It's fun topic Thursday, which is not a recurring column here, and that means we're going to be going over how insane it is that players of games don't understand the different roles within a game development team. Since the Mercenaries reveal earlier in the week, the Hearthstone community has been a bit of a cesspool when it comes to anger surrounding the mode and its "cash grab[ness]" (lol, no its not) and how other parts of the game suffered because of it (some truth, but not really).
Most importantly though, the developers deserve absolutely zero harassment. If you aren't having fun, find a new game to play! Life is way too short to be angry on the internet.
Misdirected Anger
When you walk into a restaurant and someone messes up your order, why on Earth would you begin yelling at the person cleaning the bathroom? In fact, you shouldn't even be yelling at anyone because that isn't going to accomplish much at all - unless you just want to ruin someone's day for something that was more than likely out of their control (this makes you a dick and your deck slots should be taken away). Add a touch of warmth to your complaint and you'll more than likely end up with better service as a result.
Give developers constructive feedback to let them know why you don't think something is good.
"Nerfing by 1 mana is shit"
vs
"I don't think 1 mana is going to be enough of a nerf, the class being targeted won't be slowed down much at all because..."
Its so depressing when players direct their frustrations toward the community team, stating they are wasting their time writing a funny tweet instead of balancing the game. To think for even a second that that one tweet, even if it did come from someone from the balance team, is responsible for cards not getting nerfed, that's the highest level of wrong that is possible. Or, when someone in there time off work is doing anything else outside of balancing the game. The entitlement is unreal.
Many have stated over the years that community teams are meant to be punching bags and that you should only get in that role if you can deal with it, and in a way, yes, those people are correct, but only because that has been a common thing they must engage with. Imagine how tiring it must feel to see that every single day firsthand when from the outside looking in, it already feels tiring seeing someone else write that in. Damn. Community Managers do not get enough love.
When a new mode is being developed, and folks don't like it for whatever reason and respond by saying "oh the mode looks like shit, this is why balance has been so bad", that enters the exact same territory. We've very clearly seen a reactive balance team from Blizzard during the development of Mercenaries, so why are people being so stupid about their comments? Some of the folks that are doing live balance are also responsible for upcoming constructed expansion content and we certainly haven't seen those slow down either due to Mercenaries... its almost like there are different teams within the Hearthstone team that are responsible for different things. What was that? That is indeed the case? Lightbulb Moment.
Yes, Some Stuff in Hearthstone is Neglected
Tavern Brawl. Oh my sweet summer child.
Mercenaries has unfortunately caused some slowdowns on the side of the live content team; This has previously been confirmed by Dean Ayala in his weekly Q&As where he has stated the mode became the main focus of the team. With Book of Heroes being done, Book of Mercenaries possibly still being worked on (if it isn't finished yet internally), and Mercenaries finally coming out soon, there is renewed hope for those that love to play Tavern Brawls and Duels. These two modes are a part of the live content team that has been hard at work on Mercenaries so yes, sometimes we do end up with rough spots on other modes, but its pretty clear that balance in the main constructed game isn't one of them.
Development is always going to be a list of priorities. I've never expected Tavern Brawl to be very high on that list, especially as Blizzard refines their live content model for the good of the game.
But Mom, Wild is Neglected Too!
You'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
I feel for Wild players, I really do. No one should feel neglected by the developers in a game, but the way that some of the very vocal players in the format are going about demands for changes are doing so the wrong way. The problem I see though is that Blizzard has always had a different vision for Wild from what the players want and we should set our expectations accordingly. They want to keep the format as close to the original printings of cards as possible and that's a completely valid strategy, it is their game at the end of the day and supporting the mode the same as Standard is not something that was intended from the very beginning.
Quote From A New Way to Play Wild Will Be Wild
Wild is our new name for the Hearthstone you already know, because it’ll be the format where anything can happen. While Standard puts a bright spotlight on recently released cards and brings a more balanced experience, when you queue up for Wild, you’ll be cozying up with the crazy fun of Hearthstone you’re already familiar with. Of course, as more and more cards are added over time, the wilder and more unpredictable Wild will be!
