Bluetracker

Tracks Blizzard employees across various accounts.

Understanding The Makings of Good Card Design: An Example In Rogue

There was a recent thread expressing some shock at the fact that Rogue - a class associated with weapons - seemed to not really be getting much in the way of good weapons/weapon synergy cards for a long time. Other classes, such as warrior and Shaman, seemed to getting some pretty solid offerings in the same period. The developers seemed to be very hesitant of giving Rogues many new tools in that regard and, to make matters worse, they recently nerfed one of the only good remaining options (Blade Flurry).

Today, then, I wanted to talk a bit about design decisions and what a good Rogue weapon might look like, even if the points are more general than that. When designing a card there are lots of considerations one might make. Here are just a few:

• Does this card fit with the theme of the class? Since I'll be talking about a custom Rogue card, I wanted to bring up this point as it has bothered me about Rogue perhaps more than any other class. Specifically, some of the cards that were given to Rogue don't seem to fit the theme of the class well: Pit Snake, Beneath the Grounds, Unearthed Raptor, Trade Prince Gallywix, and cards like them. Nothing about them screams, "Oh yeah; I understand why Rogue has that card." Cogmaster's Wrench tried to fit into the theme of Rogue - being a weapon and all - but Rogues don't usually use wrenches, so aesthetically it just didn't seem like a natural fit (it was also bad, but that's a different matter); the same can be said of Deadly Fork which, remarkably, does more damage than a dagger. Something about these cards just feels wrong in the context of the class, both in terms of Rogues in general and Rogue as a class that has existed during Hearthstone. When I think Rogue, I don't think Mech or Deathrattle.

• Will the card be overly frustrating to play against? In order for a card to see play, it needs to be good. This isn't exactly the most complicated point, but it does pose challenges in design. These challenges arise in part because (a) the difference between a card being terrible and broken can often be minor, especially in the early game, and (b) the usually non-interactive form of the game, while it encourages a good flow, sometimes means that synergies can be easily abused. The classic example would cards like Spirit Claws or Tuskarr Totemic which, owing their design and that of the shaman hero power, will often times have outcomes associated with them that leave players feeling dissatisfied, as if they did not really earn their win or loss. Other examples could include Call of Wild (just too much value packed into a single card), or the old Warsong/Frothing combos which pulled people down from full (or over full) health to dead in an instant. Players want to feel like they're playing two-player game, and that requires meaningful back and forth.

• Will the card be interesting to play with? Totem Golem, I think, is an example of well-designed card. It's strong, comes with a downside that fits the class, and has some synergies within the class. It is, however, not a very interesting card to play with. It doesn't really do anything. Now not every card needs to be interesting - sometimes it's fine to just drop a body down on the board and attack things with it - but the cards that introduce relevant decision-making into the game are the ones that really make the competitive scene interesting. This is why the complaints about "curvestone" have been so relevant; when the best plan is to drop minions on curve, there aren't many decisions to made and not much to learn. Since the process of discovery is so important to a healthy and fun game, cards that require thinking about trade-offs are usually good for the game, as are cards your opponent can play around in some sense to minimize their impact. Mind Control Tech is a very interesting card, even if it never saw too much competitive play.

There are other reasons you might design a card as well (to appeal to the Timmys of the world, to make some wacky or funny effect happen in order to create interesting stories, in order to fit within a theme like mechs or beasts, and so on), but these are the three major points I wanted to hit when thinking about how to make a solid and interesting, but not overpowered or frustrating card.

With that in mind, I present a new Rogue weapon: Arcane Dagger

It's a 2 mana, 2/2 weapon. The mana cost here is intentional, as Rogue already has a lot of cards in the 3-slot they're looking to play. If you introduce a new 3-drop, then, it might interfere with the existing theme of the class as it either won't see play for space concerns or see play but push out other interesting, and class-defining, cards. Since it is a weapon, it fits well within the theme of Rogue (and it's a dagger; not a spoon or a big rock), but its effect shines in the class as well.

