Hearthstone 23: The Evil League of EVIL

[Zevox]

Gameplay-wise, this is probably a positive since it'll vary games more;

Hard disagree. Making games "vary more" by making them more rng-dependant is not a positive IMO.

[Stevesciguy]

Hard disagree. Making games "vary more" by making them more rng-dependant is not a positive IMO.

I agree. Being able to somewhat rely on Discoveries to get specific cards was powerful, but at least it was consistently powerful. If a Paladin played Stonehill, you could reasonably guess what would come out of it. Now it's a total crapshoot. Discover is a common enough keyword that it might port the 'single-player'ness of decks like Cyclone mage over into other classes.

I'd rather deal with a Tyrion than deal with that.

[Rynjin]

The difference between Discover and "generate random" is that is IS 3 choices. That inherently lowers the randomness at least a little.

The change (I don't see it as a "nerf") makes it so you now value minute-to-minute decision making in your play rather than banking on the 60% chance you cheat out an extra power card from your class.

[Zevox]

I agree. Being able to somewhat rely on Discoveries to get specific cards was powerful, but at least it was consistently powerful. If a Paladin played Stonehill, you could reasonably guess what would come out of it. Now it's a total crapshoot. Discover is a common enough keyword that it might port the 'single-player'ness of decks like Cyclone mage over into other classes.

I'd rather deal with a Tyrion than deal with that.

"Single-player-ness?" Of Cyclone Mage? What? I've only ever heard a description like that applied to combo decks, which was nothing to do with RNG and everything to do with there having frequently been no way to interact with their game plan besides just killing them before their combo goes off.

The difference between Discover and "generate random" is that is IS 3 choices. That inherently lowers the randomness at least a little.

Compared to just getting a single random card, yes, that is less random. Which has nothing to do with the fact that removing the extra chance of getting class cards makes discover more random than it previously was.

The change (I don't see it as a "nerf") makes it so you now value minute-to-minute decision making in your play rather than banking on the 60% chance you cheat out an extra power card from your class.

Objectively, yes, it is a nerf to most cards that use the mechanic, since outside of a few edge cases like Power of Creation, discovering class cards tend to be preferable to discovering neutral ones, since on average class cards (outside of Warlock specifically) are deliberately designed to be more powerful than neutral ones. The higher chance to get Tirion off Stonehill Defender or Omega Devastator off Omega Assembly is part of what made those cards good, so taking that away is a nerf.

[Stevesciguy]

"Single-player-ness?" Of Cyclone Mage? What? I've only ever heard a description like that applied to combo decks, which was nothing to do with RNG and everything to do with there having frequently been no way to interact with their game plan besides just killing them before their combo goes off.

I guess this is more of an opinion thing, but once an opponent starts generating lots of random cards, it basically becomes a single player game. When your opponent starts filling their hand with random cards, there's no point in trying to play around anything anymore, so all you can do is just try to whittle away the little number next to their portrait. Might as well just pretend they don't have a hand anymore.

At that point, you aren't playing against a person anymore - you're playing against a bunch of dice rolls.

[Tvtyrant]

I'm glad this didn't happen a week ago. Had my only good arena run based on taunt warrior, 25 taunt minions with the hippo riding legendary and taunt booster. 7/3 because I am bad at arena, but tutoring more taunt tutors won me two of those.

[Joran]

I guess this is more of an opinion thing, but once an opponent starts generating lots of random cards, it basically becomes a single player game. When your opponent starts filling their hand with random cards, there's no point in trying to play around anything anymore, so all you can do is just try to whittle away the little number next to their portrait. Might as well just pretend they don't have a hand anymore.

At that point, you aren't playing against a person anymore - you're playing against a bunch of dice rolls.

I also heard that from Highlander decks; just don't play around anything, their entire deck is one-offs, so hope they don't have it.

Someone called this the "Created By" meta, since there's so many Discovers and value generation from the popular decks. I've seen complaints that a lot of decks can create a ridiculous amount of value.

