• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Hearthstone |OT8| Elise's Extremely Irresponsible Field Trip To Un'Goro

Status
Not open for further replies.

gutshot

Member
Yes, I'm certain that, as with Warcraft, World of Warcraft, Diablo, Overwatch and Starcraft, Blizzard created Hearthstone entirely accidentally and propelled it to being the most popular game of its ilk entirely through incoherent, random keyboard-mashing.

I think they are good game designers as Hearthstone at its core is a very fun and accessible game. I don't think many people would dispute that.

But what BlackBuzzard is talking about is their complete inability to incorporate features and QoL additions that many other online games have. The client itself is very feature-lite, despite the game being out for nearly 3 years now, and making tons of money in that time.
 
The assumption that these features haven't come due to incompetency is at issue. I think they've prioritized features that are more important, primarily content like new cards, adventures, brawls, back end support, squashing bugs...
 

gutshot

Member
That's true but other dev teams at Blizzard balance regular content releases and bug fixes with polishing of the game client, adding new features, and QoL improvements. And they can't use the small team size as an excuse now since Team 5 is almost as large as Overwatch's dev team.
 

wiibomb

Member
Team 5 are pretty good designers and absolutely terrible content creators and content supporters for the game...

I really hope this changes soon give the info Nirolak shared about a big part of the team still being learning about the development.
 
Maybe they're too focused on the casual, money-making aspect? New adventures and expansions bring in more money and new players. I think if there were more options and differences, it might be more popular with both sides.

Splitting Standard and Wild is a good idea. I think the Heroic Brawl had merit, but it came at the expense of a Tavern Brawl.

Perhaps having a Competitive mode (with heroic brawl, all cards unlocked, tournament rules, different Arena, separate ladder, etc.) and a Standard mode (for new/casual players, brawls that run for 7 days, different balance changes, wild Arena) might satisfy both sides.
 
But what BlackBuzzard is talking about is their complete inability to incorporate features and QoL additions that many other online games have. The client itself is very feature-lite, despite the game being out for nearly 3 years now, and making tons of money in that time.

Again, it's like nobody remembers WoW anymore. :p

Hearthstone was a POC by a skeleton-crew team that turned into a juggernaut. Since launch we actually know pretty clearly what they've worked on: optimizing the client, rebuilding the content creation tools to give designers much more flexibility to prototype stuff without programmer assistance, launching on additional platforms, adding a framework for "custom" games (i.e. the basis of Tavern Brawls and Adventures), and rebuilding systems that were hardcoded originally to make them flexible for faster changes (i.e. their Arena rebuild.)

They've spent a lot of time lately hinting at how many of these systems they're working on fixes to that will be public soon, and they've also pretty strongly indicated that they want to seriously align their messaging around the "Year of X" model, so the idea that at this exact moment there would be a lot of stuff in the offing that isn't public yet seems pretty obvious.

Basically, my point is that right now is a good inflection point for getting antsy but not for declaring the team to be incompetent, unfeeling monsters who spend their days rolling in giant piles of Benjamins. There's good reason to believe there will be noticeably more improvement in these areas over the next year than there was over the year previous, and it's worth giving a little rope to see that play out.

Maybe they're too focused on the casual, money-making aspect? New adventures and expansions bring in more money and new players. I think if there were more options and differences, it might be more popular with both sides.

I don't know that I'd say too focused, but absolutely more modes is what they need now. They have enough players that they can support more choices without an issue, especially if some of them are like the Tavern Brawl and don't run all the time. Off the top of my head:

  • Crafted Arena environments (i.e. cubes) with themes that run for limited times.
  • Capped competitive mode with high-risk high-reward (i.e. Heroic Brawl) as its own thing, not a fill-in for a casual-oriented mode.
  • Tournament-league structured competitive mode (i.e. multiple games using multiple decks, with something like Conquest or Last Hero Standing)
  • Four player.
 

gutshot

Member
Yeah, I wouldn't say that they are wholly incompetent or lazy (maybe just a little incompetent or lazy) with regards to new features. Just that it hasn't been a priority for them, for one reason or another.

If one of those reasons is because they have been scaling up their production pipeline so they have the resources necessary to incorporate these features and that we should start seeing them Soon™, great. I'm not holding my breath though, given their past track record in this area.
 
