I think you're approaching this as a whale who has most of the stuff already so there's not much point in playing further because the very essence of replayability in a PvE game is mostly either challenge (some games can really ramp it up, even in something as mundane as zombie army 4 for example) or unlocking new stuff.
I wouldn't call it a really grindy game, because the rewards aren't exactly bad as long as you complete the bounties, which gives out decent stuff. But I can definitely see where you're going with this, because I can't imagine myself being in this mode for too long. Perhaps somewhere around 20 hours or so I'll probably give up on the game, unless team5 have more surprises installed further up the ladder.
One thing I will say though; I was under the impression that the mercs will eventually 'evolve', that is to say that the portraits will eventually get better and better the further their levels go. This would add some progression at least, because I really wanted to grow baby krush into a king, but turns out that this would only be possible by luck via packs because the portraits work like skins - much to my annoyance, because it would certainly have given me motivation to actually grind those mercs up. Oh well. Guess ol' kurtrus would have to be content with a loin cloth until I chance upon a shirt for him.
And one last thing; the games quite unimpressive in terms of aesthetics. A small nitpick to be sure, but it is what it is.
Yeah, once I opened up my packs it turns out that you can get the same merc but different skins (golden, diamond etc.) so its entirely possible to get the 'same' merc twice.
Just curious. When you got your pre-order lich king, etc. Were those immediately playable, or do you actually have to get the merc before you can play as lich king etc.
Even if its true, the question would be whether its acceptable for developers to knowingly release something in such a state. There's plenty of instances where games are released filled with bugs, game breaking or not, but its very rare for them to release it with a list of known bugs and proceed to let the public deal with it.
This is not specifically a criticism of this situation, its just odd so I mentioned it.
I must have missed out on it; what workaround is there?
The xp gain bar is still appearing when I get it via achievements, so chances are good its fixed as you say, but wouldn't it be strange not to make it public.
I can see that the bug where the xp gained not being shown on screen is not listed as fixed. Am I to assume that this is a new feature then? Its been here for a month now at least.
I think in this case the power level discussion is mainly about individual card power rather than card draw/generation. If its mainly about this, Im sure team5 would have no problems implementing this 'mass nerf' because there's really not a lot cards guilty of it right now.
The idea of variety is subjective, but power level doesn't really play a big role here because they can just as easily design newer cards to be on par or buff some weaker cards, as much as they can nerf a lot of strong cards. The point is that they control the meta and they control what's viable. There will always be a set of tier 1-2 decks that will more or less dominate the meta and tier 3-4 decks that can function but with lower win rates. I suspect that no amount of power level shifting will change this.
There's also one other issue which is dust economy. A mass nerf might very well just give me two expansions worth of dust. And while Im not bringing out the corporate greed card in this discussion, it merits some thought, because I don't think they're prepared to handle it.
The more I think about it, the more I would agree that a mass nerf is unnecessary, time consuming, and will likely end up not doing anything because if everything got watered down, then that's basically the new normal wouldn't it, so where have we actually gone? Besides which, I think we've learnt from the witchwood-rastakhan era that lowering power levels of stuff generally just makes the game boring to play, and there will always be broken cards, even in a weak set of cards.
Team5 controls the power level, the narrative, and what gets over; all we're asking is for a meta that engages and allows for a meaningful back and forth interaction, and not polarized matchmaking. Stormwind's power level is not low, but its not that that makes it so difficult to enjoy, its the fact that certain matchups aren't even worth playing.
I will give them some credit though; three rounds of nerf have actually done plenty of correct this. Now if we can just get a last round of nerfs to that ONE remaining bs class, that would do wonders.
To be honest there really isn't a huge list of good brawls, and it would seem that they've at least remove some of the less popular ones like raven idols or macaws. At this point its really just a free pack per week, which isn't the worst thing ever.
Im pretty sure the viability of either is determined by their partners, and then determined by the matchups because lich king is a protector and diablo's a fighter.
If you already have a line up in mind, it might help in choosing because we don't actually know what to expect given that its a new game, and it might not do to have two of the same typing in the same lineup, at least not until we have hands on experience to back it up.
But if you ask for my opinion it might be prudent to go with diablo because initiative or speed is usually the most important aspect in a turn base game. Lich king's attack will often come out last it would seem.
I think its more because the older players there have been doing this for a long time and wanted to move on to other stuff, because let's face it, pro players tend to grind this game for 8 hours or more per day and after years of doing so its kinda impossible for the game not to feel stale. I dont think losing your passion has anything to do with the grinding mindset, or the fact that GMs only lasts 14 weeks.
Newer players approach a hearthstone that feels fresh and exciting. Some players like Viper has been doing this for 6 years. If the older players feel they need to get away from the game, its entirely fair and expected.
There's no overhauling that can solve this puzzle. The Hearthstone esport scene/formatting has actually been overhauled for several times in the last few years, and if that didn't change anything, I doubt another overhaul will make any difference in sparking passion in those who gave up on the game.
They tried that years ago with the trinity series (now sadly discontinued), global games, and hearthstone collegiate (which is on hold for obvious reasons).
Its not that they were unsuccessful, but clearly the number of views did not reflect what they were trying to achieve, and let's be honest here, hearthstone is a largely single player game. There is no team effort, and since the commentary is provided by casters (though not in trinity, which was what made it special), in what way do we have to show that the teams are actually functioning?
The sad reality is that hearthstone is not as big as csgo or LoL, and the tournaments tends to drag for hours on end. So its only ever to going to be interesting to a tiny minority of esport viewers.
Best thing they can do to boost esport relevance is to bring back smaller less formal cups like seatstory, where players do commentary and have fun. That was the reason why pavel is perhaps the most memorable of all the world champions.
It'll slow down the quest completion enough that its viable but gives enough room for a board to actually do something. Plus, that also adds another dimension to the deck's gameplan. You can draw, clear the board, or freeze, but it may not progress the quest so you cant just play blindly. In some games you can even sandbag them because all the cheap frost spells needs a target, and until then all the spells they're playing isn't going to do anything to progress the quest.
Sure, sometimes they just get all the cards they need and you just die, but it'll at least be a hell lot less consistent than it is now.
Quest mage's win rate according to hsreplay is over 55%. Granted I don't have a premium account so I can't give you a bigger picture, but its clear enough that quest mage is not a below 50% win rate deck. Its a polarizing deck that only really loses to either a burn end game or a combo faster than it can finish the quest, or a deck tailor made to beat it. To put simply, quest mage loses hard to some decks while unconditionally beating others and in my books that's not healthy for the meta. Outside of that, the deck is clearly being heavily played, and is highly resistant to tempo style decks, which is a fundamental part of the game. I can assure you quest mage is not a bad deck, unlike the earlier garrote shark rogue, which at very least require some skill to pull off.
If the devs cant figure this out, then Im at a loss. Because its been quite some time since I last had so little motivation to move up ranks.
On the love-hate thing. Well, that's something no one but blizz can answer because only they have the data to prove it. But looking at what little evidence we have clearly its not a well liked deck among a good portion of the community, and hardly anyone ever rises up to defend it, and Ive seen people defend face hunter and tickatus decks. You are right in pointing out that people are often more vocal about what they hate, but if there's more hate now than before (and that's what we have now), what would that in turn tells us?
In my opinion all they needed to do is to simply have the mage cast all three spells in one turn or it resets. That way they cant just clear and freeze everything and expect to still finish quest by turn 7. It'll also more or less remove ice barrier as an option, and playing cards like incanter's flow or board clears are at the expense of finishing the quest.
I like your suggestion. Though Im sure team5 will tell you that its too confusing to new players. It makes it harder to play stuff like Refreshing Spring Water, which is also why I think it'll absolutely just kill quest mage - and I can live very well with that.
Most of the changes we make are due to perception. I'd only really consider something truly imbalanced if win rates are exceeding 54-55%. That usually only happens 0-1 times per set
I don't think its the case. Because after all, quest mage is still alive and kicking, and as far as standard is concerned that's basically one of the most hated deck right now. Face hunter is equally loathed for multiple expansions and yet never seems to get any nerfs (barring Kolkar Pack Runner). And of course, one of the most infamous example of a very much hated card with low win rates: Tickatus, which has gone through 2 expansions unchanged. Not that Im supporting devs to start nerfing cards whenever they hear an 8 yr old crying in the distance, but its fairly obvious that there's a more robust criteria for nerfing cards.
Play rate is probably a more important criteria, judging by previous q&a. Just about every card they nerfed so far in stormwind has something to do with that. Which might explain why garotte rogue wasn't really targetted the last 3 nerfs and yet Irebound Brute was.
On the subject; just nerf that bs Sorcerer's Gambit already. Quest mage remains one of the most played and is still one of the most played today even after that Incanter's Flow nerf. Can we please have a mage with a gameplan that doesn't involve casino dice rolling or being a mostly single-player experience?
Then I cant see why you're complaining because quest priest only farms these decks. Plus, quest priest is hardly a scourge of the current meta; you'll be lucky to even meet one.
If it makes you feel better, quest mage, which is currently one of the highest played deck in the meta, destroys quest priest with both hands tied behind its back. So if priest is making you feel miserable, you'll be glad to know its getting regularly destroyed whenever its played.
That's nice to know. Would be a real bummer if it weren't the case.
I think you're approaching this as a whale who has most of the stuff already so there's not much point in playing further because the very essence of replayability in a PvE game is mostly either challenge (some games can really ramp it up, even in something as mundane as zombie army 4 for example) or unlocking new stuff.
I wouldn't call it a really grindy game, because the rewards aren't exactly bad as long as you complete the bounties, which gives out decent stuff. But I can definitely see where you're going with this, because I can't imagine myself being in this mode for too long. Perhaps somewhere around 20 hours or so I'll probably give up on the game, unless team5 have more surprises installed further up the ladder.
One thing I will say though; I was under the impression that the mercs will eventually 'evolve', that is to say that the portraits will eventually get better and better the further their levels go. This would add some progression at least, because I really wanted to grow baby krush into a king, but turns out that this would only be possible by luck via packs because the portraits work like skins - much to my annoyance, because it would certainly have given me motivation to actually grind those mercs up. Oh well. Guess ol' kurtrus would have to be content with a loin cloth until I chance upon a shirt for him.
And one last thing; the games quite unimpressive in terms of aesthetics. A small nitpick to be sure, but it is what it is.
Yeah, once I opened up my packs it turns out that you can get the same merc but different skins (golden, diamond etc.) so its entirely possible to get the 'same' merc twice.
Just curious. When you got your pre-order lich king, etc. Were those immediately playable, or do you actually have to get the merc before you can play as lich king etc.
Even if its true, the question would be whether its acceptable for developers to knowingly release something in such a state. There's plenty of instances where games are released filled with bugs, game breaking or not, but its very rare for them to release it with a list of known bugs and proceed to let the public deal with it.
This is not specifically a criticism of this situation, its just odd so I mentioned it.
I must have missed out on it; what workaround is there?
The xp gain bar is still appearing when I get it via achievements, so chances are good its fixed as you say, but wouldn't it be strange not to make it public.
Launching with bugs? Oh well, at least they're being honest with it. Not a good look though.
I can see that the bug where the xp gained not being shown on screen is not listed as fixed. Am I to assume that this is a new feature then? Its been here for a month now at least.
I think in this case the power level discussion is mainly about individual card power rather than card draw/generation. If its mainly about this, Im sure team5 would have no problems implementing this 'mass nerf' because there's really not a lot cards guilty of it right now.
The idea of variety is subjective, but power level doesn't really play a big role here because they can just as easily design newer cards to be on par or buff some weaker cards, as much as they can nerf a lot of strong cards. The point is that they control the meta and they control what's viable. There will always be a set of tier 1-2 decks that will more or less dominate the meta and tier 3-4 decks that can function but with lower win rates. I suspect that no amount of power level shifting will change this.
There's also one other issue which is dust economy. A mass nerf might very well just give me two expansions worth of dust. And while Im not bringing out the corporate greed card in this discussion, it merits some thought, because I don't think they're prepared to handle it.
The more I think about it, the more I would agree that a mass nerf is unnecessary, time consuming, and will likely end up not doing anything because if everything got watered down, then that's basically the new normal wouldn't it, so where have we actually gone? Besides which, I think we've learnt from the witchwood-rastakhan era that lowering power levels of stuff generally just makes the game boring to play, and there will always be broken cards, even in a weak set of cards.
Team5 controls the power level, the narrative, and what gets over; all we're asking is for a meta that engages and allows for a meaningful back and forth interaction, and not polarized matchmaking. Stormwind's power level is not low, but its not that that makes it so difficult to enjoy, its the fact that certain matchups aren't even worth playing.
I will give them some credit though; three rounds of nerf have actually done plenty of correct this. Now if we can just get a last round of nerfs to that ONE remaining bs class, that would do wonders.
Anyone got their packs yet? Been up here for 3 hours and not a single one.
To be honest there really isn't a huge list of good brawls, and it would seem that they've at least remove some of the less popular ones like raven idols or macaws. At this point its really just a free pack per week, which isn't the worst thing ever.
Im pretty sure the viability of either is determined by their partners, and then determined by the matchups because lich king is a protector and diablo's a fighter.
If you already have a line up in mind, it might help in choosing because we don't actually know what to expect given that its a new game, and it might not do to have two of the same typing in the same lineup, at least not until we have hands on experience to back it up.
But if you ask for my opinion it might be prudent to go with diablo because initiative or speed is usually the most important aspect in a turn base game. Lich king's attack will often come out last it would seem.
I think its more because the older players there have been doing this for a long time and wanted to move on to other stuff, because let's face it, pro players tend to grind this game for 8 hours or more per day and after years of doing so its kinda impossible for the game not to feel stale. I dont think losing your passion has anything to do with the grinding mindset, or the fact that GMs only lasts 14 weeks.
Newer players approach a hearthstone that feels fresh and exciting. Some players like Viper has been doing this for 6 years. If the older players feel they need to get away from the game, its entirely fair and expected.
There's no overhauling that can solve this puzzle. The Hearthstone esport scene/formatting has actually been overhauled for several times in the last few years, and if that didn't change anything, I doubt another overhaul will make any difference in sparking passion in those who gave up on the game.
Its amazing how this 4 minute video engaged and informed me more than the entirety of that 30 min stream they did about a month ago.
They tried that years ago with the trinity series (now sadly discontinued), global games, and hearthstone collegiate (which is on hold for obvious reasons).
Its not that they were unsuccessful, but clearly the number of views did not reflect what they were trying to achieve, and let's be honest here, hearthstone is a largely single player game. There is no team effort, and since the commentary is provided by casters (though not in trinity, which was what made it special), in what way do we have to show that the teams are actually functioning?
The sad reality is that hearthstone is not as big as csgo or LoL, and the tournaments tends to drag for hours on end. So its only ever to going to be interesting to a tiny minority of esport viewers.
Best thing they can do to boost esport relevance is to bring back smaller less formal cups like seatstory, where players do commentary and have fun. That was the reason why pavel is perhaps the most memorable of all the world champions.
It'll slow down the quest completion enough that its viable but gives enough room for a board to actually do something. Plus, that also adds another dimension to the deck's gameplan. You can draw, clear the board, or freeze, but it may not progress the quest so you cant just play blindly. In some games you can even sandbag them because all the cheap frost spells needs a target, and until then all the spells they're playing isn't going to do anything to progress the quest.
Sure, sometimes they just get all the cards they need and you just die, but it'll at least be a hell lot less consistent than it is now.
Quest mage's win rate according to hsreplay is over 55%. Granted I don't have a premium account so I can't give you a bigger picture, but its clear enough that quest mage is not a below 50% win rate deck. Its a polarizing deck that only really loses to either a burn end game or a combo faster than it can finish the quest, or a deck tailor made to beat it. To put simply, quest mage loses hard to some decks while unconditionally beating others and in my books that's not healthy for the meta. Outside of that, the deck is clearly being heavily played, and is highly resistant to tempo style decks, which is a fundamental part of the game. I can assure you quest mage is not a bad deck, unlike the earlier garrote shark rogue, which at very least require some skill to pull off.
If the devs cant figure this out, then Im at a loss. Because its been quite some time since I last had so little motivation to move up ranks.
On the love-hate thing. Well, that's something no one but blizz can answer because only they have the data to prove it. But looking at what little evidence we have clearly its not a well liked deck among a good portion of the community, and hardly anyone ever rises up to defend it, and Ive seen people defend face hunter and tickatus decks. You are right in pointing out that people are often more vocal about what they hate, but if there's more hate now than before (and that's what we have now), what would that in turn tells us?
In my opinion all they needed to do is to simply have the mage cast all three spells in one turn or it resets. That way they cant just clear and freeze everything and expect to still finish quest by turn 7. It'll also more or less remove ice barrier as an option, and playing cards like incanter's flow or board clears are at the expense of finishing the quest.
I like your suggestion. Though Im sure team5 will tell you that its too confusing to new players. It makes it harder to play stuff like Refreshing Spring Water, which is also why I think it'll absolutely just kill quest mage - and I can live very well with that.
I don't think its the case. Because after all, quest mage is still alive and kicking, and as far as standard is concerned that's basically one of the most hated deck right now. Face hunter is equally loathed for multiple expansions and yet never seems to get any nerfs (barring Kolkar Pack Runner). And of course, one of the most infamous example of a very much hated card with low win rates: Tickatus, which has gone through 2 expansions unchanged. Not that Im supporting devs to start nerfing cards whenever they hear an 8 yr old crying in the distance, but its fairly obvious that there's a more robust criteria for nerfing cards.
Play rate is probably a more important criteria, judging by previous q&a. Just about every card they nerfed so far in stormwind has something to do with that. Which might explain why garotte rogue wasn't really targetted the last 3 nerfs and yet Irebound Brute was.
On the subject; just nerf that bs Sorcerer's Gambit already. Quest mage remains one of the most played and is still one of the most played today even after that Incanter's Flow nerf. Can we please have a mage with a gameplan that doesn't involve casino dice rolling or being a mostly single-player experience?
Then I cant see why you're complaining because quest priest only farms these decks. Plus, quest priest is hardly a scourge of the current meta; you'll be lucky to even meet one.
If it makes you feel better, quest mage, which is currently one of the highest played deck in the meta, destroys quest priest with both hands tied behind its back. So if priest is making you feel miserable, you'll be glad to know its getting regularly destroyed whenever its played.