I agree. Being able to somewhat rely on Discoveries to get specific cards was powerful, but at least it was consistently powerful. If a Paladin played Stonehill, you could reasonably guess what would come out of it. Now it's a total crapshoot. Discover is a common enough keyword that it might port the 'single-player'ness of decks like Cyclone mage over into other classes.

I'd rather deal with a Tyrion than deal with that.

With the lower power-level, the minions will be more likely be mediocre, so they most likely turn out not to be something you need to play-around. I'd rather deal with a Sen'jin Shieldmasta in Odd Paladin than a Tarim or Tirion.

Hard disagree. Making games "vary more" by making them more rng-dependant is not a positive IMO.

As mentioned, I think it leads to more player skill expression. Since class-cards are more powerful than neutral, being offered more mediocre cards leads to the player having to evaluate lesser played cards and picking the one better suited for the current situation, rather than just snap picking the super-powerful class card.

Also, it's kind of cool to see people pick cards that never see play (mostly because I don't play arena anymore).

[zlefin]

I'd say there's definitely a glut of value creation; they made so many ways to generate huge amounts of value. I remember when ancient of lore was nerfed because drawing 2 cards on a 7 mana 5/5 was too good. Now they have plenty of things which can, as part of very simple comboes, draw piles of cards for very little extra cost.

[Spore]

I'd say there's definitely a glut of value creation; they made so many ways to generate huge amounts of value. I remember when ancient of lore was nerfed because drawing 2 cards on a 7 mana 5/5 was too good. Now they have plenty of things which can, as part of very simple comboes, draw piles of cards for very little extra cost.

I mean some classes apparently have "draw more cards" as a class identity now which is weird.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I'd say there's definitely a glut of value creation; they made so many ways to generate huge amounts of value. I remember when ancient of lore was nerfed because drawing 2 cards on a 7 mana 5/5 was too good. Now they have plenty of things which can, as part of very simple comboes, draw piles of cards for very little extra cost.

Then: a 7-mana 5/5 that draws two cards is too powerful

Now: a 7-mana 5/5 that "draws" a 5-mana 5/5 that "draws" and casts two spells for free is perfectly fine

Kinda feels a bit like they want Classic and Basic cards to be bad next to the cards you have to keep buying.

[Zevox]

Then: a 7-mana 5/5 that draws two cards is too powerful

Now: a 7-mana 5/5 that "draws" a 5-mana 5/5 that "draws" and casts two spells for free is perfectly fine

Kinda feels a bit like they want Classic and Basic cards to be bad next to the cards you have to keep buying.

No doubt. Though to be fair, the argument about Ancient of Lore wasn't necessarily that it was completely overpowered, but that it was one of a handful of cards that would keep Druid decks the same forever despite rotation if left unchanged - it was one of those nerfed at the same time as Whispers of the Old Gods came out and the rotation system began.

That said, pretty obvious at this point that's not actually true. Force + Savage as a combo was a bigger concern there, and that looks quaint compared to the combos that were rampant all last year. Ancient of Lore staying at draw 2 likely would have been just fine. Like many other nerfs they've done over the years...

[Rynjin]

Then: a 7-mana 5/5 that draws two cards is too powerful

Now: a 7-mana 5/5 that "draws" a 5-mana 5/5 that "draws" and casts two spells for free is perfectly fine

Kinda feels a bit like they want Classic and Basic cards to be bad next to the cards you have to keep buying.

TBH Basic and Classic cards should be "bad" compared to rotating sets. At the very least they shouldn't be deck defining, or the clear BEST choice in any given situation. Blessing of Kings is, for example, a well designed Classic card. It's good, but it's not always good, and it's never really deck defining.

Northshire Cleric is the 1 drop by which all other drops are compared and found wanting. If Priest wasn't so trash 99.99% of the time (until they're absolutely degenerate .01% of the time) Northshire would have gone the way of Mana Wyrm a while ago.

Healing Touch is absically always bad and an inefficient use of both mana and a card slot in your deck.

More Basic/Classic cards should be like Blessing of Kings instead of trending toward the extremes of either Northshire and Healing Touch.

