Bluetracker

Tracks Blizzard employees across various accounts.

@Celestalon instead of erring to over-tuning then nerf, under-tune then buff. Instead of taking decks away, it adds decks through a meta. Just a thought. Still love the game. #Hearthstone

@Celestalon instead of erring to over-tuning then nerf, under-tune then buff. Instead of taking decks away, it adds decks through a meta. Just a thought. Still love the game. #Hearthstone

MadManHS_

Posted 4 years, 2 months ago (Source)

@Celestalon instead of erring to over-tuning then nerf, under-tune then buff. Instead of taking decks away, it adds decks through a meta. Just a thought. Still love the game. #Hearthstone

Chadd Nervigg

Posted 4 years, 2 months ago (Source)

@MadManHS_ It's definitely something we consider. And you will see some buffs soon. In general though, buffs are much more difficult to get the desired result, than nerfs. Let me explain...

Chadd Nervigg

Posted 4 years, 2 months ago (Source)

@MadManHS_ With nerfs, we have a good idea of how powerful something is now, and know that it'll go down. That knowledge lets us be much more accurate with the nerf. And if we undershoot, well at least it's better than before. If we overshoot, that deck just stops seeing play entirely.

Chadd Nervigg

Posted 4 years, 2 months ago (Source)

@MadManHS_ With buffs, it's trying to increase the power level of something we have very little data on how powerful it is. It's below the margin of seeing play, but by how much? Hard to say. If we undershoot, it was a waste, nothing happens. If we overshoot, we created a new problem deck.

Chadd Nervigg

Posted 4 years, 2 months ago (Source)

@MadManHS_ Buffs absolutely can work out great, and we have a few coming that we hope do work out great. But I hope that at least explains why we tend to do nerfs more often than buffs.

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
@Celestalon instead of erring to over-tuning then nerf, under-tune then buff. Instead of taking decks away, it adds decks through a meta. Just a thought. Still love the game. #Hearthstone (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1471602657974538245">None</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
@MadManHS_ It's definitely something we consider. And you will see some buffs soon. In general though, buffs are much more difficult to get the desired result, than nerfs.

Let me explain... (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1471605430895865859">Chadd Nervigg</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
@MadManHS_ With nerfs, we have a good idea of how powerful something is now, and know that it'll go down. That knowledge lets us be much more accurate with the nerf. And if we undershoot, well at least it's better than before. If we overshoot, that deck just stops seeing play entirely. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1471605808219574273">Chadd Nervigg</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
@MadManHS_ With buffs, it's trying to increase the power level of something we have very little data on how powerful it is. It's below the margin of seeing play, but by how much? Hard to say.

If we undershoot, it was a waste, nothing happens. If we overshoot, we created a new problem deck. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1471606141348048901">Chadd Nervigg</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
@MadManHS_ Buffs absolutely can work out great, and we have a few coming that we hope do work out great. But I hope that at least explains why we tend to do nerfs more often than buffs. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1471606469778759681">Chadd Nervigg</a>)
<hr/>

Tweet

@Celestalon instead of erring to over-tuning then nerf, under-tune then buff. Instead of taking decks away, it adds decks through a meta. Just a thought. Still love the game. #Hearthstone

@MadManHS_ It's definitely something we consider. And you will see some buffs soon. In general though, buffs are much more difficult to get the desired result, than nerfs.

Let me explain... (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1471605430895865859">Source</a>)

@MadManHS_ With nerfs, we have a good idea of how powerful something is now, and know that it'll go down. That knowledge lets us be much more accurate with the nerf. And if we undershoot, well at least it's better than before. If we overshoot, that deck just stops seeing play entirely. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1471605808219574273">Source</a>)

@MadManHS_ With buffs, it's trying to increase the power level of something we have very little data on how powerful it is. It's below the margin of seeing play, but by how much? Hard to say.

If we undershoot, it was a waste, nothing happens. If we overshoot, we created a new problem deck. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1471606141348048901">Source</a>)

@MadManHS_ Buffs absolutely can work out great, and we have a few coming that we hope do work out great. But I hope that at least explains why we tend to do nerfs more often than buffs. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1471606469778759681">Source</a>)
 
 <hr/>