This post is from over 5 years ago, and I'm not saying its right to bring it up again because there have been so many things that have changed over the years in Hearthstone that Blizzard never really touched. Do you remember when we didn't receive many balance changes at all because they "want to make as few changes to cards as possible. We do feel really strongly about this."? These past two years make that statement look insane.
People change. Opinions change.
It is so comical when people bring up 10 year old information on somebody and act like they said it yesterday - see much of "cancel culture". There are plenty of really stupid things that I said many, many years ago that I definitely don't believe or did so to get a rise out of folks and I'm certain I'll do it again and reflect upon it in another 5 or 10 years and laugh about how stupid that was; This happens in games too, especially when the development team has changed so much over the past few years like we've seen in Hearthstone. Could the original creators of Hearthstone been a part of that problem? Were they inflexible because what they created was deemed perfection? It can be hard to "undo" the work that you've put into something, but another artist sees a different picture and begins to paint that instead.
With that said, Blizzard still has a similar stance on Wild with Dean recently stating the following.
Quote From Dean Ayala We don't intend for Wild to be Standard 2.0. I don't expect the philosophy around Wild balance to change in any drastic way going forward. We'll make light changes to major power outliers, we'll make major changes to extreme negative feeling gameplay archetypes.
Both of those things are just very subjective. To us, Warlock currently is on the edge power outlier and will probably see some further minor adjustment.
And guess what? Now Alec Dawson is further confirming that the current case [of Warlock] is clearing the bar of an extreme case of imbalance. We do get changes!
"But Flux, these aren't the changes I want. These changes won't do anything!"
Alright, and I think the extreme mana cheating in Hearthstone is absolutely not fun to play, but plenty of other players do like it. Plus, we don't even know what changes are going to happen, how can anyone say they aren't going to be enough?
I'm not saying that folks should find something else to play if they don't like the way Blizzard is handling Wild and their responses, because I know the team is extremely open to feedback despite saying they don't expect the philosophy to change, but damn, could we have some actual constructed conversations that don't involve "you're a shit developer" or "fuck Warlock"? Yeah, its frustrating and its a good idea to find a way to vent it, but this ain't it, champ.
I'm willing to open up the front page here to folks that want to start an actually constructive conversation about Wild. I would love to see Blizzard take a more hands-on approach to the format because there are tons of really cool cards that should get a chance to shine. There are a few different ideas that I've had regarding Wild over the years:
- Keep Wild as Wild - Make a new format that is Standard+Some Wild Sets+Banned Cards, rotate twice a year.
- Balance Wild, create a new format called Eternal with NO CARD CHANGES EVER. Much like Classic mode, unnerf everything.
If you are interested in starting that discussion and want to write intelligent, constructive walls of text, my messages are open.
Mercenaries
I'll take topics hotter than the Firelands for 500, Alex.
I don't think Blizzard did a great job with their Mercenaries stream. They clearly put a lot of work into it and they are very passionate about this new game but cramming everything that they did into a 30 minute stream didn't work out in my opinion. The game is very complicated when compared to base Hearthstone, we were getting information moving at the speed of light, and some visuals were up on screen for such short periods of time, you couldn't read half of it.
Mercenaries is its own game and it should have been treated like that. When Hearthstone was originally announced at PAX East 2013, we had an almost 40 minute presentation which gave a very high-level overview of the game and took us through a bit of slow gameplay. The base of Hearthstone is so much simpler, especially back in that day, so its almost crazy to think that the team wanted to give us a dive into Mercenaries in only 30 minutes. A longer stream with information coming out at a slower pace alongside an actual game within the mode would have made for a much better viewing experience. Instead, several blogs were posted, some with broken links to important pack information, during the show, which added more to the information overload which much of it was more fluffy than real substance.
