Midrange Hunter is still gonna be prevalent, that equality nerf though, ouch.
I hope so, the goal wasn't to completely invalidate Hunter archetypes, or really any of the cards we changed. When we make a balance change it's less about looking at the current environment and more about trying to understand what Hearthstone is like after we make changes. Statistically, Secret Hunter was the most powerful deck in the game and close to the most popular. We felt like there wasn't a huge long-term downside to changing the secret build-around card that is likely to get more powerful over time in Wild while we can protect against Secret Hunter separating itself from the pack even more than it already was.
Baku and Genn limit card design so much. Round up nerfing will always be a thing now that these two are a thing
I tried to touch on this a few places, but Odd Paladin and Equality not being three are unrelated. Classic and Basic cards that are so powerful they are in every archetype in every expansion is something that is very harmful to the goal of expansion metas feeling fresh and new. Equality at (3) mana in our playtesting didn't really solve this. The change to (4) was actually very jarring to us, but we wanted to try playtesting it in current and future environments anyway. After all those games, we felt like it was a reasonable option at (4) in control archetypes (now in in the future) but less reasonable in aggressive decks. That ideally where we'd like most cards to be, so (4) ended up being where we landed. If we thought (3) removed it from being in all paladin archetypes for the foreseeable future but Odd Paladin would get better in the short term, we would have just done that.
The funniest part is that even for 2 mana it is still looking vialable.
That's the goal. We knew going in that the Equality nerf was going to be really jarring to look at, it was to us, too. We played so many games in current and future environments and it led us to believe that (4) was the right call even if it reads poorly.
And was your goal to invalidate control and even paladin when clearly odd paladin is the problem??
The goal was to make a change that helps the game in the long-term, while also doing something that was good or neutral for the short-term of the game. From a balance perspective, I don't think there is a problem with any of the Paladin archetypes currently. Even and Control Paladin are powerful enough in the current environment I think they can withstand a power level hit and still be interesting decks to play. Odd Paladin is still great, too. Not so much that it's a problem, though.
Nerfing Equality that hard though is gonna kill any possibility of a competitive Control Paladin deck in the future if it doesn't get any great control cards in the next expansions. I hope you have something planned for that, so that we don't go back to having only Aggro pally's be competitive in both Standard and Wild.
We like Control Paladin, I expect it to do just fine in the future. We've been playtesting a lot of the first set of this year with Equality at (4) and there are still powerful Control Paladin archetypes.
Thank you. From a game perspective I think these changes are very healthy and a great way to shake up the meta. Your reasoning makes a lot of sense and I am excited to play around with these changes.
Also thanks for communicating and being direct.
Writing some of this blog, I know it doesn't always feel great to have cards that have been around forever to be changed. I do think it's positive for the overall direction of the game, but we have to make sure we understand exactly how much more difficult this makes getting into and keeping up with Hearthstone. One of the ways to help players keep up with the game over time is to have 'forever' cards that are extremely powerful and go in most all decks. I think this isn't a healthy way to help players because it negatively impacts how fresh the game feels with a new expansion hits. Instead, we should just continuing finding ways to get the newer stuff in players hands. We've done stuff like increase gold on quests, have legendary quests with increased rewards, make opening legendary cards not be duplicates, or events like fire festival. We'll continue doing more of that in the future.
First of thx reddit for deleting every comment even if it isnt rude at all. Anyways...
Dean as many people suggested b4 me nerfing old cards just to sell new expansion cards is not good for the game. Explain why anyone shouldnt consider this move as $$$$$ grab?
could you explain why dont rotate them to wild with hall of fame? or why you dont change baku and genn since theyre very clearly impacting how you nerf cards escpially lately.
and you (blizzard/hearthstone team) often talk about design limiting cards but baku and genn are the worst cases of that of all cards in hearthstone.
wild is susposed to be place for old decks but with nerfs like these that just isnt possible.
And also if you could/can explain why do you now do nerfs without warning about them beforehand? i feel it makes it so nothing feels safe to craft anymore since could just get heably nerfed without any sort of warning.
Cards from classic and basic that get nerfed are cards (usually) we think are healthy designs that fit with the flavor and mechanics of a particular class.... they are just too powerful and limit the amount of space you can explore when new expansions release. They get rotated to the hall of fame when the violate what that class should be about. For example, Wild Growth is a great communicator for what Druid is about. We'd rather keep it around at a lower power level. On the flip side, if say a card like Healing Rain was in Hunter's basic set, we'd rather rotate that than nerf it. Hunters shouldn't be about big healing spells. I'd expect any classic and basic changes that might happen in the future to follow these general guidelines.
As for announcing, I'm not sure what the proper lead time should be. It takes about a week to noodle with the blog messaging and then send it out to various regions to get translated in a bunch of different languages to simultaneously release. Even given that, these nerfs won't be landing until February 5th.
Thanks for discussing the reasoning, goal, and play-testing done.
Not sure I agree with the 3 vs 4 reasoning, but it at least makes sense.
Appreciate the info!
Any discussion of nerfing Rexxar DK?
I actually like Rexxar a lot, it's many people's favorite card. That said, I'm glad it's rotating and it's unlikely we'll make cards like it in Hunter anytime in the near future. It's easy to fall into the trap of making cards that are exciting because they do a thing that class doesn't usually do. It is exciting, but it hurts when classes start to lose their identity. Access to a bunch of healing and late-game value generally isn't what Hunter is about, and Rexxar changed that. There are no hard rules in design, the ultimate goal is for people to have the most fun playing the game. When you start drawing lines in the sand it's easy to make changes that are less fun for the sake of falling in line with a rule you made in the past. In this case, I think it was probably correct to put more value on the identity of our classes, but at the time we made the decision to go forward with the card because I think we underestimated how well it was going to be a control-hunter-all-in-one-card. Also, it was crazy fun in playtesting. There are some design lessons to be learned with Rexxar, but I don't think that lesson is never create cards like Rexxar.
it seems a lot of people are commenting on the equality nerf being 4 mana instead of 2 due to 4 being the next 'even' card, as to keep this tool in the even pally deck. would you care to comment on that at all?
Classic and Basic cards that are so powerful they are in every archetype in every expansion is something that is very harmful to the goal of expansion metas feeling fresh and new.
Let's be real, you mean to say selling more packs of new sets.
We just have to make sure the impact this makes on players keeping up with Hearthstone is offset by things like legendary quests, cool gold injection events, great bundles, and a big overall look at our rewards systems. I think that, yeah, generally the game is more interesting if new sets see more play, but that doesn't have to also result in the game being harder to get into or keep up with.
Sorry for the poor English, it's not my native language.
What are your considerations for nerfing cards this late in the year-cycle versus putting them in the Hall of Fame? Does it come up in discussions or is your go-to to always nerf instead of giving cards like Equality the HoF treatment?
On a sidenote, the Basic card set has been really getting hammered over the years through nerfs. That, plus the fact that a lot of class identities have shifted (within reason) creates a Basic set that doesn't feel representative of what Hearthstone classes are today. Can we see some form of re-formation of the Basic set by exchanging some cards in Basic with some that exist in Wild sets into Basic and so that new players get a more realistic view of what classes are?
A good example of this can be found in Shaman. Cards like Ancestral Healing, Windfury and Rockbiter weapon no longer really represent what Shaman is about. Minion enhancement hasn't gotten much attention in the Shaman playspace. Instead, mechanics such as Evolve have come in. Offering new players a card such as Evolve would give a much more current-day representation of the class.
The long-term plan for both of these sets is to be forever cards that do a great job of representing their individual class identities, while also having powerful cards that make having cards from this set feel worthwhile. Each individual classes cards should be comparable in power level and not have too many extreme power cards that go in every deck forever.
Some of this will require rotating cards that don't fit with the class themes, some of this will require the rebalance of cards that are either so powerful they are included in every deck, or by designing new cards to replace the ones that have rotated out.
If we thought (3) removed it from being in all paladin archetypes for the foreseeable future but Odd Paladin would get better in the short term, we would have just done that.
Know I'm a day late but why exactly is "...removed it from being in all paladin archetypes for the foreseeable future" a desired outcome? Its a interesting card thats enjoyed and helps a bunch of decks exist. I'm just curious at how thats worded since I can't imagine thats the approach you'd take with nerfs.
Was confusing wording. Removing it from every single archetype is not the goal. Removing it from being a core card in every single archetype but still viable in some was the goal.
Are there any thoughts to increasing the cost of Rexxar for the sake of wild? I would prefer Rexxar’s beast making ability to continue to stay relevant, however it seems dangerous to have a card with that power level in the game long term. A balance change to 8 mana seems to me to be a change that would ensure Rexxar is not an auto include in every hunter deck but a tech choice in case of long games.
I don't think Rexxar has been an issue in wild, though this is obviously subject to personal opinion. If we ever felt the gameplay was a major net negative in Wild we'd consider changing it, that just isn't where the opinion on that topic is right now.
Iksar
I hope so, the goal wasn't to completely invalidate Hunter archetypes, or really any of the cards we changed. When we make a balance change it's less about looking at the current environment and more about trying to understand what Hearthstone is like after we make changes. Statistically, Secret Hunter was the most powerful deck in the game and close to the most popular. We felt like there wasn't a huge long-term downside to changing the secret build-around card that is likely to get more powerful over time in Wild while we can protect against Secret Hunter separating itself from the pack even more than it already was.
Iksar
I tried to touch on this a few places, but Odd Paladin and Equality not being three are unrelated. Classic and Basic cards that are so powerful they are in every archetype in every expansion is something that is very harmful to the goal of expansion metas feeling fresh and new. Equality at (3) mana in our playtesting didn't really solve this. The change to (4) was actually very jarring to us, but we wanted to try playtesting it in current and future environments anyway. After all those games, we felt like it was a reasonable option at (4) in control archetypes (now in in the future) but less reasonable in aggressive decks. That ideally where we'd like most cards to be, so (4) ended up being where we landed. If we thought (3) removed it from being in all paladin archetypes for the foreseeable future but Odd Paladin would get better in the short term, we would have just done that.
Iksar
That's the goal. We knew going in that the Equality nerf was going to be really jarring to look at, it was to us, too. We played so many games in current and future environments and it led us to believe that (4) was the right call even if it reads poorly.
Iksar
The goal was to make a change that helps the game in the long-term, while also doing something that was good or neutral for the short-term of the game. From a balance perspective, I don't think there is a problem with any of the Paladin archetypes currently. Even and Control Paladin are powerful enough in the current environment I think they can withstand a power level hit and still be interesting decks to play. Odd Paladin is still great, too. Not so much that it's a problem, though.
Iksar
We like Control Paladin, I expect it to do just fine in the future. We've been playtesting a lot of the first set of this year with Equality at (4) and there are still powerful Control Paladin archetypes.
Iksar
Writing some of this blog, I know it doesn't always feel great to have cards that have been around forever to be changed. I do think it's positive for the overall direction of the game, but we have to make sure we understand exactly how much more difficult this makes getting into and keeping up with Hearthstone. One of the ways to help players keep up with the game over time is to have 'forever' cards that are extremely powerful and go in most all decks. I think this isn't a healthy way to help players because it negatively impacts how fresh the game feels with a new expansion hits. Instead, we should just continuing finding ways to get the newer stuff in players hands. We've done stuff like increase gold on quests, have legendary quests with increased rewards, make opening legendary cards not be duplicates, or events like fire festival. We'll continue doing more of that in the future.
Iksar
Here is an example of an answer for that.
https://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comments/ah44aa/culling_classic_how_the_continuous_nerfs_render/eee1aeo/?context=3
Iksar
Cards from classic and basic that get nerfed are cards (usually) we think are healthy designs that fit with the flavor and mechanics of a particular class.... they are just too powerful and limit the amount of space you can explore when new expansions release. They get rotated to the hall of fame when the violate what that class should be about. For example, Wild Growth is a great communicator for what Druid is about. We'd rather keep it around at a lower power level. On the flip side, if say a card like Healing Rain was in Hunter's basic set, we'd rather rotate that than nerf it. Hunters shouldn't be about big healing spells. I'd expect any classic and basic changes that might happen in the future to follow these general guidelines.
As for announcing, I'm not sure what the proper lead time should be. It takes about a week to noodle with the blog messaging and then send it out to various regions to get translated in a bunch of different languages to simultaneously release. Even given that, these nerfs won't be landing until February 5th.
Iksar
I actually like Rexxar a lot, it's many people's favorite card. That said, I'm glad it's rotating and it's unlikely we'll make cards like it in Hunter anytime in the near future. It's easy to fall into the trap of making cards that are exciting because they do a thing that class doesn't usually do. It is exciting, but it hurts when classes start to lose their identity. Access to a bunch of healing and late-game value generally isn't what Hunter is about, and Rexxar changed that. There are no hard rules in design, the ultimate goal is for people to have the most fun playing the game. When you start drawing lines in the sand it's easy to make changes that are less fun for the sake of falling in line with a rule you made in the past. In this case, I think it was probably correct to put more value on the identity of our classes, but at the time we made the decision to go forward with the card because I think we underestimated how well it was going to be a control-hunter-all-in-one-card. Also, it was crazy fun in playtesting. There are some design lessons to be learned with Rexxar, but I don't think that lesson is never create cards like Rexxar.
Iksar
Of course.
Iksar
https://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comments/als8bj/upcoming_balance_update_february_2019/efgs25g/?context=3
Iksar
We just have to make sure the impact this makes on players keeping up with Hearthstone is offset by things like legendary quests, cool gold injection events, great bundles, and a big overall look at our rewards systems. I think that, yeah, generally the game is more interesting if new sets see more play, but that doesn't have to also result in the game being harder to get into or keep up with.
Iksar
The long-term plan for both of these sets is to be forever cards that do a great job of representing their individual class identities, while also having powerful cards that make having cards from this set feel worthwhile. Each individual classes cards should be comparable in power level and not have too many extreme power cards that go in every deck forever.
Some of this will require rotating cards that don't fit with the class themes, some of this will require the rebalance of cards that are either so powerful they are included in every deck, or by designing new cards to replace the ones that have rotated out.
Iksar
Tess, Rexxar, yeah.
Iksar
Was confusing wording. Removing it from every single archetype is not the goal. Removing it from being a core card in every single archetype but still viable in some was the goal.
Iksar
I don't think Rexxar has been an issue in wild, though this is obviously subject to personal opinion. If we ever felt the gameplay was a major net negative in Wild we'd consider changing it, that just isn't where the opinion on that topic is right now.