It somehow still boggles my mind every time I face some rank 20 player with 5+ legendaries in a deck. How can you play so long / invest so much money and still not at least win to 19 or something?

Ladder anxiety, it is only the 6th day of the season, portrait farming, casuals, smurf accounts clearing out quests. Plenty of reasons to roll out all the legendaries at rank 20.

It's ladder anxiety for me. I have spent an ungodly amount of money and time on this game and I've never gone higher than Rank 10. I love the game but the frustration is real. Plus I don't have a paper card game scene around me so HS is the closest I get. I spend the money because I like to have all the toys to play with, simple as that.

My brother played Magic in the very early days so we buy every Deck Builder's Toolkit and play some kitchen table games that way, but otherwise, HS is what I play.
 
They've been leaning into the idea that there will be nerfs at the end of February for weeks now.

I am hoping there is some solid nerfs all across the standard format. I have not dusted opened cards in ages in hopes to get full crafting value for as many cards as possible. Id like to be sitting on a dustmine!
 

cackhyena

Member
Can they cut Shaman altogether? That guys sucks. The only class I've hardly ever played. Since that's the case I say cut it. My tastes matter.
 
devolper post on cards like wild growth and small time recruits

i found it interesting

We have two competing philosophies about corner cases for cards like Small-Time Recruits that sometimes don’t do anything: first, cards should progress the game towards a conclusion if at all possible, and second, cards should do what their text says. In the early days of Hearthstone, we tended to err on the side of favoring the first philosophy. More recently, we’ve seen that our concerns about games lasting too long because of situational cards haven’t been confirmed, so we usually lean towards the second philosophy. We keep both ideas in mind, and tend to evaluate cards like Small-Time Recruits on a case-by-case basis.

Hearthstone is boring when neither player has stuff to do. The situation where neither player has minions or spells to play is rare, but does happen occasionally. Fatigue will end those games, but having to sit and wait around for fatigue isn’t fun. So, our general preference is for cards to do something to help end the game, even when they’re otherwise situational. That’s why, for example, Sense Demons grants players Worthless Imps, and why you get a Shadow of Nothing when you cast Mindgames and your opponent’s deck contains no minions: getting those 1/1s forces the game to a conclusion.

On the other hand, we think cards should generally do what they say.* It’s weird when you have a card that says it does one thing, and then when you cast it, it does something else. Wild Growth is the most famous offender of this philosophy. When you have ten mana crystals and cast Wild Growth, instead of an empty mana crystal, you get a copy of Excess Mana, which you can then cast for a card. This is in keeping with the idea of ‘cards should do stuff’ and definitely prevents the feel-bad moment of drawing Wild Growth when you’re capped on mana and not being able to do anything with it. On the other hand, card text secretly changing in that way is weird and is contrary to the idea of Hearthstone cards as physical objects.

We were most worried about games bogging down with do-nothing cards when making the Classic set. Before release, we thought that Hearthstone games would generally be fast-paced, but we couldn’t be sure. So, the Classic cards tend to have more safety valves to make sure they still have an effect in corner case situations. We’re now more confident that the presence of a couple of situational cards won’t bog down games too much, so we don’t feel as compelled to make sure that cards like Small-Time Recruits always gives you something. For cards that grant mana crystals, though, we have accepted the precedent of Wild Growth – people have grown so used to getting Excess Mana that it feels like a bug when they do not. Ideally, it would be more obvious when cards are in their corner case phase that’s caused their effect to change, but because we’re talking about solutions to corner case issues, we haven’t prioritized finding an elegant solution for those cases.

*I’m not going to open the Molten Giant can of worms, which is more of a templating question as opposed to a functionality one
 

Lyng

Member
This is what everyone who complains about Overwatch, World of Warcraft, Starcraft or Diablo says too.

I highly doubt anyone would name team5 as some shining example.

Personally I feel that the Overwatch and Heroes teams do a much better job then Team5.
They seem much more on point with balance changes, and they dont seem to throw things out the gate that are blatantly stupid.

SC, WoW and Diablo teams I sadly cant really say since I dont play these games active enough.
 

Dahbomb

Member
Have Blizzard changed their tune in the past few days? I thought it was unlikely with a new season coming in and several big cards leaving rotation.
They have basically confirmed nerfs coming before the rotation. Pretty drastic measure when you think about it but one that is needed.

