I really appreciate this post. Not because of the announced changes, but in hope of upcoming, more frequent blog posts. Small things like a blog can help to solve the communication problems.
We'd like to do more in terms of communication. Things like this are a step in the right direction, looking forward to hearing everyone's feedback.
In most circumstances it wasn't even close. For Hunter secrets, there are hundreds of thousands of draws worth of data post Huntress release that still clearly point out those two cards dragging down win rates.
Which statistics can show that the effect of having 2 bad secrets in the offering pool is worse than the tempo gain from having them attached to all the other secrets (the ones actually picked)?
This is a rhetorical question. There is no statistic that Blizz can possibly have that can show this, because such dataset does not exist.
The problem isn't that we doubt you have statistics. I don't doubt that players of all skill levels do poorly with Dart Trap. The problem is that this isn't about statistics!
From what you wrote there, it seems like the real explanation is that there's a quota of bad cards you guys wanted to remove for each class, and as it turns out, Hunter didn't have quite enough truly horrible cards (like, say Priest and Warlock). Seems to be the same issue with Warrior.
No need to use stats as a crutch! We are concerned that Freezing Trap and Explosive Trap (oft-taken cards that are drafted even higher with Huntress in the meta) are not going to be as effective as they were, and that loss will more than offset the gains by replacing those two class cards with random cards in the offering stage. Like I said, it's a close call... but it's certainly not a slam dunk, and most importantly for the sake of the game and your future decisions about Arena balance, we need you guys to realize the actual impact of your actions on the meta.
Responses like this make me wish that you were just trying to sidestep the real issue and fool people with that stats illogic, and that you understand and considered the real costs of removing secrets before making the decision! I understand that what matters to Blizz is the perception that Arena is fair and that you guys know what you're doing, but what matters to me more is that you guys ACTUALLY know the consequences of your actions and stay consistent in your implementation of your plan!
(I don't mean to sound negative, it's definitely better that you guys do something than nothing, and overall things will definitely get better and I like the philosophy of having an stopgap measure to fix the immediate issue.... but I couldn't let your response that totally missed the point go uncommented on!)
Well, there wasn't a 'quota of bad cards' to remove. We only removed cards that made sense to us based on some amount of feel, and some amount of statistical analysis. I understand the frame of mind where removing two traps makes Freezing and Explosive less effective, but I would be extremely surprised if the effectiveness of those two cards offset the difference in card quality you will now receive by never seeing two of the worst performing cards in arena for Hunter. We'll do an evaluation on all other Hunter cards (Freezing and Explosive included) after these changes go through and see what kind of fallout happens, so we'll be able to answer that question for sure later on. We talked with our business intel team today about the best way to track what is going on now vs what happens post changes, hopefully we set ourselves up to learn a ton and make even better decisions in the future. All this is to say a great deal of analysis from both design groups and data groups goes into choosing what we might remove beyond having a quota of 7 cards we think might be weak and seeing what happens. I'm very confident in the cards we chose in terms of the direction they will swing win rate, what I'm less sure about is how far the swings will be. We'll monitor after the fact and if there are mistakes or mis-evaluations, we'll learn where we went wrong and adjust accordingly.
I'm glad you guys are doing something and this will definitely help but I will be forever baffled at how Firelands ever got put in the common slot. Both it and Babbling Book seem equally "fun" for the playing player to use. However one is fifty times more frustrating to have to constantly play against.
I'd much rather play against Mages having 3 Babbling Books per draft than Firelands.
I also highly agree with ADWCTA's point regarding Torch. Flamecannon would have been a much better choice.
Both were on the table, but ended up going with Torch because the setup and gameplay surrounding turns where you have Flamecannon in your hand was more interesting. You make some trades you might not have otherwise made and have to make some risk judgment calls in a bunch of scenarios. Was very close in our minds.
You guys were fine nerfing patron warrior despite it having a below a 50% win rate across the board.
This means you acknowledge that stats don't tell the full story, just a part of it.
Your point about the secrets completely ignores the fact that they have an impact on your opponents decisions even when they aren't in your deck.
I get some of the benefits of snipe without having to play it, and can instead play freezing trap.
I'm inclined to agree with adwtca on this one.
I think the main point is to say these cards weren't removed due to the perception of low power level, but the actuality of it. Having a conversation around which cards are fun and interesting to play is of course a matter of opinion. We like the gameplay of snipe, but given the options available and the prioritization of balance and keeping iconic cards, it was one of the cards chosen. I don't mean to argue at all these were 100% the correct cards to pull based on fun, because we should all definitely have that conversation and getting feedback on that is great.
Some quick thoughts (on mobile, sorry about the spelling/grammar/autocorrect).
They did something directly in the Arena. Again, after Purify. So quickly. This is a good sign for things to come. #ArenaMatters
This is a stopgap measure. No more or less. This is fine, but it's temporary, not a long term solution. It seems from thier language that Blizz recognizes this, which is also good.
