Suggestion: More Frequent Balance Changes

Play Mode Discussion
This includes buffs too.

I know I'm not the first to say this but with Hearthstone getting more and more competition I think this would be a great way to keep the game fresh and intriguing.

I'm not saying go crazy it should probably only happen no more than a few times between expansions but I think this would be a certain way to keep Hearthstone as the best online CCG.
As a former WoW player who was used to see daily/weekly communications and fix by Blizzard, it just amaze me how they care little about this game.

And don't tell me that HS isn't profitable for them... a LOT of players buy the 3x 50$ xpac per year, which makes it just a little under WoW's monthly subscription.

Hey, we're talking about a team that took them years to understand we could handle more deck slots... /sigh.
so you are suggesting to make the game more expensive / pay to win .....just because you can afford it doesnt mean everyone can
I just don't understand why development teams dislike frequent balance changes. It's not just HS that does it. I used to play Yugioh and they also did ban lists way too slowly. I don't understand this obsession with not touching the meta for as long as possible, instead of constantly changing things up so the meta doesn't become stale and people are constantly experimenting.

The only logic I can see with not nerfing cards, especially those from newer sets is to make sure players are buying newer expansions and hopefully paying for boosters.
Make more frequent *fun* changes. As in, don't try for some idiotic metric of 'balanced classes' or something, but rather keep things interesting.

If Dean "I'm in charge now" Ayala's only means of creating 'balance' is to create a hyper polarized meta, then he's not very good at balance.
10/11/2018 04:49 AMPosted by Ghost
This includes buffs too.

I know I'm not the first to say this but with Hearthstone getting more and more competition I think this would be a great way to keep the game fresh and intriguing.

I'm not saying go crazy it should probably only happen no more than a few times between expansions but I think this would be a certain way to keep Hearthstone as the best online CCG.

Agree this should be one of many tools:
- Buffs
- Nerfs
- Release small amounts of new cards (free to all)

These need to be looked at as tools for keeping the game fresh and interesting. Metas will settle and every once in awhile a meta won't change much and needs to be injected with excitement/uncertainty and there needs to be different buttons rather than "nerf." It is also why Wild should be balanced as it offers another avenue for people to play if they become annoyed/sick of the Standard meta.
As for why they won't buff cards, here's ben brode vs krip with blizzard's take on it. I'm not sure if this is still their exact reasoning for their stance, but its all I could find.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1ioY1KO79A&t=202s

Ben Brode basically says
1) It's easier to release a new card than buff an old card because you have to test the effects of the potential buffed card and that's not how they want to allocate their time.
2) If you buff one card it can make other cards bad in comparison because the cards' power level is relative.
3) They have some players who take breaks from the game and then come back. They don't want to make drastic changes for those players.
4) Sometimes a card that was bad can become good when it has a synergy with a newer card.
5) Sometimes their data supports the fact that what seems like an underpowered card is actually fine.

I personally disagree with Blizzard. While he does raise some good points, it still would be nice to see some buffs for cards here and there to spice things up. I don't think having more viable meta decks to play would be a bad thing.
I just don't understand why development teams dislike frequent balance changes. It's not just HS that does it.


This is generally because it is not good process to treat a CCG as if it was a FPS or a MOBA. It's possible in other game genres to introduce changes at a greater rate because those changes have less overall impact on the game. CCGs don't work that way. VERY tiny adjustments in a CCG can have a huge impact on total game balance.

So the reason why CCGs (not just Hearthstone) dislike frequent balance changes is because they would be bad for the game. That's not to say that occasional, measured, restrained changes can't be a good thing. But CCGs should not be subjected to constant weekly or daily balance adjustments.

An environment of constant, continual changes would be FAR worse for the game than an environment of few changes. CCGs need a degree of consistency and stability. Be careful what you ask for.
10/11/2018 06:31 AMPosted by Maitreya
I personally disagree with Blizzard. While he does raise some good points, it still would be nice to see some buffs for cards here and there to spice things up. I don't think having more viable meta decks to play would be a bad thing.


but people disenchant cards to make competitive decks all the time and they only give dust for the card they nerf

frecruent changes like those would mean you often end up needing to craft cards you disenchanted because of buffs

only people who spend money on the game would be able to keep up
That should happen monthly tbh.

Every time a new season starts it should come with a few nerfs/buffs/core set changes (maybe put a few wild cards back in and rotate a few out?, maybe every 3 months for that one)
Hearthstone is lacking content.

