February 2019 Balance Update - Feedback Thread

Play Mode Discussion
Prev 1 12 13 14 16 Next
02/01/2019 01:14 PMPosted by TheChemist
For ex in order to keep the game fresh sometimes they totally makeover older heroes but still they re keeping their main idea intact. So an older player can actually log in to LoL and play something totally new without paying anything else.
This is the only part of your post that I'd really contend with. Several reworks were unwanted from the perspective of veteran players. In particular, the rework for Aatrox turned him into a character with a completely different playstyle and kit, to the point where they might as well have made a completely new character and left the old Aatrox alone.
Rotate out cards from the basic and core set. There is no reason they can't rotate and bring in new cards from the basic and core set and to help appease people they could give full dust for the cards. They can also bring the cards back at later dates.


I totally believe a rotation system for the Classic/Basic set is necessary ... and indeed critically important for the long-term good of the game.

BUT...

Here's where I play Devil's Advocate and lay out the reasons why Blizzard would probably be reluctant to do this sort of thing...

1. It's hard. Deciding what cards would and wouldn't rotate into & out of the Classic/Basic set would be a lot of work because you have to balance it against all the cards that are in the Standard pool. Wild would be more forgiving because all those cards are there already, but Standard balance for 9 classes is fiddly business.

2. Card sets would become weird. Right now the Classic and Basic cards are a sold in Classic packs. If a lot of those cards get rotated out, then you have to change the composition of all those packs. I have no idea how easy or hard that might be programmatically ... but I expect it isn't as simple as just flipping a switch.

3. Are "X" Expansion cards still "X"? The reverse of #2... If a Naxxramas card rotates into the Classic set, then is it still a Naxxramas card, or is it a Classic card?

4. What's in a Classic Pack? When you open a Classic Pack now, do you only get cards from the traditional Classic set, or do you now also get the cards that rotated in? Or both? Do Classic packs "expand" to cover the new additions, or do they stay the same size? It could go any number of ways, and those are decisions that would have to be made.

5. Legacy cards vs. New Players. Rotating in new Classic cards from old Expansions gives a tremendous amount of advantage to long-time players. Those of us who have been around a while will probably have the rotation cards already in our collections, while newer players may not have jack-squat. Do you hang the new players out to dry? Or do you hose the veterans and tell them they can't use their legacy cards and have to re-collect the new Classic set? Probably the former ... but anyone who has been working to build up their Classic set for a year isn't going to be happy when half their set goes into Wild.

6. The tutorials and Level-Up system will have to be re-done so that new Classic/Basic cards are awarded when reached.

7. Take issues #1-6 (and any others I didn't think of) and repeat them every 2 years...

So yeah - I can see why Blizzard may not have wanted to be particularly proactive in addressing this problem. It's not axiomatic that it would be 'easy' to do this. Far from it. It would be a huge effort which would - quite frankly - have no direct return on investment (I.E. you aren't going to sell a lot of these new "classic" packs to veterans).
Not going to debate the need for a rotation of classic or basic as that’s an entirely separate can of worms.

But, the whole tired excuse of “free up design” space makes me wonder exactly what designs would break under these cards? Blizzard’s silence in backing up how these cards impinge their creative process is deafening. This just forces people to buy expansions because their initial investment into the classic set now has less and less value and relevance in the meta.
For the first time, I will not preorder the next expansion. I will not spend cash. I will only use gold and dust. If I don’t get meta worthy cards, I won’t play standard. I’m not going to encourage stupidity and hubris with my cash.
02/01/2019 01:34 PMPosted by Monlyth
This is the only part of your post that I'd really contend with. Several reworks were unwanted from the perspective of veteran players. In particular, the rework for Aatrox turned him into a character with a completely different playstyle and kit, to the point where they might as well have made a completely new character and left the old Aatrox alone.


While some changes might have been debatable indeed, no LoL player will ever suggest ''I ve spent my time/money and got nothing in return''. The hero they liked might have changed but still they got something new in return which was also playable and competitive.

Can we say the same for hs? I ve been playing this game for 3 years, spent around 150$ on it, did almost every quest i had been given, never disenchanted a card unless it was duplicate or golden, played wild cause i considered it to be cheaper (you dont lose your cards value by disenchanting them to 1/4 of their original value), always tried to reach a good rank and get the prizes

..... and still today im left with no competitive decks. And had the case been ''These decks were OP so we nerfed them to be playable and balanced'' i d be 100% fine. But the case is that these decks were nerfed to the point of being unplayable. How is that even fair?
They should rename ''Hearthstone'' into ''Cashstone''. But i wont do them the favor to spent even one more dollar in this game. As for how im gonna keep on playing it? Do the quests and enjoy an arena now and then. No more rank, no more time spent.
I think team 5 also needs a internal rework of their own.

Activision - Please consider looking into this matter deeper and not just be blinded by theoretical pack sales that certain balance patches might get you.
Instead of trying to make small increments of money from players, look into having Team 5 be more efficient on their own with their time and resources.
Being more efficient with your money is sometimes better than attempting trying to make money (which looks ugly especially if you fail to be low key about it).

every. single. expansion since the release of witchwood and the abominations Baku and Genn.
The irony is Team 5 claims to be looking to "free up" design space.
When in reality, the witchwood duo is severely limiting their creativity and designs for expansions and in this case, balance patches.

New designs and mechanics will never, ever work and be even remotely playable in competitive ladder if its outclassed by some broken mechanics like Baku and Genn.

Even if I wanted to play pirate rogue, whats the point if it can't compete against odd rogues and paladins?
Whats the point of playing discard lock, when even shaman does everything better?
Why think about playing a tiger buffadin deck, if its too slow to play against even decks, and will always lose to OTK decks?
What's the point of trying to experiment with any deck, if it doesn't fulfill the odd paladin/rogue pre-requisite and will always get thrashed by deathstalker rexxar,
While naturally being too slow to play against vampire priest.

Targeted towards casuals? Still, people want to win games not lose.
and I really want to remind you that the former company blizzard was able to stay successful for so long because of its ever so loyal player fanbase.

Your stocks are dropping, your investors are worried, and your ever so loyal fans are becoming fed up with your indiscrete quick cash gimmicks that is masked in the form of frequent balance patches.
Sure you might please the new players and get away with things for that moment,
but please try to look at things in the long term.
02/01/2019 11:29 AMPosted by RandomDrunk
02/01/2019 10:55 AMPosted by Tman15tmb
I find it hilarious how people call for nerfs on other classes but then they get their own classes nerfed a couple weeks later. XD

I also find it funny that people expect old cards to stay unchanged. It's kinda stupid to add more cards if you aren't planning on making future changes to the game. Most classic cards in time will become balanced if they show signs of abuse with future expansions planned. The Devs are two expansions ahead of what is current so making balance changes earlier than later is far better for the game. Eventually the warlock and priest class will see it's own share of balance changes. If you aren't willing to adapt to change than I strongly suggest finding a different game because Hearthstone is always evolving and decks old and new will never play the same expansion to expansion.

Anyone else find this week entertaining? Let the downvotes commence lol.


You literally ignored any and all previously made arguments.
Correct. Why do you think I would be interested in reading multiple tantrums from people that don't understand how to cope with change?
02/01/2019 03:19 PMPosted by Tman15tmb
02/01/2019 11:29 AMPosted by RandomDrunk
...

You literally ignored any and all previously made arguments.
Correct. Why do you think I would be interested in reading multiple tantrums from people that don't understand how to cope with change?


So. Why take part in this discussion, if you ignore everything other people say?
The core arguments are not particularly hard to find, even though they are apparently surrounded by those "tantrums".
My previous post was deleted for posting "too much truth" that the corporate world didn't want revealed.

Fact is, except for spell stone, this round of nerfs missed the mark so bad that I think doing nothing would have been better. The timing is also very poor.

Why leave broken cards in standard for 2 years and only nerf them when they go to wild? *cough* *cough* patches

I thought they couldn't mess up worse than the last round of "balance changes" but I was totally wrong.

Remember the film "American Beauty" where the mom asks the daughter "are you TRYING to be unattractive? You've succeeded admirably !" I'm asking "Are you TRYING to kill the game?" And I'm getting the same answer.

Picking the absolute worst nerfs based on ripping the playerbase off of the most dust is not a winning strategy.

Why haven't I quit yet? I've got thousands of dollars invested in this game. I actually ENJOY playing HS. I want (and need) this game to succeed.

Come-on, do the right thing.
02/01/2019 03:31 PMPosted by RandomDrunk
02/01/2019 03:19 PMPosted by Tman15tmb
... Correct. Why do you think I would be interested in reading multiple tantrums from people that don't understand how to cope with change?