The selection of cards probably reflects some statistical performance things, rather than imo what is a good understanding of what makes Arena FUN and competitive. In fact, several selections are pretty odd, and I won't even go into the ones not removed.
The focus seems to be purely about class balance, because that's what most of the complaints are about, because it's easy to show quantify and meme. Of course, the real issue runs much deeper and merely removing cards from the Arena doesn't even try to solve those root gameplay, draft, competitive issues. It's fine, they don't have to fix everything at once... but I hope they understand that the future of Arena is not just repeated offering rate adjustments (especially if they start getting fancy with it, and doubly especially if they don't have a way to communicate these changes to the player). Right now, they're just removing good, non-defining cards from top classes, and poor performing cards from bad classes. So, now, Blizzard is very much in direct control of class balance. It's better than the free market, but how good will Blizzard be at this?
You'll notice the BIG class cards from Mage and Rogue from classic are all still there, while some of the best Expansion-specific cards are gone. I like this philosophy overall, because it'll help fight convergence of classes. It does mean you'll see more Flamestrikes and Backstabs in the Arena though since thier offering rates go up as Snowchuggers and Autobarbar leave the draft pool. Yep, MORE, not fewer. I've always been for more Flamestrikes though because it increases the skill ceiling and solidifies basic class identities, so I think it's a fine development.
Yes, Rogue took the biggest hit, bigger than Mage. Warlock and Priest were the most buffed.
Does this new hands on balancing philosophy mean they'll drop the offering bonus for Kara cards down to a more reasonable +100%? +200% (the current rate) is excessive, and completely screws with drafts like Priest with 12x Priest of the Feast for every Yeti you see. Seriously, it's ridiculous and nointuitive and non-fun. Please Blizz? If you're reading this, please lower the Kara bonus with the update!
Specifics.
Several cards were removed from bad classes that were actrually good. Ancestral healing stands out (although, I completely understand if thier stats make then think the card is bad). Half the Warrior cards removed were also totally fine. I guess they needed to do that to improve the Warrior overall. But, it highlights the fundamental problem with this method if balance. There's a cost here in diversity, even as the goal is to improve diversity.
Several cards removed were very important to the identity of the classes, even if those cards are below average. Windspeaker (over Windfury no less?) was the other half to Shaman burst (why keep Bloodlust?), Succubus's discard mechanic, Chauffer's freeze, Autobarbar and Valiant's pings.
Forgotten Torch was pretty much the shining example of an actrually well balanced Mage removal. How was that selected as the one to go? I'd kick out Flamecannon 10x faster than Forgotten Torch. What's the reason? RNG is more desirable than reach?
Hunters lost two secrets. They know that actrually makes the Hunter WEAKER right? Hunters had a couple of totally draftable secrets, with the offering bonus to Huntress that gave free secrets. The worst part is, I'm pretty sure Blizz didn't have a clue they were making Hunter weaker with these changes. Hopefully the other changes offset this, but this is a pretty serious oversight and one of those things, like Mike Donais saying Babbling Book and Firelands Portal are about equal value, that really makes you question whether the HS team knows what they're doing when it comes to Arena.
Anyway, this isn't so much a step in the right direction as it is a stopgap measure for the short term that will create a better meta overall for Karazhan. A patch on wound, a suppressant for symptoms. Not an actual solution to any of the underlying issues.
It's a good move, but I really hope the teased future changes isn't more along these lines, but rather something more fundamental. Will discuss deeper on this weekend's Lightforge Podcast.
In the meantime, I'm looking forward to a more diverse Arena experience!
In terms of statistics, I can assure everyone that the cards removed from non Rogue/Mage were contributing to their low win-rate across all skill levels. In most circumstances it wasn't even close. For Hunter secrets, there are hundreds of thousands of draws worth of data post Huntress release that still clearly point out those two cards dragging down win rates. There is some amount of me that is sad Huntress becomes less interesting to pick because there are less secrets are available, but to say removing those cards makes Hunter weaker is quite a stretch given the amount of arena specific data we have available.
It was hard to pick 5-7 cards to remove from some classes because we tend to remember the times they were useful and awesome. For now we prioritized class balance and keeping the cards we felt were iconic. It's quite difficult to predict ahead of time which cards will be strong and which ones won't, but after we have millions of games worth of data deciphering which cards are actually strong and weak is pretty easy. (Thanks BI Team!)
Looking forward to seeing what happens, our goal here is to make an impact. We'll be monitoring play-rates, win-rates, and community reception in the weeks following these changes so I hope everyone keeps leaving great feedback.
Wow. Does Blizzard have an internal tierlist that uses all those metrics?