When a company not use balance as tools to shake up things they need to offer in game content.
Monthly may be doable, but another reason why they avoid big changes is to have a stable game for tournaments and championships. To the average player, a monthly set of changes may be tolerable enough, but for contests and competitions it would be a problem.

I really think the "mid expansion adjustment" of once every 2 months is really the way to go. I know some people want changes more often, but I think once every 2 months is probably the most balanced choice. It both allows for changes, but keeps those changes at a rate that is broad enough to support a stable game environment.
10/11/2018 08:50 AMPosted by TheRiddler
Monthly may be doable, but another reason why they avoid big changes is to have a stable game for tournaments and championships. To the average player, a monthly set of changes may be tolerable enough, but for contests and competitions it would be a problem.

I really think the "mid expansion adjustment" of once every 2 months is really the way to go. I know some people want changes more often, but I think once every 2 months is probably the most balanced choice. It both allows for changes, but keeps those changes at a rate that is broad enough to support a stable game environment.


Sorry but the tournament players are the ones who need the game and not the game that needs they.

If a game is good for the playerbase than pros would only shut up and adapt because is such playerbase that makes their lifestyle possible.

If they not like then they can just find other game to make their lifes on and there will be tons of players wanting to be where they are.

Playerbase > pro players.
10/11/2018 08:50 AMPosted by TheRiddler
Monthly may be doable, but another reason why they avoid big changes is to have a stable game for tournaments and championships. To the average player, a monthly set of changes may be tolerable enough, but for contests and competitions it would be a problem.

I really think the "mid expansion adjustment" of once every 2 months is really the way to go. I know some people want changes more often, but I think once every 2 months is probably the most balanced choice. It both allows for changes, but keeps those changes at a rate that is broad enough to support a stable game environment.


Tournament players are supposed to be the best of the best. If balance changes throw them off so much then perhaps players that are more adaptable are more deserving competitors.
10/11/2018 04:49 AMPosted by Ghost
This includes buffs too.

I know I'm not the first to say this but with Hearthstone getting more and more competition I think this would be a great way to keep the game fresh and intriguing.

I'm not saying go crazy it should probably only happen no more than a few times between expansions but I think this would be a certain way to keep Hearthstone as the best online CCG.

Agree this should be one of many tools:
- Buffs
- Nerfs
- Release small amounts of new cards (free to all)

These need to be looked at as tools for keeping the game fresh and interesting. Metas will settle and every once in awhile a meta won't change much and needs to be injected with excitement/uncertainty and there needs to be different buttons rather than "nerf." It is also why Wild should be balanced as it offers another avenue for people to play if they become annoyed/sick of the Standard meta.


"- Release small amounts of new cards (free to all)"

I have thought of this before also...

Similar to how we got pre xpac release Volcanosaur and Marin the Fox

Just some meme card that synergizes somewhat mid meta.
10/11/2018 05:46 AMPosted by Barnack

Hey, we're talking about a team that took them years to understand we could handle more deck slots... /sigh.


With the way meta currently is only two slots are really needed.
But balance changes are a really fragile thing. You cant just have them to keep the game fresh. You must do them when they re actually needed.
My best suggestion is this: They used to release adventures with cards in the middle of the expansion. Why not keep on doing that? This would mean that the meta would change every 2 months.
A good version of this post would talk about the pros and cons of letting the game be bad for a long time.
10/11/2018 06:21 AMPosted by PresJPolk
Make more frequent *fun* changes. As in, don't try for some idiotic metric of 'balanced classes' or something, but rather keep things interesting.

If Dean "I'm in charge now" Ayala's only means of creating 'balance' is to create a hyper polarized meta, then he's not very good at balance.
but he isnt, he needs to be fired.
10/11/2018 09:05 AMPosted by Ghost
10/11/2018 08:50 AMPosted by TheRiddler
Monthly may be doable, but another reason why they avoid big changes is to have a stable game for tournaments and championships. To the average player, a monthly set of changes may be tolerable enough, but for contests and competitions it would be a problem.

I really think the "mid expansion adjustment" of once every 2 months is really the way to go. I know some people want changes more often, but I think once every 2 months is probably the most balanced choice. It both allows for changes, but keeps those changes at a rate that is broad enough to support a stable game environment.


Tournament players are supposed to be the best of the best. If balance changes throw them off so much then perhaps players that are more adaptable are more deserving competitors.
this is especially true today in: netdeckstone

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum