Here's the thing you guys (Team Five) have gotten wrong about the game from my perspective. Relying on quantitative is really good at identifying overperformance of decks and what's making these decks really strong, but it doesn't give you data into what's really unfun. I don't know how you would gather qualitative data effectively because of how large the player base is.
I can share some thoughts though.
Some cards like Amet seem to cost way less mana than they should cost. There's just not much you can do about a seven hp minion in the early game unless you can isolate it on turn four, and often priests can build boards that protect it, and other decks are lacking the proper tools.
Evolve essentially turns the game into slot machine casino gambling in mirrors. And even worse when you're playing what I would call a fair deck (beast hunter). I play shaman and hunter currently. Sometimes rogue on a second account for the giggles of yogg boxing with Tess.
Class imbalance should be minimized and a top priority during expansions, so people can focus on a class they really enjoy without hitting a wall when other classes are too powerful.
Midrange decks should be better than they are currently. N'zoth and Kun druids especially shows the weakness of these decks because they're often too slow to kill the opponent before the opponent's broken turns.
I could go on and on about what I perceive as balance issues. But my end thought is the game needs powerful stuff, not broken stuff.
Data is just one point of reference, just like feedback. We don't make decisions based on charts or individual feedback, they just all help contribute towards a final decision. Historically, we've made more balance changes based on around how something feels to play against rather than how powerful it is.
He isn’t. If you read J Alexander’s original tweets, they read a lot like an angry callout post, whether that was the intention or not.
From October 12th: “I’m going to document how Evolves play out so that @IksarHS changes this sooner rather than later”
From yesterday, the 22nd “Evolve Shaman is worse than Undertaker Hunter. Let’s not have this ruin more days of Hearthstone @IksarHS”
Dean may be a senior designer, but he isn’t the sole designer of the game. While it’s perfectly fine to criticize the game design, the tone of these posts feel like Alexander is just trying to put pressure on Dean and seemingly has a personal grudge against him. I’d probably be irritated and a bit snarky too if some dude was angrily tweeting me like that. Alexander might have a point about Shaman, but he is really really terrible at having any amount of tactfulness when talking about something he’s passionate about.
TL;DR: J Alexander has a lot of passion for the game and a lot of experience to draw on, which is awesome. He also has no verbal filter and can come off as a bit of a jerk towards the devs, which is less awesome.
Jalex has a lot of opinions and they are interesting to listen to, even if we disagree on many topics. We've known each other a while and I'd like to think our relationship allows for a little bit of snark.
The comment comes from a genuine interest on what he thinks the actual issues are and what he might change, not from a place of total ignorance on what sentiment among engaged audiences generally is. Many times someone will propose a solution or identify the piece of the thing that they don't like that results in a discussion on our end. That's mainly what I come here looking for. Also I just like Hearthstone so reading about it is fun.
Is there a particular type of feedback that you or your team members find especially constructive?
Yes. What you personally like or dislike, and what solutions to issues you would be happy with. Just like anything else, you can trust an individual to tell you how they feel but shouldn't necessarily trust someone to tell you how someone else feels. Answering questions on behalf of others requires tons of research, analysis, data, experience, etc. As a designer, I know how difficult and borderline unanswerable some questions about large populations can be, so being asked to change or not change something from a single individual based on the thoughts and opinions of a large population is hard for me to trust. At least not without a lot of analysis to back up those opinions.
Anyway, the point is, we just want to hear what you think and what your experience is like. I feel like many players don't like to give feedback this way because they don't want it to come off as if they think the game should be made just for them. While that is true, the game isn't made for any one particular person, having a ton of data points for how different people feel is ultimately how we make decisions.
Iksar
Data is just one point of reference, just like feedback. We don't make decisions based on charts or individual feedback, they just all help contribute towards a final decision. Historically, we've made more balance changes based on around how something feels to play against rather than how powerful it is.
Iksar
Jalex has a lot of opinions and they are interesting to listen to, even if we disagree on many topics. We've known each other a while and I'd like to think our relationship allows for a little bit of snark.
The comment comes from a genuine interest on what he thinks the actual issues are and what he might change, not from a place of total ignorance on what sentiment among engaged audiences generally is. Many times someone will propose a solution or identify the piece of the thing that they don't like that results in a discussion on our end. That's mainly what I come here looking for. Also I just like Hearthstone so reading about it is fun.
Iksar
Yes. What you personally like or dislike, and what solutions to issues you would be happy with. Just like anything else, you can trust an individual to tell you how they feel but shouldn't necessarily trust someone to tell you how someone else feels. Answering questions on behalf of others requires tons of research, analysis, data, experience, etc. As a designer, I know how difficult and borderline unanswerable some questions about large populations can be, so being asked to change or not change something from a single individual based on the thoughts and opinions of a large population is hard for me to trust. At least not without a lot of analysis to back up those opinions.
Anyway, the point is, we just want to hear what you think and what your experience is like. I feel like many players don't like to give feedback this way because they don't want it to come off as if they think the game should be made just for them. While that is true, the game isn't made for any one particular person, having a ton of data points for how different people feel is ultimately how we make decisions.