A "how fun a card is to play and the stories that surround that card" - tierlist would be an interesting one :P
Ha, its not an exact science. When we talk about whether or not to remove a card like Eye for an Eye is when that particular point comes up. The times you actually utilize Eye for an Eye are really memorable, so it makes me sad to think about removing even if Paladin's power level was very low (it wasn't).
True, but the removals were rather odd. For example, Windspeaker is a card that I'd situationally draft. Mark of Nature could be better, but could definitely be worse as well. Hell, I even drafted 2 Axe Flingers into my last 8-3 Warrior arena deck.
My problem here is that they took a look at bad constructed cards or cards that, according to them, "absolutely need a high level synergy". A card like Succubus is still an okay card for Arena, even if it stinks for constructed.
We look at statistics surrounding how often a card is played and the win rates of said card in arena specifically. Succubus actually sees more success in constructed than it does in arena, I imagine because it is much more likely that you can take advantage of the discard with cards like Silverware and Malchezaar's Imp.
They didn't go purely by tierlist, so I guess they chose cards basing on their own stats, for example how often the card is getting picked.
Some combination of how powerful a card is vs the class power level, how new or old a card was, how fun a card is to play and the stories that surround that card, how iconic that card is to its class, and how often a card was drafted.
Iksar
We'd like to do more in terms of communication. Things like this are a step in the right direction, looking forward to hearing everyone's feedback.
Iksar
Well, there wasn't a 'quota of bad cards' to remove. We only removed cards that made sense to us based on some amount of feel, and some amount of statistical analysis. I understand the frame of mind where removing two traps makes Freezing and Explosive less effective, but I would be extremely surprised if the effectiveness of those two cards offset the difference in card quality you will now receive by never seeing two of the worst performing cards in arena for Hunter. We'll do an evaluation on all other Hunter cards (Freezing and Explosive included) after these changes go through and see what kind of fallout happens, so we'll be able to answer that question for sure later on. We talked with our business intel team today about the best way to track what is going on now vs what happens post changes, hopefully we set ourselves up to learn a ton and make even better decisions in the future. All this is to say a great deal of analysis from both design groups and data groups goes into choosing what we might remove beyond having a quota of 7 cards we think might be weak and seeing what happens. I'm very confident in the cards we chose in terms of the direction they will swing win rate, what I'm less sure about is how far the swings will be. We'll monitor after the fact and if there are mistakes or mis-evaluations, we'll learn where we went wrong and adjust accordingly.
Iksar
Both were on the table, but ended up going with Torch because the setup and gameplay surrounding turns where you have Flamecannon in your hand was more interesting. You make some trades you might not have otherwise made and have to make some risk judgment calls in a bunch of scenarios. Was very close in our minds.
Iksar
I think the main point is to say these cards weren't removed due to the perception of low power level, but the actuality of it. Having a conversation around which cards are fun and interesting to play is of course a matter of opinion. We like the gameplay of snipe, but given the options available and the prioritization of balance and keeping iconic cards, it was one of the cards chosen. I don't mean to argue at all these were 100% the correct cards to pull based on fun, because we should all definitely have that conversation and getting feedback on that is great.
Iksar
In terms of statistics, I can assure everyone that the cards removed from non Rogue/Mage were contributing to their low win-rate across all skill levels. In most circumstances it wasn't even close. For Hunter secrets, there are hundreds of thousands of draws worth of data post Huntress release that still clearly point out those two cards dragging down win rates. There is some amount of me that is sad Huntress becomes less interesting to pick because there are less secrets are available, but to say removing those cards makes Hunter weaker is quite a stretch given the amount of arena specific data we have available.
It was hard to pick 5-7 cards to remove from some classes because we tend to remember the times they were useful and awesome. For now we prioritized class balance and keeping the cards we felt were iconic. It's quite difficult to predict ahead of time which cards will be strong and which ones won't, but after we have millions of games worth of data deciphering which cards are actually strong and weak is pretty easy. (Thanks BI Team!)
Looking forward to seeing what happens, our goal here is to make an impact. We'll be monitoring play-rates, win-rates, and community reception in the weeks following these changes so I hope everyone keeps leaving great feedback.
Iksar
Ha, its not an exact science. When we talk about whether or not to remove a card like Eye for an Eye is when that particular point comes up. The times you actually utilize Eye for an Eye are really memorable, so it makes me sad to think about removing even if Paladin's power level was very low (it wasn't).
Iksar
Paladin saw no changes because they were a pretty good baseline win rate. All classes have great cards, which is fine so long as there is a balance.
Iksar
We look at statistics surrounding how often a card is played and the win rates of said card in arena specifically. Succubus actually sees more success in constructed than it does in arena, I imagine because it is much more likely that you can take advantage of the discard with cards like Silverware and Malchezaar's Imp.
Iksar
Some combination of how powerful a card is vs the class power level, how new or old a card was, how fun a card is to play and the stories that surround that card, how iconic that card is to its class, and how often a card was drafted.