The effect comes in two parts: first, it gains attack as if it were a spell. In other words, an Azure Drake or Thalnos will give it +1 attack each, and a Malygos would give it +5 attack. Buffing attacks of a weapon fit well within the theme of Rogue archetypes, and since the Rogue class often revolves and spells and spell synergy, it feels like a more natural fit with the other cards as well. However, unlike Spirit Claws, this weapon is not frustrating in that feast-or-famine kind of way where you either get a worse Light's Justice or a better Fiery War Axe. Instead its upside is much more gradual (and reducible, if you kill the minions). Moreover, since there's no way to randomly get spell damage in Rogue, this could effect the way decks are built to a greater extent and make it feel less frustrating to play again.

The second part of the effect is that each time the weapon attacks, it adds a 0 mana spell to your hand called Arcane Flicker. This spell doesn't do anything on its own. However, it can be used in synergy with combo cards or auctioneer. This fact alone introduces some decision-making into the game, as the Rogue needs to figure out when to hold the Flickers and when to use them. That decision-making is amplified slightly by the knowledge on the part of your opponent that you do or do not have them in your hand. While this information might not always be relevant, it might be sometimes, and it might create that feeling of interaction between the two. Finally, because you can only get the flickers by attacking, this introduces instances where the Rogue might have to attack an enemy they don't necessarily want to at the time to get the Flickers (trading off the value of the dagger for its synergy), instances where the Rogue has to forego hero powering to maintain the weapon (and thus miss damage), and times when the Rogue had might become overly cluttered with weapons.

Just from looking at the card, it's not immediately clear whether it would be strong enough to see play, overpowered, or underpowered, and that's probably where most cards want to be initially. I think it embodies many elements of design that can add real depth to the game and helps demonstrate some important considerations of how cards can fit into the Hearthstone world.

[EDIT: Some in this thread have suggested the flickers would be overpowered because they have too much synergy with the cards in the deck. This might well be true. In fact, the original design I had for the weapon would be for it to give you 0 cost, 0/0 minions, rather than a spell. The difference arises in whether you count the Auctioneer synergy (and potentially Violet Teacher and Wild Pyromancer if you're feeling wacky) as pushing the card over the top.

A few points I would make about that. First, these concerns are warranted. When it comes to synergistic cards, the line between "too good" and "unplayable" can be razor thin; I have another article on that point I'm hoping to publish within a week or so. The second point to bear in mind is that this is still, at its heart, a 2/2 weapon for 2 which we already know is unplayable (see Argent Lance); doubly so in Rogue, given your hero power. I have played with Perdition's Blade enough this last month to know that, at least in the current climate, it often fails to get the job done. As such, I leaned in the way of overcompensating. After all, were this card to be released, the power value of it could always be scaled back were it oppressive. By contrast, were it underpowered it would be unlikely to get scaled up.

Finally, yes; the card is quite good with Van Cleef; so long as you're willing to throw both attacks away immediately and then go all in on the Van Cleef and manage to dodge any of the hard removal options that most decks are packing, including Sap, Hex, SW: Death, Execute, Brawl, Deadly Shot, or even simply a Fireball. I don't think this is much different than the current outcomes Van Cleef can achieve with preps, backstabs, and coins from Pillagers, but I could be wrong.

I would actually say this card compares quite well with Tomb Pillager. While Pillager only gives you one spell, that spell also gives you 1 free mana, and that it often quite relevant for concealing auctioneers or pushing out that extra spell/minion on your cycle turns. Pillager is also much more threatening on its own, which we might expect given the mana cost, and doesn't interfere with your hero power, so there's that to think about as well. Lastly, Pilllager is going to be rotating soon, and without a solid replacement, it's possible Miracle won't have enough to gas to really be that much of a contender anymore. Again, the lines between viable and OP are quite narrow]

Tweet