And I get it.
We're still just over 5 weeks away from Mercenaries launching, which arrives on October 12, so there is still plenty of time to talk about the mode and maybe we'll even get to see a gameplay-focused stream with a couple of Blizzard folks having a back and forth as they talk about the game during play. The event just felt so strange! Hell, they even took some time during it to announce that there was a World of Warcraft promotion coming.
I believe this was a great learning experience for them and I hope they know that going forward they aren't just making a quick presentation to a generic gaming crowd to get them pumped up, but rather, actual Hearthstone players. We're talking folks that know a little bit about Mercenaries from previously released information so they could have taken their time and given us more thorough explanations - we'd have stuck around for another hour if it meant good content.
Also, on the subject of monetization, it was a huge, missed opportunity to better explain why those pack bundles exist. They are not the same as regular card packs and with them currently just sitting in the in-game shop, its intimidating. Why were we not presented with the pity timer information in the presentation? Rightfully so, some folks are concerned or angry about the high monetization of a mode we aren't even going to see for over a month; Blizzard could have done a better job by showcasing what the free-to-play players could expect as far as unlocks go. Can Mercenaries reliably be played F2P?
If Blizzard wanted to do a shorter stream, it is my opinion that we should have started out with gameplay mechanics and then done another stream closer to the mode coming out detailing systems. Moving the pre-orders to this later stream would also feel better from a player point of view because it wouldn't pollute the shop, which might be the most surprising part of all this, and my money wouldn't be tied up for 5 weeks without anything to show for it; It makes sense to pre-order expansions when you get stuff to play with immediately, this, not so much.
Personally, I think the mode looks like a lot of fun and it'll be something easy they can update over time which is awesome because Hearthstone needs more modes that you can add bits and pieces to on a shorter development cycle. Dropping in a few new Mercs or a few new bosses won't be as hard now that all the systems are in place. I can't wait to actually play it and form a proper opinion on it at that point in time.
Players Are Ruining the Game
I truly believe that the more angry folks get about stuff and the worse they handle it, the more Hearthstone, or any game, gets ruined.
Its so disappointing day after day to have to read the same commentary from folks. Many people can distance themselves from it, but those that want to talk about the game or those that are forced to follow conversations taking place everywhere in the community, its exhausting and it creates a really shitty atmosphere. We need more positivity or at least people being constructive when they want to say that something is bad.
There's one main reason I quit League of Legends after playing for many years; The toxic bullshit in-game.
Don't breed this same environment within the few places that discuss Hearthstone.
Thanks
<3
If you take only three things away from this post let it be:
- Developers don't deserve to be harassed.
- There are different teams of people within a game's development team. One working on something doesn't always neglect something else.
- We still need more information on Mercenaries.
A Challenge
Send a message to someone on a game team and tell them why you appreciate them. It could be the way they interact with the community or a feature you thought was really cool that you know they worked on. Do something positive! Hell, make it a weekly thing. Involve content creators because we know they get a ton of bullshit too and its not always just love. Leave a nice YouTube comment the next time you watch a great video, if you learned something in an article leave a comment thanking them,
Gaming sometimes feels like the ultimate thankless job when you consider how many people you encounter every single day.
Also, don't be a dick in-game.
Comments
Dude, I appreciate the work you put into this website, but this really is not a fair attitude towards players. I understand that you invest a lot of time and love into this and that it feels terrible if people are purely negative about your passion, but they genuinely have a point. Blaming "the players" honestly sends a wrong message.
Here's why players are justifiedly upset:
At a certain point we get bitter. If you hear our bitterness, that's not a criticism of you, @Fluxflashor. But you don't need to defend Blizzard.
tldr:
I created an account to leave this comment. Thank you!
This sentiment, that the dedicated player base, and the loudest prevailing attitudes within it, are one of the biggest problems the game has. Resonated deeply with me.