[Rodin]

TBH Basic and Classic cards should be "bad" compared to rotating sets. At the very least they shouldn't be deck defining, or the clear BEST choice in any given situation. Blessing of Kings is, for example, a well designed Classic card. It's good, but it's not always good, and it's never really deck defining.

Northshire Cleric is the 1 drop by which all other drops are compared and found wanting. If Priest wasn't so trash 99.99% of the time (until they're absolutely degenerate .01% of the time) Northshire would have gone the way of Mana Wyrm a while ago.

Healing Touch is absically always bad and an inefficient use of both mana and a card slot in your deck.

More Basic/Classic cards should be like Blessing of Kings instead of trending toward the extremes of either Northshire and Healing Touch.

Priest is like that because so many of their Basic/Classic cards are trash right up until that .01% of the time. Divine Spirit/Inner Fire is a horrible combo that will get you annihilated...except for those occasions when Priest has the tools to smash you in the face for 20 damage on turn 3. Mind Blast is a pointless spell that no Priest would ever put in there deck...except when a way to cheat out Prophet Velen exists, and then OTKs you.

If Blizzard wants to ACTUALLY fix Priest so that the class isn't trash for 99% of the time, they need to start with reworking their Basic/Classic cards. Less situational stuff, and more consistently reliable cards that have a steady power level instead of one that fluctuates wildly.

Or, y'know, just get rid of Basic/Classic for everybody and move to a list that changes each year and is designed to work with the cards that are actually going to be released.

[Spore]

TBH Basic and Classic cards should be "bad" compared to rotating sets.

I disagree heavily. That puts off newbies like nothing else. Without dust you can't create much except maybe Zoo and Midrange Hunters nowadays.

There should be solid options for any class that restrict playstyle but not competitive gameplay. If that means, Classic and Basic cards have to go, so be it. If you get more uncommon or rare class cards that define the current standard meta that would be better than allstars because that would mean Sorcerer's Apprentices/Northshire Clerics/Fiery War Axes don't mold classes so hard. Nerfing them into oblivion is just that without adressing the issue. It is treating symptoms.

Compare it to other card games where all sets rotate. It has reprinted cards though, a thing which HS avoids like the plague but also blatantly ignores (e.g. Necro Mechanic and Baron Rivendare).

If I need to open Frostbolts every year for Mages it is fine really, if that does mean they can be more creative and react better to meta games instead of changing cards every 5 weeks.

[Zevox]

TBH Basic and Classic cards should be "bad" compared to rotating sets.

Completely disagree. There is no point to having them if that is the case. What they should be is a baseline of power against which the rotating sets are balanced - since, you know, it's entirely within Blizzard's power to pay attention to whether new cards that they're printing are better than, worse than, or on par with those in the Classic set, and decide how high and low that range of power should go. Don't print a 5 mana Shrink Ray when 2 mana Equality exists, only to nerf the latter when the former turns out to be a joke, because you could easily have predicted that from the start and either made Shrink Ray better or just decided that it was pointless to print a card like that and made something else that wasn't so weak.

Northshire Cleric is the 1 drop by which all other drops are compared and found wanting.

Funny thing: it didn't used to be. Once upon a time we had more than just Flame Imp to keep it in check, with cards like Mana Wyrm, Rockbiter Weapon, and Firey War Axe around to contest it easily, and a generally stronger array of 1-drops in Classic (pre-nerf Leper Gnome and Abusive Sergeant giving aggro/zoo decks stronger early game, even though neither kills a Cleric on its own) and rotating sets alike (Zombie Chow, Undertaker, Cogmaster, Tunnel Trog), plus 3/2 for 2s used to be more common than the 2/3s or 2/2s that are most prevalent today (a big notable one used to be Knife Juggler being present in almost all aggro decks). All of that was changed by Blizzard for various supposed reasons - and surprise surprise, it's had consequences, which will likely lead to them deciding to nerf or Hall of Fame Northshire Cleric, because now people are whining about that. Then perhaps we'll move on to Flame Imp, probably the only strong 1-drop left in Classic at that point, as the next to get nerfed. Because this never ends.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Yeah; basically, for the same reason that Ryu is balanced against Menat, the original cards/decks should imo be viable options. You shouldn't have to switch decks as time goes on. That said, I understand that CCG models have traditionally been built around the idea of decks as a rotating treadmill that pushes you to buy more cards, which in turn makes them more money, so there's that.