One of the things that should be noted is that their balancing/patching method is bottlenecked by the client so they need to first update the client to take balance changes without needing a big patch. So hopefully they work that out too.
 
One of the things that should be noted is that their balancing/patching method is bottlenecked by the client so they need to first update the client to take balance changes without needing a big patch. So hopefully they work that out too.

Yeah I feel like I saw this mentioned in a recent interview as well. They definitely need to work out a way to do component updates so they can do at least some types of adjustments without a major client release.

I highly doubt anyone would name team5 as some shining example.

Maybe not, but my point is really just that Blizzard is consistently held to a bizarre standard when you compare their games to similar competing titles, and that every single Blizzard fanbase is full of people who rabidly play the game in question while constantly insisting it's a horrible bad game that only a dumb idiot could make.
 

Dahbomb

Member
I have been a Blizzard fan for a big chunk of my gaming life, hell I even played and enjoyed their Lost Viking game.

Diablo 1/2: Phenomenal games that got me into loot based ARPGs. Diablo 2 is probably the best ever still. Atmosphere, design, theory craft, game play and the D2 online system... GOAT status stuff.

Warcraft 1/2/3: I was into RTSes before but Warcraft brought in presentation and lore that made playing the games especially in still single player even more fun. Warcraft 3 has an amazing campaign.

Starcraft: It's either this or Diablo 2 that I consider as Blizzard's best games. When I think of Blizzard in its prime I think of these two games because they are easy to get into but hard to master all the while wrapped in great presentation and design.

World of Warcraft: I missed the bandwagon on this game because when it came out I was too young and poor to afford monthly subs. I tried WoW again in my adulthood but I couldn't stand playing it for more than amazing few hours. I will admit I didn't give it a fair shake and it's probably a phenomenal game but I feel that I missed out on WoW in its heyday and just have to accept it. Yup... huge Blizzard fan never really played their biggest game lol!

Diablo 3: Diablo 3 at launch was easily Blizzard's worst game ever and I say that with 0 hyperbole. Piles of design issues that took 3 years to properly rectify after getting the lead designer fired. D3 curently is a very good game but very, very different from D1/2. It's the best game I can recommend for someone new to the genre because it has so many nice QoL features but for theory crafting guys D3 just doesn't cut it anymore, the builds are very on rails. Story and atmosphere in D3 took a massive hit too.

HoTS: Disappointing foray for Blizzard in the world of MOBA. They tried to use their "easy to get into" mantra for HotS but the overall package just does not have the same polish, direction, depth and style to it as previous Blizzard games. Game is also not that fun to be honest and I would not even put it as a top 5 MOBA.

Overwatch: I don't have much experience playing the game myself but everyone around me plays it a ton and so I am indirectly very versed in the game. This seems like a good game overall, I am just disappointed that it didn't come with a solid Blizzard campaign though with Blizzard's streak of campaigns lately that might have been a good thing.

Starcraft 2: Starcraft 2 is a great game and its hard to live up to the original. The campaign story was a step down but I think the game play and campaign pacing/design is still very solid. I think the RTSes craze is just over and surpassed hard by MOBAs.

Hearthstone: This is the kind of game I have always wanted. I have been a huge YGO fan but the price of keeping up with card releases and especially competitive formats is very difficult on modest budgets. Balancing was another massive issue in CCGs. HS cut a ton of these issues and distilled card games to their essence and core. Minion combat was engaging, straight forward and intuitive. There is just so much massive potential here when it comes to depth and mechanics especially hinted at with the Classic set. But I think past that initial wonder, HS starts to crack fast. I do not consider HS to be an easy to play hard to master type game... I would argue its one of the easiest games to master that is played competitively. It's definitely easy to play but the game offers little on the other front which is what Blizzard has been known for. I respect Blizzard for pioneering the card game genre forward and making it accessible but they need to be more ahead of the competition now.
 

dralla

Member
What the fuq. I opened a pack that had two legendary's in it..

and it was a friggin' dupe!

YppViME.png


At least I got a Rag out of it. Didn't have him
 

scarlet

Member
I'm saving my golds from quests for next expansion. But I'm so tempted to spend it now.

Must resists.

And I'm gonna craft Ysera next. I don't care if no one's playing it now. I really like that card
 

Blizzard

Banned
I hate that about wild growth especially in conjunction with Auctioneer.
I love that about wild growth, especially in conjunction with Auctioneer.

