Hearthstone's Senior Game Designer, Dean Ayala is back on track after his wedding and answering questions this evening on Hearthstone's Wild game mode. Read on for our recap and the full context.
- There are no currently planned balance changes for Wild.
- They want to see how the first expansion of the year goes before considering changes to Wild.
- If they believed the playerbase as a whole wanted certain changes, they would act upon it.
- The goal is that Wild is the place you can go to enjoy decks you love the most for as long as you want.
- Outliers like Naga Sea Witch, SN1P-SN4P, and Barnes crossed the line.
- They don't have an issue changing cards that cross the line, though they don't have any hard rules set.
- Darkest Hour Lock, Quest Mage, Secret Mage, and Mech Paladin are the decks they've looked at.
Dean also makes a mention of "rotating formats" and asking if anyone likes any particular format for them. Would you like a new format for playing constructed Hearthstone? What would your ideal format look like?
Congrats to Dean and Molly!
Archetypes Being Watched in Wild
Quote From Dean Ayala Of all decks, I think Darkest Hour Lock, Quest Mage, Secret Mage, and Mech Paladin are the ones we look closest at. (Source)
Darkest Hour and Mech Paladin because they create the most early/mid game states that feel impossible to overcome. (Source)
Quest Mage because of vast population size and the feeling that it invalidates grindy control archetypes Wild players tend to enjoy playing. (Source)
And Quest Mage because of a strong population and power level that could drive it to be more populous over time. (Source)
In our current thoughts, none of these decks have crossed the line to the point where we feel the need to step in and adjust them, though we do certainly talk about and evaluate them as time goes by. (Source)
Dean's Tweets
Quote From Dean Ayala Dear Team 5 dev (@IksarHS @Celestalon @Chris_Attalus @Songbird_HS)please, I beg you: do something for Wild players! You are doing an amazing job with HS & BG, please don’t forget about us!
No plans for balance changes in Wild. Wild is always going to be a place where very slow control decks have a hard time with extreme power combos that utilize all cards in Hearthstone history. Quest Mage is one example of this but there are many others.
Wild balance changes are mostly reserved for extreme unfun power swings in early/mid game or an archetype that appears that is considerably more powerful than all others.
One thing that I don't understand is, why you're so strict about Blizzard's philosophy around Wild, when almost like 99% of the actual Wild players are begging you for some nerfs to make other cards more visible. Nothing against you, I love what you do, but #WildNeedsNerfs.
If we believed 99% of Wild players wanted something, we would act on it. The reality is there is nothing ever close to being that agreed upon. I think different forms of media can be echo chambers for a particular desire, but they aren't always representative of the playerbase. (Source)
Hmm, interesting, thanks for your thoughts. I just gave up a long time ago asking for changes regarding Wild, because I know I just can't do anything to prove that some interactions are really annoying and unfair - as one person on twitter. (As I know your desires for Wild bal.)
The spirit of Wild is that it's the place you can go to enjoy whatever deck you love most for as long as you want. Standard is a place where metas shift more rapidly and set rotation shakes up the cards available to force change. (Source)
I imagine there are probably Wild players out there that would enjoy meta shifts and shakeups more often as well as Standard players who wish they wouldn't have to swap decks as often to be competitive. (Source)
Our hope is that we can stay true to the spirit of each format while addressing the outliers in Wild like Sea Witch, SN1P, Barnes, etc. It's totally possible Quest Mage crosses the threshold of being one of those outliers, it's just not something we have plans for right now. (Source)
I wish I could give you some ruleset of guideline to follow of when that line will be crossed, but it's something we'll have to feel out over time. Population size, power level, and community feedback all play a role in that. (Source)
Imo I feel that others (and even my frustrations) at times come from wanting to be able to use old cards but not be as burdened by the god tier strategies that constantly destroy. I think a third format that utilizes a restricted card pool might help alleviate some frustrations.