[Rynjin]

It doesn't just make the company more money, it keeps the game healthy. If the same decks are not only viable but dominant day 1 as 5 years into the game's cycle...the game isn't going to make it 5 years into a cycle to begin with, because everybody will have stopped playing it years ago.

[Zevox]

It doesn't just make the company more money, it keeps the game healthy. If the same decks are not only viable but dominant day 1 as 5 years into the game's cycle...the game isn't going to make it 5 years into a cycle to begin with, because everybody will have stopped playing it years ago.

If Blizzard actually balances the game around the Classic set's power level to begin with, there shouldn't be any reason for that to be the case. And we could then still have older decks that remain viable in slightly different forms over the long haul, rather than forcibly retiring them to Wild and forcing players that liked them to choose between playing in that format and moving to new decks that juts happen to require a ton of new cards from the new sets.

Frankly I don't think there's anything "healthy" about what they're doing now.

[Rodin]

If Blizzard actually balances the game around the Classic set's power level to begin with, there shouldn't be any reason for that to be the case. And we could then still have older decks that remain viable in slightly different forms over the long haul, rather than forcibly retiring them to Wild and forcing players that liked them to choose between playing in that format and moving to new decks that juts happen to require a ton of new cards from the new sets.

Frankly I don't think there's anything "healthy" about what they're doing now.

The problem is that if the cards from Classic are permanently good enough for top tier meta, then Classic cards are all you see. This was why Azure Drake was the first Classic card to get HoF'd - there was literally no way they could make a better 5-drop than Azure Drake without the game being utterly busted. The same goes for quite a few of the other nerfed cards - if Mana Wyrm remained as-is, it was impossible for Blizzard to ever print a new 1-drop for Mage because Mana Wyrm was such an insane card. There's no incentive to buy the new cards if the power level of the deck you already have is as strong as the new cards coming in. This is why the last rotation year of Hearthstone was so crap - the first two expansions in the rotation featured a MASSIVE power spike, meaning that no new decks saw play for almost an entire year.

Having a permanent, unchanging Classic set is a REALLY CRAP IDEA. Because if you want new players to be able to use them, they have to be more powerful than any new card introduced - otherwise, you have a situation where Classic cards are all weaker than new cards being introduced, and the whole point of a Classic set goes out the window. This is exacerbated by Basic/Classic cards being "simple", meaning that they are more likely to be broadly utilitarian.

Blizzard is currently giving themselves the worst of both worlds. They're crushing their own design space with the Classic set, but by changing the cards one at a time they're screwing up the class balance even worse than if they just admitted that they messed up and actually fixing the system.

I agree 100% that players need a set of cards to ease them into the game. It's just the way that Blizzard has chosen to do it that's asinine.

[Zevox]

This was why Azure Drake was the first Classic card to get HoF'd - there was literally no way they could make a better 5-drop than Azure Drake without the game being utterly busted. The same goes for quite a few of the other nerfed cards - if Mana Wyrm remained as-is, it was impossible for Blizzard to ever print a new 1-drop for Mage because Mana Wyrm was such an insane card.

BS. They have total power over what cards they print - they could absolutely make cards equal to or better than Azure Drake or Mana Wyrm if they wanted. They chose not to.

This is why the last rotation year of Hearthstone was so crap - the first two expansions in the rotation featured a MASSIVE power spike, meaning that no new decks saw play for almost an entire year.