I guess this is one of those situations where I like it because I play it (as opposed to Dragon Priest discover cards, which I dislike because they are played against me).
 

Blizzard

Banned
I haven't been below rank 20 in forever. I finally got on a win streak and was about to get promoted playing jade druid.

...at least, until the bottom 6 cards of my deck contained BOTH swipes, BOTH gadgetzan auctioneers, AND the second jade idol. That has to be some outstandingly bad luck.
 

fertygo

Member
Is Thing from Below actually not that good in Jade Shaman?

I find the card very rarely available for cheap because you prioritize growing Jade than totem up
 
Definitely save that second Rag. There's a chance he gets nerfed, in which case you get full dust value.

Ragnaros seems really unlikely to be nerfed rather than just Wild rotated, although I guess it's not totally inconceivable they'll give a dust refund in that case too.
 
I love that about wild growth, especially in conjunction with Auctioneer.

I guess this is one of those situations where I like it because I play it (as opposed to Dragon Priest discover cards, which I dislike because they are played against me).
wild Growth skirts conventions by being ramp that's actually not a bad topdeck.
Ramp is a very powerful effect being awful topdecks is supposed to balance that. When your ramp card is better not played while you're already not at max mana, someone messed up in design.
 

Xanathus

Member
I think the "Play X number of Y class cards" quest is bugged, I just played as Druid vs Shaman and it counted 1 card played as a Rogue card. However, the only Rogue class card that appeared in the match was a Buccaneer that was created from a Maelstrom Portal played by my opponent Shaman. It looks like the quest counts cards generated by portal-type cards like Maelstrom Portal or Ironforge Portal that are played by your opponent.

Just something interesting.
 
I think the "Play X number of Y class cards" quest is bugged, I just played as Druid vs Shaman and it counted 1 card played as a Rogue card. However, the only Rogue class card that appeared in the match was a Buccaneer that was created from a Maelstrom Portal played by my opponent Shaman. It looks like the quest counts cards generated by portal-type cards like Maelstrom Portal or Ironforge Portal that are played by your opponent.

Just something interesting.
Did you play a tri class card? Those count.
 

fertygo

Member
wild Growth skirts conventions by being ramp that's actually not a bad topdeck.
Ramp is a very powerful effect being awful topdecks is supposed to balance that. When your ramp card is better not played while you're already not at max mana, someone messed up in design.

its really bad topdeck at 5-9 mana count

that like half of the game
 

bjaelke

Member
Stats posted by hsreplay shows that Mage is still the most picked class in Arena (January) despite only ranking 5th in terms of win percentage. Warlock having a significant lead over the other classes.

The other stats are related to the mulligan phase which has always been a big issue in arena.
When you don't go first (0x Luck), you're somewhere between 3.5% and 6% less likely to win compared to the base rate, depending on class. If you go first but don't have a turn-1 play (1x Luck), expect your win rate to improve from 2% to 3.2% from the base. If however you do go first and draw a playable 1-drop (2x Luck), expect your win rate to improve a minimum of 5% all the way up to around 13%.

With all this said though, there is only one undisputed king of the arena. Whilst you don't see him so often being from an older set, Zombie Chow is in the top 2 most powerful turn-1 plays in every class with enough sample. In Warlock, Rogue, Paladin and Shaman, a turn-1 Zombie chow will net you an improvement in win rate of over 15%!
 

ZealousD

Makes world leading predictions like "The sun will rise tomorrow"
Stats posted by hsreplay shows that Mage is still the most picked class in Arena (January) despite only ranking 5th in terms of win percentage. Warlock having a significant lead over the other classes.

Not everybody has caught on to the new arena meta. People are still working on old assumptions about how powerful mage is.
 

Blizzard

Banned
Not everybody has caught on to the new arena meta. People are still working on old assumptions about how powerful mage is.
Even if it's not the highest winrate, I just want to play it. My rough estimate is 10-11 arena runs and counting without being offered mage.

If each arena run has equal odds, shouldn't it be 1/3 chance of mage? And getting even 6 non-mage runs in a row would be 1/1000 chance of happening? And getting 10 non-mage runs in a row would be 1/50000 odds?

I'm not one to call shenanigans, but this is odd.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom