forget that Blade Flurry nerf? They told: "We need to nerf it, so we can give to rogue some great weapons". 3 expansions after - no at least fine level weapons. Just that Deadly Fork, which is not even close to competitive level.
I know this comes as a shock to a lot of you but a lot of money is involved in this outfit and a lot of what they do is to get more of it :O
Whoaaa that is indeed a lot of money involved in this corporation. Don't worry, Activison has NEVER been known for underhanded business practices :v) and that would never seep down into their other divisions! Product first, players second, money third :v)
And even though I've been playing Blizzard games for over 15 years, there's no WAY that their acquisition by Activision in 2008 started the downword trend for game quality and business practices. NEVER! Not my Blizzard! Don't worry lads, Team 5 is just a comfy team of 10 programmers and Ben Brode in a basement somewhere :v)
I can guarantee you Hearthstone is netting them at least 50% if not more of their income per year to say the least.
After WoW fell off a mountain I'm inclined to agree.
WoW mostly nets them a huge initial income whenever a new expansion releases each 2/3 years. On the other hand, Hearthstone nets them 2 huge incomes a year (2x expansions) & 1 semi-decent (1x adventure). No wonder Blizzcon overall prize pool was 1 million dollars.
It's an interesting trend in modern gaming that the Free-to-Play games actually make the most money. Of course if any gaming company has perfected the formula of how to keep a player playing and paying it's Activision-Blizzard.
Brode-bot is truly a PR shill at this point. Keeps giving the same answers again and again. Can't even read this shit anymore.
Reno to standard? Please..
Nerfing classic set cards kinda works, but I honestly think a standard ban list gets a lot more done. That said, no solution will be universally better. With a ban list you accomplish:
• Not pissing people off because you crippled their collection. Nice golden card you dusted a lot of crap to make, it would be a shame if I made it unplayable.
• Not pissing people off because you nerfed a card they thought was fun and now will never be usable again, even in wild. A.k.a. wild is not wild if no crazy card survives the nerf hammer before it rotates out. *cough* give me back Yogg Saron you miserable bastards *cough*
• Nerfs are forever, banned cards could be unbanned, and you wouldn't look like you have no idea what you're doing. Wow, azure drake is really omnipresent right now, what if we put him on the bench for some seasons? This will allow for diversity to flourish, and at some point we could bring him back and see if it's still a problem.
Packs containing banned cards would be a problem, however. That's why I'd suggest no banned cards would be gotten from packs, and there's a good colateral damage that would come from this: newer player would have better chances of getting relevant cards, enhancing ever-so-slightly their game experience.
Banning cards might actually work. However, they'd have to be rotation-specific instead of permanently banning them. Take for example Yu-Gi-Oh, they ban/limit certain amount of cards each push of archetypes to limit the broken potential while free'ing some of them during other pushes which actually make some decks feel smoother while not exploiting gameplay. Thinking about it, they could even limit the usage of certain staples to 1 copy instead of permanently nerfing/rotating them out. That way, there won't be that much consistency and the deck won't depend totally on drawing the card to consider it a total win condition.
That's exactly what I'm suggesting, ban lists in card games always change, or at least the ones I know do.
really good idea:
1. you could ban 1 card every week (or/and let the community ban a card) just to force a rotating meta
2. ban x cards every month
3. you could bring wild cards back
4. if some people dislike the idea just create a "banned" mode.
still the "problematic" classic set remains. there are tons of crappy cards and ben/team5 doesnt want to change that, they even whats to make it worse. the problem isnt the classic set, the problem is the game design with the buisness model. you cant add tons of cards to gain money and keep all the game mechanics the same. each card that isnt total garbage will increase the synergy and the total powercreep of hearthstone.
we need more hp just for designspace. we need a total rework on the classic set to lower the powerlevel (stats) but increase the toolbox/potential synergy for new sets (give priest, pala and shaman decent aoe, removal and more cards like shrinkmeister). cutting some cards out of classic is fine but replace them. also add more adventures, they are healthier for the game
You do make fair points. I had no idea pokemon tcg had those issues, lol. My experience comes from MtG, where sometimes they need to change the text of cards, very rarely because they're actually changing the card, but sometimes because rules get perfected and the wording on older cards doesn't make as much sense anymore. Either way it only affects OLD cards, meaning people playing those in eternal formats kinda know what they're doing and keep up with the current "oracle text", as they call it, of the card. That doesn't happen frequently, and when it does your local judges will point the changes out for you too.
As for transparency in ban lists, absolutely. I'd assume that with a virtual interface a banlist could easily be provided in-game, but in the era of internet it wouldn't hurt to have pages like hearthpwn to reproduce and actively discuss the current list. It sure can be a little more confusing than straight out nerfing cards, but as I said in my opener, no solution will be universally better. I am of the opinion that ban lists are an easy, already existent concept to grab... pretty much like extra 9 deckslots, people'll get used to it, as hard as it sounds, lol.
FInally some dev feedback! (second part, the first one was more of an announcement)
People please STOP being so toxic though :/ you can't really be so angry at the devs they made the game you can go and make constructive criticim but stuff like "ben brode is greedy" or stuff like that made the dev fear to answer (although they shouldn't be.. if you look at where the developers are more open with the community behestha,Riot, POE the developers don't get curses or so.. TBH I used to think brode didn't care for the game but the more you hear from the guy the more you know he actually does care for the game and now he seems to understand the game MUCH better (back when I criticized him myself he has shown a lack of knowledge of his own game.)
I don't like the answers though.. what's wrong with a core set that isn't "classic"?
I would rather have a core set that evolves though the year than an evergreen classic.. One in which you take out azure drake one year and bring him back the next year.. one which reno jackson stays in rotation THIS year but next year you won't see him till Blizzard will want to push highlander decks again.
I just wish the HS team will act faster on making long pending changes (new player experience,ladder cahnges,reward changes(arena and in general, maybe crafting values..)