I love Hearthstone. I play it a lot. And I can never recommend it to friends. From some players in game taking every opportunity to be as rude as possible, to the biggest forum on the game, the main Hearthstone subreddit, generally being an insufferable cess pit, to every twitter thread and stream chat being filled with comments ranging from non-constructive to outright hateful.
The community is so toxic it often detracts from my enjoyment of the game. Every time I talk about the game to a friend I always have to add "but the community is awful" I hate having to give that warning and it makes every recommendation feel like a poisoned chalice
I logged in especially to say this - thanks Flux for voicing the community's thoughts so well.
As well thanks to the Hearthstone developers for doing such a great job. We might discover Mercenaries was abducted by Activision's finance team, but the developers still have probably the best of intentions.
I agree with the sentiment that a friendly atmosphere would be better... But my goodness, I can't help but think a post like this will do nothing but help it get worse.
"I believe this was a great learning experience for them"
Blizzard didn't learn from Diablo Immortal. So they don't learn about poor new game announcements. The people good at them left Blizzard a long time ago.
I agree with a number of these points but saying players are ruining the game doesn't sit well for me, I don't think that should be the shorthand for the toxic people harassing and attacking devs/others.
Would be better of if they don't use packs/lootboxes as income source. If they intended to make this like all mobile games, just sell coins directly. or unique characters. But they did still chose the lootbox which I think is bad for at first impression, since it totally makes the game sounds pay to win.
Why not let us test the game, and then later sell the bundle? If the game is good, players at least have reason to buy it. But to sell the bundle like this immediately make a very clear statement to the player that they want money first, goodies later. Also, people who want to spent it have to wait like a month before knowing exactly what they bought? That is bad marketing.
Personally, I doubt this mode would be popular, but since they make it part of Hearthstone, they have reason to believe that some players can be persuaded to like it.
Lastly, why must this mode instead of the mode that players have asked for years? Tournament mode for example. They have proved that they can make a new mode no matter hard by focusing people and resources into it, why not do it for Tournament first? Fact like this makes me questions their purpose of making games. Is it for them or us the players? They could've made some income by selling tickets to play tournament.
To be fair, we bring up years-old Hearthstone quotes to declare that we agree with them, which is the exact opposite to cancelling people over careless statements on social media that we disagree with. We agree that Hearthstone should be "fun and interactive", and are disappointed that the preponderance of face-damage spells, unstoppable early aggro boards, and game-ending quests has made the game less so.
Mercenaries looked cool but I'm just not a pre-order or cosmetic customer usually. I did look into them a bit and was shocked at the prices for sure. But I also know I don't have a real reference for what the value of these packs is. In Hearthstone I can at least judge from my previous pack purchases what I'd get. Mercenaries being a separate entity and giving out tokens has the consumers at a bit of a disadvantage. Overall with their pre-orders I'd love to see more choice. Their bundles are always these big $50-80 dollar things with lots of cosmetics. If they did a set of bundles at some point that was lower priced I think the community would appreciate it. I am sure there are people who can't drop that much that would maybe pitch in with bundles around $10-20 instead. Maybe I'm off but it seems strange to have the bundles all be so expensive. Mercenaries had 3 at 50. Why wasn't there a smaller starter bundle that's like 5 bucks for a few packs to get people hyped to have something to open? Just seems like a missed opportunity. I believe the previous "welcome" bundles for hearthstone did well. Maybe they are waiting until release to offer such things? Just think it's a missed opportunity not to offer more options.
As far as wild goes Stealer of Souls will be a problem forever under it's current printing. Just hands down it's a problem card. I love the idea and theme they went for. Think the effect is fun but without limits it's a problem.Sorcerer's Apprentice falls under the same category to me. Cards that just have static effects need limits. This is especially true for early game or low cost cards. Stealer needs something like "the first card you draw a turn" or similar because just leaving it opened as it is, people will break it. I actually like mana cheating and clever use of cards. I want there to be cool effects and powerful turns. The combination of making cards essentially free with warlocks many draw spells makes this effect too powerful to be open ended. They keep changing this card but hopefully they'll see they can't keep up with it. This is a good lesson on how mana cheat early or often is too powerful and ongoing effects need limitations.
During the time where Wild was mostly untouched and the dominating decks at the time were Odd Paladin, Rez Priest, Secret mage, and outliers here and there I created Explorer which was a Wild Format with a monthly rotation aimed at crippling the most prominent decks every month. I still believe it's a fun middle ground between Wild and Standard that no other CCG has ever done and could be fun for those who like building decks or those players have have a full/near full collection with cards that never get used in Wild. Anyway, onto the points you highlighted and I'll give my two cents.
I'm all for keeping Wild as Wild. I want my Warsong Commanders and my Dreadsteeds back to how they were when the released (yes, Molten Giant OTK Warrior). I want Wild to be a place where busted decks exists with all the other busted decks. What I don't want in Wild is mild moderation in some decks/classes while some decks/archetypes go untouched for years cough Big/Rez Priest cough. That's what Team 5 has been doing, mild moderation, which I personally don't like but I'm sure most, if not all Wild players, prefer this sort of balancing while keeping the spirit of Wild alive in their eyes.
If you know me, you know I'm an advocate for more introducing Constructed Formats, not Modes, into Hearthstone. That being said, I'm totally down for a mixed Format involving primarily Standard cards with some Wild sets included. What would Standard look like right now with Baku the Mooneater and Genn Greymane in the Stormwind meta? Would Odd Paladin be as polarizing as it was in the Year of the Raven? Would Dr. Boom, Mad Genius coupled with Raid the Docks change the meta at all? Or are the Deathknights able to hold their own in United in Stormwind? Wild keeps these decks from existing and with a "mild" format these ideas could be experimented upon.
If we go down the path of balancing Wild, choices and changes should be made with the intention of being impactful and encouraging a healthy meta that changes as much as the Standard meta does when new cards are released. It would be a disservice to balance the Format just for the top decks to still dominate the meta.
As for the Eternal Format, I'll advocate for this because busted decks should exist with other busted decks. Also, I'd call it the "Backroom" format and say it takes place in the Backroom of the tavern.
Yeah, I'd love nothing more than extra ways to play with our cards. I really don't know why they won't just add in an extra rotating format where they can constantly change which expansions are in it. Imagine a meta that would be tough to solve completely due to sets being rotated every month or two. Keep the newest 3 expansions in the format so they remain valuable.
For sure! A properly balanced Wild, although difficult, is going to need so many buffs as well. There are so damn many old cards that should be allowed to have a chance at seeing light but when they were originally printed, they weren't even good. I think that would help with bringing forward new decks quite a bit, more so than a round of nerfs on current content.
You could do special events/patches where they focus on certain parts of the game to dish those buffs out to. Rise of Mechs was a neat event, what if they did something similar where the mech-focused sets would get retuned so that they became more viable.
I wish that I could simply say they need to hire more folks. It's obvious that they need to produce more content - Wild needs balance/philosophy updates, Standard needs balance updates, Duels needs a reskin and new treasures, Tavern Brawl is stagnant, Arena hasn't been updated in years, the main menu and UI needs an overhaul - but I also know that hiring more people onto a team makes that team less cohesive. Hiring more folks isn't necessarily the right solution - with no experience, I don't know what is, re: hiring.
What I do know is that biting off a whole new game under these stressors was a bad idea. But that wasn't intentional! I haven't seen anyone mention this - because of COVID, their plans were moved back months. It's absolutely no wonder that the entire game feels unstable at the moment; they committed themselves to a promise at the absolute worst time, and they've suffered for it.
Because of Dean's words (no new modes for at least two years) and how frustrated they must be working internally on Mercenaries (if the announcement is anything to go by), there is hope. They've mentioned UI changes, Arena changes, a Duels overhaul - these two years will be when that all finally happens! Maybe a year from now we can look back and say, "Eh, it sucked for a bit, but we got a new mode and everything's fine now, so win-win?" Devs and teams are people too, and I imagine that they've learned their lesson when it comes to biting off large projects.
And re: players -- words are better listened to when the speaker is respected. There are plenty of ways to get your voice heard without being an ass.
Yeah, its a shame that there isn't a linear relationship between the number of members of the team and the amount of content going out. The larger it gets, the harder it is to get anything done. That's why its important to very slowly add people and make them productive members of the team instead of mass hiring, which they have definitely done in the past. Damn, Hearthstone was so messy in the start!
I'm excited to see the next 6 months of Hearthstone now that Mercenaries is going to be coming out. It'll really tell us what the next zodiac year is going to be like as far as content drops go. I'd love if they could give us a dive into what the team is prioritizing post-mercenaries. Like, is someone already starting to look at what new kind of brawls we could see or should we expect new heroes in Duels? It'll be a good question for the next Dean AMA.
Mercenaries was definitely more than they could chew though with their team size. Its so crazy how much content Hearthstone pumps out now. If you asked me 3 years ago if anything we've seen in the past couple was possible, I would have laughed. The game has come such a long way - I honestly wanted to give up on it before "Hearthstone 2.0" hit because I was just drained with nothing new and exciting happening.
Toxicity is always a problem in every online community and harassment isn't something tolerable. This time, however, i think the players have a lot of reasons to complain.
I think the developers made the right choice when it comes to the way they approach balance. Don't get me wrong, the game isn't in a very good state right now. But the situation isn't as bad as people say. This isn't a DH day 1 situation where an emergency patch was needed. The two week wait period is the right choice. Let the meta evolve and then let them deal with the power outliers.
The Mercenaries situation is a much more delicate matter. The showcase stream was bad but the preorder bundles were the worst possible thing they could have done. The prices are way too high for a game mode that isn't even available yet. People haven't been able to test the new mode and selling these preorders at such ludicrous price is pretty ridiculous. If there was an open beta period were people could play the mode and decide for themselves if it was worth it or not then it would be fine. But only showcasing small portions of gameplay isn't enough to justify this. Watching a game being played and playing the game yourself are completely different things. Battlegrounds was a success because it was in open beta the entire time. People didn't need to pay anything to test it. The monetization came later and it was mostly cosmetics (though i think that locking the extra hero choices behind the perks is bs). Mercenaries, however, started immediately living up to its name: it's clearly only focused on making money. So, criticizing this is more than fair, i'd say.
Players are always going to have lots of reasons to complain, they should do so though while being constructive. If you want to say something sucks, go for it, but tell people WHY it sucks. The why part of it matters so much to moving conversations forward. The devs don't want to talk to people who are just being negative and as the negativity compounds within the community, everything just feels like shit.
Let's see, nobody in his right mind is going to deliberately make a bad product to bring it to failure: it would be very stupid (and even more stupid would be that someone can come to think that this can happen).
Obviously they intend to make a "decent" game, the real problem is that they are so incompetent that they are damaging themselves, with their anodine decisions are killing the game they should save.
The very foolish are not aware that they are digging their own grave at every step they give. But what gives authentic cringe are those white knights coming to the rescue of the poor indie company, it's pathetic.
(For all the haters who shoot me full of negatives simply because I'm not whitewashing Bli$$ard as the rest: each negative of yours is an authentic honor, I am very proud of having a critical and nonconformist attitude and nothing makes me happier in the world than sulking a ridiculous fanboy. Thanks)
I love that you think your cookie-cutter, copy-and-pasted "criticism" qualifies as non-conformist. Keep drinking that haterade, man, because anyone still sticking dollar signs in company names truly comes across as a joke.
Maybe people aren't downvoting you because they disagree with you but because you are being a jerk.
As they say, if the situation around you always smells like crap... maybe check your own shoes first.