So. Why take part in this discussion, if you ignore everything other people say?
The core arguments are not particularly hard to find, even though they are apparently surrounded by those "tantrums".
Because its a free country and I'm allowed to express my thoughts and feelings as well. Crazy how that works!?
02/01/2019 03:48 PMPosted by URjustSOL
My previous post was deleted for posting "too much truth" that the corporate world didn't want revealed.
And this is an example of arrogance.. or bad sarcasm.
It just feels pretty telling that they do an interview talking about being pretty happy with the post nerf meta and then do a nerf announcement like a week later. Doesn’t give me much confidence they know what direction they want to go in. I’m glad they seem to want to do balance updates more often, but some of the balance updates feel like they really make no sense, while things that maybe should be looked at get pushed aside for a later date.
02/01/2019 04:14 PMPosted by Tman15tmb
02/01/2019 03:31 PMPosted by RandomDrunk
...

So. Why take part in this discussion, if you ignore everything other people say?
The core arguments are not particularly hard to find, even though they are apparently surrounded by those "tantrums".
Because its a free country and I'm allowed to express my thoughts and feelings as well. Crazy how that works!?


Oh, you are more than welcome to express your opinions, just don't expect others to agree with your stance.

I will say this though:

I have been on the forums longer than most (maybe half a dozen others have been here for a similar amount of time/longer and another handful I suspect are posters from the days of the old forums/ early 2015) and I have never seen this level of outrage over nerfs. When generally well respected posters like Wardrum, Lykotic & Phobetor to (more often than not - no offence intended) Blizz defenders like Mand and TheRiddler, and even well respected streamers such as Kibler, disagree with the way this whole deal is being handled, I think it might be time for Blizzard to reevaluate their design (nerf/rotation/HoF etc.) decisions.

If you pay close attention, not many are against the nerfs as such, rather how the basic and classic set "problem" is being handled by the dev team. And rightly so! I dont care too much about the decks hit being nerfed, but I do agree with the general consensus that this isnt the "right" way of doing so, and that its probably time to rotate the classic set before weakening it any further and devise another model for the standard format.
i've refrained myself from posting but the guys at the discord have already read me

my biggest issue is priest not getting any hit but ok; aside from that, the fact that I have to cut either keleseth or the hunter's marks from my DR cube build

about spellstone I feel that it isn't as big of a change except the game is becoming way more slower and that in turn fomentates an OTK environment, but oh well, at least even hunter, the new meme, is viable now that spellstone costs 6
Don't agree with cold blood, equality, and flametongue. They've killed cold blood and flametongue, guarantee they won't see play ever again. And it's not paladin's fault that pretty much every single "win game with uninteractable combo" was gutted, and the scum decided to jump ship to this class. Maybe don't give them better ice block or actually reduce shirvallah cost in deck so holy wrath bs can't happen, bounce "otk" is fair.

Hunter's mark needed the nerf, previously it didn't have 1 mana rushers or candleshot, it was balanced because they could only combo it with Unleash the hounds, which sucks so badly nowadays, it's probably not even played in spell hunter.

Spellstone definitely deserved what it got too. Powerful as early game one card board, powerful as a lategame finisher with tundra rhino.
02/01/2019 07:16 AMPosted by SgtCreamSoda
So like, how is Paladin ever supposed to get board control ever again?
One hopes they did it now because they know that Paladin is getting good control tools next expansion. They play tested the nerfed cards with cards from the next expansion and, I'm guessing, without Mammoth cards, simulating post-rotation.
Many of the problems I started to see, and the reason I quit playing HS some few months back now after being a loyal player and payer each expansion, are being discussed in the later few pages of this thread.

The expansion cards being so obviously avoided and the ongoing weakening of the basic/core cards is really really starting to show and wear on the game. I also agree likes some others have suggested - that HS really needs core rotational sets.

The problem in my opinion is that this is all driven by $$$, more specifically shareholders $$$ in which said shareholders are looking for never ending and unrelenting short term gains. The execs in publicly traded gaming corporations cater to the shareholder hands that are never satisfied no matter how many dollar bills are placed in them. Naturally this hyper focus on monetization at the expense of pretty much anything else is going to damage almost anything it touches.

Expansions are repeat money that rotates out and needs constant reinvestment to maintain. Core cards are collected once and do not rotate out and are long term value to the players. The weaker the core gets and the more power that is within rotational expansion content the more pressure it puts on players to spend. Rotational core sets that reintroduce value to cards that players have already collected are also against profiteering.

Maybe just maybe ActivisionBlizzard would consider this at some point. But make no mistake it would be because they determine from a $$$ stand point they can make more short term money for the all mighty investor.