You mean the expansions of two years ago - and really, specifically Knights of the Frozen Throne. Here's the thing though: they didn't need to make all of the sets after that weaker than it. They also didn't need to wait until Rise of Shadows to print cards like Hecklebot and Unseen Saboteur, finally providing people with a way to counter the OTK decks that were rampant in the Year of the Raven besides just playing aggro - that could have massively shaken up those metas on its own. Again, they choose what they print, it's their own fault if they make poorly-balanced choices there. And hey, as they finally acknowledged a couple of months ago, if they do, they can do the opposite of nerfs and buff cards that turned out to be unusuable, which is far better for everyone.

Because if you want new players to be able to use them, they have to be more powerful than any new card introduced - otherwise, you have a situation where Classic cards are all weaker than new cards being introduced, and the whole point of a Classic set goes out the window.

Again, nonsense. You can use Classic as a baseline and try not to go beyond a certain level of power above or below it. It is not an either/or binary of Classic has to be all better than or all worse than expansion cards. That's a ridiculous assertion on its face.

I agree 100% that players need a set of cards to ease them into the game. It's just the way that Blizzard has chosen to do it that's asinine.

It's not just a matter of "easing into the game," it needs to be usable for long-term players who aren't dropping tons of cash on every expansion as well. Otherwise you very dissatisfied players like me, who do spend money on the game, but find that what I get for that money keeps getting smaller and smaller, because the usefulness of my Classic cards gets less and less, and thus I can make fewer and fewer decks out of the cards I do get from each set over time. Once upon a time I could make almost any deck I desired for Standard even though I spent exactly as much as I do now and didn't play too much more than I do today - these days I wind up making maybe three over the course of the set's lifetime, tops. And I can only expect that keep getting tighter.

What they're doing now benefits only one group, and it's their most hardcore players, who spend a lot and play constantly. They're the ones who can make whatever deck they want, anytime, and are more interested in the game changing constantly so that they never lose interest in it than anything else. Everyone else who would benefit from a more stable game that changed less is pretty much SOL.

[Anymage]

BS. They have total power over what cards they print - they could absolutely make cards equal to or better than Azure Drake or Mana Wyrm if they wanted. They chose not to.

Congratulations, you've rediscovered power creep. That's also painfully unhealthy for a game, and often feels like a blatant cash grab.

If Blizzard actually balances the game around the Classic set's power level to begin with, there shouldn't be any reason for that to be the case. And we could then still have older decks that remain viable in slightly different forms over the long haul, rather than forcibly retiring them to Wild and forcing players that liked them to choose between playing in that format and moving to new decks that juts happen to require a ton of new cards from the new sets.

Frankly I don't think there's anything "healthy" about what they're doing now.

They cannot get balance done perfectly. Some cards will always be above or below the curve, sometimes unexpected interactions will pop up, simply because they don't have an infinite amount of time for playtesting.

At which point the question becomes. If the game's earliest decks should still remain relevant, which way should prefer to risk going? Erring too high means power creep, erring too low means a stale meta.

[Zevox]

Congratulations, you've rediscovered power creep. That's also painfully unhealthy for a game, and often feels like a blatant cash grab.

And what, pray tell, is the difference between the worst power creep and nerfing the Classic set until it's always worse than cards from newer expansions? Because as far as I can tell, there is none. Either way, you end up with a game where you mostly or entirely need cards from the newer sets, and the older ones may as well not be there.

They cannot get balance done perfectly. Some cards will always be above or below the curve, sometimes unexpected interactions will pop up, simply because they don't have an infinite amount of time for playtesting.

At which point the question becomes. If the game's earliest decks should still remain relevant, which way should prefer to risk going? Erring too high means power creep, erring too low means a stale meta.

They do not need to get balance done perfectly - that's impossible. But there should be times where they can deem the current balance good enough, and there never seems to be. They are always, without fail, nerfing cards shortly after an expansion launches, regardless of what the specific meta is like. Usually they are favoring nerfing basic and classic cards over ones from recent sets, even though if there's a problem at all it's obviously the ones from recent sets that are the new factor creating the problem.

Their actions aren't those of someone trying to create a reasonably balanced meta and then just let it be, they're those of someone trying to keep the game constantly changing, and interested in slowly making the game more and more dependent on the new cards over what the game started with.

[Seerow]

So in case anyone missed it, there was a fun bit of controversy from this week's Hearthstone Grandmasters

https://www.invenglobal.com/articles...-the-same-time


tl;dr version can be seen from the link name, but basically one of the European Grandmasters had a scheduling conflict between their Grandmaster's match and their Auto Chess tournament qualifier. Rather than doing the normal person thing of ducking out of the conflicting tournament, or trying to get the qualifier match rescheduled, he decides to try to play both games simultaneously and throws the game in spectacular fashion (forgetting to baleful banker his Shirvalla in OTK pally).

[Geno9999]

So in case anyone missed it, there was a fun bit of controversy from this week's Hearthstone Grandmasters

https://www.invenglobal.com/articles...-the-same-time


tl;dr version can be seen from the link name, but basically one of the European Grandmasters had a scheduling conflict between their Grandmaster's match and their Auto Chess tournament qualifier. Rather than doing the normal person thing of ducking out of the conflicting tournament, or trying to get the qualifier match rescheduled, he decides to try to play both games simultaneously and throws the game in spectacular fashion (forgetting to baleful banker his Shirvalla in OTK pally).

Except that very same article notes that Seiko did at least ask Blizzard to reschedule, but they said no, but they still allowed him to compete in both tournaments. Haven't read up on if there was any similar attempts asking the Auto Chess Tournament though.

However, I do agree with your sentiment that the right choice wasn't trying to juggle two different games at the same time; that's just asking for disaster in one or both games, especially when you've submitted a Combo deck in your decklists.

[Rynjin]

And what, pray tell, is the difference between the worst power creep and nerfing the Classic set until it's always worse than cards from newer expansions? Because as far as I can tell, there is none. Either way, you end up with a game where you mostly or entirely need cards from the newer sets, and the older ones may as well not be there.

The difference is that A.) keeping power creep in check prevents Wild from becoming COMPLETELY unplayable and B.) Stops them form needing to "one up" themselves every expansion with more and more ludicrus effects and inflated numbes, like for example Yu-Gi-Oh, which has literal paragraphs of text on many cards at this point.

They do not need to get balance done perfectly - that's impossible. But there should be times where they can deem the current balance good enough, and there never seems to be. They are always, without fail, nerfing cards shortly after an expansion launches, regardless of what the specific meta is like. Usually they are favoring nerfing basic and classic cards over ones from recent sets, even though if there's a problem at all it's obviously the ones from recent sets that are the new factor creating the problem.

Their actions aren't those of someone trying to create a reasonably balanced meta and then just let it be, they're those of someone trying to keep the game constantly changing, and interested in slowly making the game more and more dependent on the new cards over what the game started with.

Nerfing newer cards doesn't solve the core issue that it was an older card contributing to the problem, and was the MAIN problem. Nerfing a newer card because of how it interacts with an old one (when it is otherwise fine) is asinine. People like to play with new cards; if any time a new card had a broken interaction with an old one it got nerfed, you'd be right back to square one where the only cards worth playing are the ones in the old sets.

There's an element of both psychology and science to game balance, and the psychological part is very simple: people like new things. It's why sets come out like clockwork every 4 months , because people start losing interest near the end of an expansion's lifespan. New cards = more players, and happier players. Old cards = less interested players, dead game.

[Seerow]

Except that very same article notes that Seiko did at least ask Blizzard to reschedule, but they said no, but they still allowed him to compete in both tournaments. Haven't read up on if there was any similar attempts asking the Auto Chess Tournament though.

However, I do agree with your sentiment that the right choice wasn't trying to juggle two different games at the same time; that's just asking for disaster in one or both games, especially when you've submitted a Combo deck in your decklists.

The edit to the article has Blizzard's clarification of that statement. They told him it was fine to compete in both tournaments on the assumption he would reschedule the other tournament. Because it's a fairly legitimate question for a player to ask "Hey, am I going to be in trouble for competing professionally in another game while in Grandmasters?" especially given those players aren't allowed to stream personally at all while Grandmasters is going on, even if they aren't actively playing (a big part of why Dog quit).

I can't blame the CM for assuming the player would not be stupid enough to attempt playing both games simultaneously. Like if I was asked that question, that particular scenario would literally never cross my mind.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

They cannot get balance done perfectly. Some cards will always be above or below the curve, sometimes unexpected interactions will pop up, simply because they don't have an infinite amount of time for playtesting.

At which point the question becomes. If the game's earliest decks should still remain relevant, which way should prefer to risk going? Erring too high means power creep, erring too low means a stale meta.

Power creep isn't an issue, because they have an advantage that older CCGs don't: it's a digital game, you can patch literally any card you need to. Other multiplayer games do this, keeping older player options roughly balanced and on par with newer ones. When wonky or hugely synergistic interactions appear, they can patch them.

The reason that cards become obsolete in CCGs is a business model that CCG players have internally accepted, and it's a model designed to keep players invested in the game, since if they ever leave, they'll need to start from scratch.

[Rodin]

The edit to the article has Blizzard's clarification of that statement. They told him it was fine to compete in both tournaments on the assumption he would reschedule the other tournament. Because it's a fairly legitimate question for a player to ask "Hey, am I going to be in trouble for competing professionally in another game while in Grandmasters?" especially given those players aren't allowed to stream personally at all while Grandmasters is going on, even if they aren't actively playing (a big part of why Dog quit).

I can't blame the CM for assuming the player would not be stupid enough to attempt playing both games simultaneously. Like if I was asked that question, that particular scenario would literally never cross my mind.

Agreed.

I don't see anyone at fault here other than Seiko.

1) Blizzard is under no obligation to change their tournament times due to a competitor holding a tournament at the same time.

2) Even if Blizzard said "Sure, go ahead, play both at once, it's your funeral", there's no reason for them to take a stance supporting that decision - they would just look like hypocrites if they punished him for doing so. Which they haven't.

3) Sottle's rage and verbally eviscerating Seiko on stream is completely understandable since he realized what was happening, and he was incredibly professional in his takedown. He didn't openly state that Seiko was playing another game, he just scolded him in the same manner any pundit would in the case of gross misconduct of a sportsball player.

There's not even a controversy here. Seiko screwed the pooch, and got punished for it. He lost a very important match of Hearthstone, got publicly shamed, and is going to wind up dropping out of the Auto Chess tournament. With that loss, he's also unlikely to qualify for playoffs either, as instead of being one game behind the pack he's now two games behind.

[Zevox]

The difference is that A.) keeping power creep in check prevents Wild from becoming COMPLETELY unplayable and B.) Stops them form needing to "one up" themselves every expansion with more and more ludicrus effects and inflated numbes, like for example Yu-Gi-Oh, which has literal paragraphs of text on many cards at this point.

A seems debatable. Wild definitely seems pretty heavily influenced by the newest sets, from what I've seen, so power creep there seems to be quite real regardless.

And B is handled by rotation. No need to keep one-upping cards if most go away after a certain amount of time. The only cards they need to design around are the Classic set, and it isn't going to keep getting more powerful unless they decided to buff it for some reason, which clearly would never happen.

Nerfing newer cards doesn't solve the core issue that it was an older card contributing to the problem, and was the MAIN problem. Nerfing a newer card because of how it interacts with an old one (when it is otherwise fine) is asinine.

No, just the reverse, nerfing an old card because of problems caused by a new one is what's asinine. Just as when they nerfed Firey War Axe in an attempt to weaken Pirate Warrior even though it was Patches that was causing it to be so powerful - and then ultimately had to nerf Patches anyway.

The Classic set being around for years means that it's had effectively years of playtesting during which these cards have been deemed balanced. If something comes into play which changes that, the culprit is clearly with the new cards, not the Classic set.

People like to play with new cards; if any time a new card had a broken interaction with an old one it got nerfed, you'd be right back to square one where the only cards worth playing are the ones in the old sets.

Only if the only way for cards to be worth playing is for them to enable broken interactions. Which is nonsense.

There's an element of both psychology and science to game balance, and the psychological part is very simple: people like new things. It's why sets come out like clockwork every 4 months , because people start losing interest near the end of an expansion's lifespan. New cards = more players, and happier players. Old cards = less interested players, dead game.

Except that, as you yourself pointed out, that's what the regular expansions are for. You already have an influx of new cards to change things up every four months. If you need to also adjust things every month or two in addition to that you're either trying to chase the notion of making your fanbase unreasonably obsessive to the point where they do nothing with their free time besides play Hearthstone, or your fanbase actually is ludicrously fickle and easily bored (or just not that into your game).

I absolutely, completely disagree with any notion that balance changes should ever be dictated by simply changing things up. There is either a genuine problem great enough that it warrants developer intervention, or there is not. Which is why I have come to loath how nerfs have become just a part of the game's damned development cycle every expansion without fail: when you can honestly predict when they're coming not because you can see a problem that requires it but just because it's been about month since a set released, it makes it incredibly obvious that the motive is not actually balancing the game at all.

The reason that cards become obsolete in CCGs is a business model that CCG players have internally accepted, and it's a model designed to keep players invested in the game, since if they ever leave, they'll need to start from scratch.

Yeah, that's kind of a thing. I've honestly looked into switching to other card games because of how much I hate how Blizzard handles things. Problem is, even if other card games didn't have their own problems, it's really hard to justify starting from scratch in another game when I have a collection built up since the beta in this one. Which just makes me appreciate that much more how hard it must be for any actual newcomers to Hearthstone, and dislike Blizzard's tampering with the Classic set that much more for the impact it surely has on them.

[Joran]

Agreed.

I don't see anyone at fault here other than Seiko.

1) Blizzard is under no obligation to change their tournament times due to a competitor holding a tournament at the same time.

2) Even if Blizzard said "Sure, go ahead, play both at once, it's your funeral", there's no reason for them to take a stance supporting that decision - they would just look like hypocrites if they punished him for doing so. Which they haven't.

3) Sottle's rage and verbally eviscerating Seiko on stream is completely understandable since he realized what was happening, and he was incredibly professional in his takedown. He didn't openly state that Seiko was playing another game, he just scolded him in the same manner any pundit would in the case of gross misconduct of a sportsball player.

There's not even a controversy here. Seiko screwed the pooch, and got punished for it. He lost a very important match of Hearthstone, got publicly shamed, and is going to wind up dropping out of the Auto Chess tournament. With that loss, he's also unlikely to qualify for playoffs either, as instead of being one game behind the pack he's now two games behind.

I'd disagree, I put some blame on Blizzard for lousy communication. The admins just assumed that Seiko wasn't going to try to play Autochess on stream during his Hearthstone match, but accidentally gave him the go-ahead. A firm "hey, you can do whatever you want off -stream, but you're giving your full undivided attention on-stream" would probably have nipped it in the bud, but now both Grandmasters and Seiko look bad. Grandmasters is paying each player $500 a match ($1000 if you win) and honestly, they should fine him that much for what he did.

I was 100% going to flame Seiko because it's disrespectful not to give the GM matches his undivided attention. It's not a huge ask (4 hours or so every weekend) and he gets a huge elevation in his profile and a chance for Worlds that nobody else can get. If he can't or won't do it, then he should forfeit the match or give up his slot, like Dog did.

Then I read that Seiko actually got Blizzard's permission and my jaw dropped. Now he had a lapse in judgment, but that's what a good rule set and competent admins would prevent.

I think I'm mostly angry at Grandmasters because the system has been a mess. The only success so far for me is that there's a consistent time for competitive Hearthstone that I generally know when I can watch and with pretty good production quality.

Otherwise, everything else has been lackluster. The quality of the games has been pretty bad (so many misplays, even when the player isn't playing autochess on their phone), there's been a ton of mirror matches, including endless Warrior matches, and a lot of the games feel meaningless now that there's a pretty clear separation between the top and the bottom.

Even with that, I don't like how GM is the only path to Worlds and GM was invitation only. For a game like Hearthstone, there should be a path for a talented amateur to make it, like Firebat.