If the goal is to be able to use old cards but not run into very powerful synergistic decks then I would agree Wild is probably not the ideal environment for that. Have you heard of any rotating format ideas you liked a lot?
hey dean, could you elaborate a bit more now that we're on this topic, esp. regarding quest mage? china has a much larger wild playerbase than the rest of the world combined, and quest mage is one of the most frequent topics on chinese hs forums
I mentioned this some other places, but I'm just referring to plans we have made for the near future. We'd like to see how the first expansion of the year shakes out before re-evaluating Wild. (Source)
I hate making black and white statements because opinions can always change. However, our stance on Wild is that it is not a place where consistent balance changes are likely to happen. (Source)
Part of the identity of Wild is that it's a place where you are generally more safe from a constantly fluctuating meta environment like Standarad can be at times. (Source)
Of all decks, I think Darkest Hour Lock, Quest Mage, Secret Mage, and Mech Paladin are the ones we look closest at. (Source)
Darkest Hour and Mech Paladin because they create the most early/mid game states that feel impossible to overcome. (Source)
Quest Mage because of vast population size and the feeling that it invalidates grindy control archetypes Wild players tend to enjoy playing. (Source)
And Quest Mage because of a strong population and power level that could drive it to be more populous over time. (Source)
In our current thoughts, none of these decks have crossed the line to the point where we feel the need to step in and adjust them, though we do certainly talk about and evaluate them as time goes by. (Source)
Comments
Please, tell me how Crystology, Ancient Mysteries, or Plague of Flames (just to name a few) are hard to balance. Please tell me how releasing those cards with a fair mana cost (1-2 higher) would be hard to implement.
Let's be honest: it's just that they don't care about releasing flawed cards, as long as they are in check in Standard.
Those cards you cited are very situational, and while they do produce an amazing effect, it cannot be jammed into just about any deck.
Its not just nerfing strong cards, its about making sure that the balance of the classes are within acceptable ranges. Its a hard task, admitably, hence why the results of nerfs aren't always what it should be.
Nerfing those cards as you cited, will pull down an already down class in standard.
Situational? Those cards situational? Have you ever played Wild?
Also, your final argument: if a class is weak in Standard, then it's a good idea to print broken cards for it, as long as said class stays weak in Standard: congratulations! You haven't improved the Standard class by an inch, while making it a meta tyrant in Wild!
Don't you see this is EXACTLY the devilish policy i am denouncing?
The devs already said, for ill or good, that they have no intention of balancing wild. If we take that at face value then cards are created and designed for standard and not with strong consideration of wild decks.
My argument for standard sticks. If you nerf those cards then the class or archetype will sink even lower into the mud than it is now. I can't imagine playing Galakrond warlock without Plague of Flames, and Crystology is probably the most important card in all archetypes of paladin in standard, good or bad. And whenever I play quest secret mage (yes its not very good), Ancient Mysteries would be my first pick.
Nope, your argument doesn't stick, because the same results in Standard could be achieved with similar, but non-flawed cards, if they really wanted to buff those archetypes.
Possibly with two consistent cards instead of a broken one and a pack filler.
I dont want to drag this any further, but your statement that the same results can be achieved with similar, but non flawed cards is bold, very much indeed .
Your argument rests on someone being able to introduce better card design that achieves the same goals as team5 has set, but without the flaws. I look forward to seeing some examples of this myself.
In synthesis, my point is about lack of goodwill on their side.
I don't believe they are unable to, they just don't want to, and/or think it is more profitable to them to stick with extreme designs (because they think people enjoy power peaks, in Standard too).
Eh, you still find Control decks here and there from 10-5 in wild, I met a good few of them when I was climbing earlier this month. A lot of the meta is aggro and combo, but it’s not that unusual really to meet some off meta deck high up in the ranks.
If anything though, when I was climbing there were less secret mages than last month, made mulligans a bit awkward since it’s a bit more of a toss up on whether it’s secret mage or quest mage (whether combo or control)
Cant say I can confirm it, since I've only touch upon rank 15 in wild at best. Its not the most fun to be destroyed in seconds when all you're trying to do is to have fun. And this may be a personal opinion, but I find wild players to be more trigger-happy with bms.
Please tell me someone sent him the link to Tables when he asked if anyone knew any good rotating format ideas.
Having a format where we could just play in a particular meta (ie: year of the mammoth) would actually create a place where you could go play old decks/cards in their former glory.
Wild is meant to be a cluster fuck of everything broken, but we need access to individual past metas in order to experience decks at previous glory.
Don't know why this is downvoted... could be good to be able to play past metas... maybe in a rotating way so that there's not too many formats at the same time.
I'd also like a mode where you could play any deck that has been standard at some point... so play past meta decks against decks from other metas.
I hate this view that they have where they think that only standard should be known for having shifting meta's and changes. Nothing that you consider part of your game should be left to stagnate like it doesn't matter to you. I don't expect them to change every card that comes to wild but they don't NEED to. They only need to change decks that come out on top consistently. I'm not even asking for this to happen based on whether they are over powered I just mean that they could do it to shift the meta in wild and give other decks ways to shine. More importantly they say they want people to be able to play their old decks that they love and then constantly make more and more overpowered cards that just take those old cards and smother them with a pillow. A great example of this (at least in my opinion) is Elise the Trailblazer which is one of my favourite cards from Un'Goro. It was a card that a large amount of controlling decks liked to run back in the days when Un'Goro was standard yet now even the most controlling decks in Wild are so capable of pressuring you constantly with cards like Dragonqueen Alexstrasza that you can't afford to play any kind of slow value game with cards from old sets. I have no idea if anyone would even agree with me on this, likely not, but it's largely how I see the situation here.
People agree with you, and Dean acknowledged it when he said Wild isn't the ideal format for using a lot of old cards and then asked for thoughts on rotating formats.
Deep down I think that has to be right: we don't actually want to change what Wild is, we want another format that allows many of the mid-power Wild cards to see play. Trying to do both in the same place (i.e. 'balance' Wild) is just going to disappoint both camps.
I realize these are very different games but I would enjoy a mind set similar to the one that Riot takes with League of Legends. I remember an employee there saying something along the lines of. "We don't think perfection is possible but a goal doesn't need to be possible for us to work toward it." Once again I don't think they are the same games but think of it in the sense that all the champions in league are different moving parts in a machine. These parts are constantly altered to make the machine different in some way. The same goes for cards in wild, these could constantly be altered to make things a little different. Once again the dust return stuff becomes an issue there but in my opinion dust return shouldn't even be a thing since it inhibits balance. For the final time I am not comparing Hearthstone to LoL I am comparing creative mind sets for the developers of them. The product doesn't have to be seen as finished ever, things can always be up for change and in fact in a game that is an online long term game as opposed to one you finish and move away from, that should be how it's seen.
That certainly seems to be the mindset they are taking with LoR too. It is no doubt a noble approach to take, and it is easier to follow through if you start with it.
In HS, the class system is both a blessing and a curse for this. By keeping class cards entirely separate (thief cards in rogue and priest notwithstanding) they get to really push what classes are good at with clearly over-tuned cards like Cloud Prince or Vilespine Slayer, and they can do so without wreaking havoc because the decks are guaranteed to have weaknesses in other areas. At least, that's how it works in Standard...
Now that Wild has been around for long enough the OP synergy cards have stacked up enough to make decks that are really one dimensional but are so good in that 'dimension' that anything not exploiting the deck's weakness just sees a bonkers OP deck. Wild secret mage is a great example of this, but is by no means the only example.
This throws up 2 questions:
The answer to question 1 depends on who you ask and is why I think having a rotating wild format would be good. Question 2 is harder to answer imo. No one disagrees with mage being good at secrets, so why should mage secret synergy not be strong? If you tone them down, you have to keep doing this else they'll stack back up again, leading to this weird process of nerfing powerful cards when they move to Wild, with an equally weird outcome where no class it that great at anything.
Perhaps that would be fine, or (as is likely) I have missed lots of better options. But I personally think it would be simpler and better to leave Wild as it is, but introduce a new format to better represent what half the people want Wild to be.
People get mad when they try to balance wild, and then other people get mad when they don’t try.
Never heard of people complaining (with half-decent arguments) about Wild nerfs.
only when Patches was nerfed i heard a lot of rogue and wars players were mad, coz of it s my only deck, etc
Oh, also, when they nerfed leeching poison but not dagger, it was rude, coz of just 50 dust and whole decks were ruined.