The aaa video game market is brutal beyond words at this point.
02/01/2019 06:43 PMPosted by Extinction
Expansions are repeat money that rotates out and needs constant reinvestment to maintain. Core cards are collected once and do not rotate out and are long term value to the players. The weaker the core gets and the more power that is within rotational expansion content the more pressure it puts on players to spend. Rotational core sets that reintroduce value to cards that players have already collected are also against profiteering.

this so much, at this point just include the classic cards into the basic set and relocate the rare, powerful cards into other sets or HoF, but please stop screwing our strategies when the problems are clearly new cards, not older ones
Why bother having comments on the actual patch notes page? Why not just have a link to the discussion page on the patch notes page?

Here is the short version of the comment I made before.

Cold Blood and Flametounge Totem have had this coming for a long time. Both have been dominant when they pop up in the meta, which is frequently.

Hunter's mark is an oddball since it doesn't pop up much. It is now on par with Execute as an ultra low cost combo-ish hard-ish removal.

Equality got absolutely obliterated. I cannot overstate enough how anti-consumer this is as well as being a slippery slope. The change takes virtually all control out of paladin's evergreen set, which hurts new and returning players. Paladin's control future is entirely reliant on getting new options in upcoming expansions, which basically means players are going to have to continuously pay for the latest flavor of paladin control cards.

Hunter spellstone got a pathetic nerf. 6 mana 12/12 is still obscenely powerful for very little requirement. I have a hard time seeing what the nerf really accomplishes aside of putting it one turn closer to the late game hard removal. The problem is that a lot of the aoe required to counter spellstone still trades negatively in mana. The card would still probably be plenty powerful at 7 mana, maybe as far as 8 or even 9 mana.

Here is a better nerf for hunter spellstone, "play two secrets to upgrade." Think about it, it currently only requires playing one card costing two mana to upgrade. Imagine if mage spellstone only required one elemental or druid spellstone was just gain armor from a card. Doing only one of something is so much more powerful since you never have issues where it is only partially to the next level or weird rounding errors where you are only one armor away but you really want to play howl, which would effectively waste most of the armor in terms of spellstone upgrade. Of the three spellstones that only require one action(hunter, warlock, and warrior) only the warrior spellstone saw little use, mostly because equipping a weapon is a lot more awkward than playing a secret or taking damage. The requirement wouldn't be too hard to curve into for a secret deck, but it would require some more commitment on the hunter's part. Currently, a hunter can easily upgrade the spellstone in time to curve it out and still have enough mana left over to put out some other threats.

TLDR: The equality nerf is abhorrent for more reasons than one. Hunter still needs a bigger nerf for standard ladder to be playable.
Heres some feedback Jesse for the Devs.

ITs time to admit that the classic set is a mistake in current form. Kibler is right. Just have a rotating classic set or do away with the classic set altogether and replace it with a free adventure that unlocks cards at start of each year. The alternative is just nerfing classic cards like is being done every month while cards like starving buzzard, warsong commander, ect sit doing nothing forever because they are completely useless.

Genn and Baku are starting to affect the nerf costs of cards. This is the very definition of limiting design space. It might be time to think about hall of faming both of these cards.

There is too much OTK in the game because there is very little decks can do to tech vs it. Mojomaster is about the only neutral you can use to combat them. How about moving Dirty Rat to standard?

There is also too much minion cheating/powerful synergy in the game now. It seems many games are decided on who was able to draw into their lulz synergy or combo first. This is clearly shown the best in wild as T4 barnes into 10/10 insta win. This shouldnt exist in game.

How about balance changes that buff some underused cards? More decks and freshnesh would come about if more cards were good. The best example of this is warsong commander. This card is worse than raid leader a neutral and its a warrior class card. Why is this allowed to continue? Why not buff cards?

Toodles Jesse.
02/01/2019 05:58 PMPosted by TheQuietOne
Don't agree with cold blood, equality, and flametongue. They've killed cold blood and flametongue, guarantee they won't see play ever again. And it's not paladin's fault that pretty much every single "win game with uninteractable combo" was gutted, and the scum decided to jump ship to this class. Maybe don't give them better ice block or actually reduce shirvallah cost in deck so holy wrath bs can't happen, bounce "otk" is fair.

Hunter's mark needed the nerf, previously it didn't have 1 mana rushers or candleshot, it was balanced because they could only combo it with Unleash the hounds, which sucks so badly nowadays, it's probably not even played in spell hunter.

Spellstone definitely deserved what it got too. Powerful as early game one card board, powerful as a lategame finisher with tundra rhino.


Mark dint need nerf ,it was problem with no dmg from candle shot so id change that one. even in day of 0mana huntersmark wasnt that prevelant and it never was at 1mana until candle shot and even then.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum