How many changes should Hearthstone have? And how often?

[Krazzorx]

I think one of the more controversial aspects about Hearthstone is balance and how it's accomplished and the speed of it.

While not talked about much, I think the decision to always keep the base set in standard is odd. It's very arbitrary. There's nothing really special about it in the sense of they did not design a polished set to be permanently in standard. While some cards certainly make sense to be permanently in it such as fireball or eviscerate as they are very basic but effective, when you get to many other cards it's hard to explain why they are permanent but others are moving out.

I think if you asked them, there would not be any attempt of a logical explanation of why x card is staying but y card is rotating out. You could do this with just about any legendary basically from the base set. And multiple other cards.

I would like to see it get at least 1 attempt of making it refined. I think adding some cards to the base set (Reno suggested a lot) is another possibility. Regardless, would like to see more effort put into it.

As for the speed of balance, outside of cases of extreme imbalance, they almost never actually nerf cards. And when they do, it takes months for that to happen. Is this the right way to go? Instead of saying "oh, it'll rotate out eventually", should they actually be proactive and nerf the card in a reasonable amount of time?

Coming from WoW (as I think most here play currently or in the past) I would like to see things get proactively nerfed more quickly when they see an overpowered card as WoW does. (Even WoW is slow but it's light speed compared to Hearthstone)

On paper id like to see some cards buffed but I think that's too risky.

[Deleted]

While not talked about much, I think the decision to always keep the base set in standard is odd. It's very arbitrary.

It is not arbitrary at all and has been explained before; the basic set provides a very important basis and character for each class. E.g fireballs and frostbolts for mages. They tell you a lot about the type of class it is and the basics are incredibly important for every deck for their respective classes. No matter what deck you build, you will have the basics to provide the foundation for your class.

The problem is that some classes have a really good basic set, while others have a really shitty set. Priest for instance is stuck with a lot of basic cards that are good for almost nothing, hence why it keeps struggling.

As for the speed of balance, outside of cases of extreme imbalance, they almost never actually nerf cards. And when they do, it takes months for that to happen. Is this the right way to go? Instead of saying "oh, it'll rotate out eventually", should they actually be proactive and nerf the card in a reasonable amount of time?

They should but I don't think they will. Blizzard seems quite content to let OP cards to rule the game and even in really severe cases they will only act reluctantly, and usually only when they are bringing out a new expansion.

[FobManX]

Ideally I'd like there to be some card rebalancing every expansion.

[Pantalaimon]

I completely agree that the classic set being the only set to stay in standard, as a whole, certainly has its patches of being arbitrary. For example, why do classes like mages or warriors get to have 3 damage 2 mana removal in their set of classic cards (FB & FWA), but warlocks having Darkbomb taken from GvG and added to classic is a bad idea?

You could also look at all of the terrible cards left in classic. Take Millhouse Manastorm, for one of many examples. I don't see cards of this caliber ever being a part of an competitve deck in any future meta, yet at least for the moment the cards are here to stay simply for the fact that it is a classic card. I get new players need to start somewhere and shouldn't just be given all of the best cards for each pack they get in classic, but I feel the game would be better off to replace the terrible cards in classic & replace them with more intentional and versatile cards to deck their place, cards that will actually see play in metas instead of cards that are basically taking up a card slot in the set.

As for the pace at which the game is balanced I'm fine with how it is. I am a strong advocate for new cards being printed in new sets, and for players to have to think about how to create new strategies, in order to combat difficult to beat decks as opposed to players constantly asking (or let's face it, demanding/expecting) nerfs to solve the problem for them. Sometimes Blizzard does need to intervene with a well thought out nerf (such as Yogg), but there has never been a single deck in any meta that couldn't be countered by one or more other decks. Nerfs aren't "needed" as often as the community thinks they are, and I'm glad Blizzard's philosophy doesn't automatically adopt the community's philosophy with everything.

You also need to consider the fact that Blizzard has a horrible rep for 'pendulum decisions', especially when it comes to nerfs. With the surprising and fair exception that was Yogg Blizzard generally doesn't tone down powerful cards so that they can be used in a more fair fashion, they simply zomgfacesmash them into oblivion so that they are broken, unplayable, and/or not recognizable as the cards they originally were. Do we really want faster balance passes in the game if it is going to turn cards into the Warsong Commanders and Ancient of Lores of the future, which then get funneled into Wild as garbage cards?

- - - Updated - - -

They should but I don't think they will. Blizzard seems quite content to let OP cards to rule the game and even in really severe cases they will only act reluctantly, and usually only when they are bringing out a new expansion.

The problem is that not every card that is complained about is OP and deserving of a nerf. Hearthstone is also a game with many players and many voices. Does that mean every complained about card should be nerfed? I certainly don't think so.

Take a look at Raging Worgen Warrior. It was a ridiculously easy deck to beat for many classes, and if you applied board pressure that baited out weapon & spell removal followed by a Defender of Argus tech you flat out won. Another complained about card is Ragnaros, yeah the card that gets progressively easier to play around when facing a big board. Is Rag OP? Not really. I feel that simply takes targeted heat from many players because they got salty/tilted that they lost an rng roll when Rag hit face instead of a minion and took the game. And that is a big problem with the community and how nerfs should happen. Overall, I can't stop thinking the community would start asking for nerfs to aggro cards, combo decks, and rng cards, not neccesarily because a card is or is not OP, but because of a player bias they have towards a certain style of play (ie the community cares more about dissolving archtypes they dislike more than making all of the deck archtypes win about as often as the other archtypes).

[Deleted]

The problem is that not every card that is complained about is OP and deserving of a nerf. Hearthstone is also a game with many players and many voices. Does that mean every complained about card should be nerfed?

No.

Take a look at Raging Worgen Warrior.

I have a better idea. Lets have a look at some of their nerfs, such as leeroy, warsong commander, or the buzzard; how long did it take for them to place nerfs on these cards? Simply way too long. Then, of course, we have cards that never got nerfed but likely should have, e.g dr. boom and the mysterious challenger. They didn't even create counters for the latter until it cycled out, but ironically nerfed the best general counter to boom, the BGH.

This is what I'm talking about; nerfs that take too long or nerfs that should happen but Blizzard is perfectly happy to give them a free reign, falling back to their favored mantra "we'll fix it in the next exp / cycle."

Pirates are another good example. They should not be this strong but Blizzard have admitted that they are okay with it, for the time being. Because, apparently, peoples' desire to play pirates justifies lopsided balance. Yet another example, how long did it take for them to give priests a pick-me-up? Waaaaay too long and it's still only going last until the upcoming cycle.

TL;DR Blizzard is simply too slow and too indecisive. Should every card that someone complains about be nerfed, of course not. But neither should they be scared into inaction, when there are real concerns. The HS meta isn't as delicate as SC2 or other serious e-sports; it won't break if they decide to make a change.

[Blueobelisk]

Theoretically there should be no changes if the devs balance each expansion correctly.

There aren't a lot of expansions in general, but they could do a balance patch at the beginning/end of each month (season) and it would be fine. Obviously not to rewrite all cards, but just minor tweeks to really bad cards/decks.

- - - Updated - - -

To clarify, I think at the end of every season they should look at what got played and say "This card was too strong, we're moving it to wild" or "we're changing the text of this card" or "we decided this card needs a counter so we're moving this old GVG card to standard".

It would make things more refreshing. Right now they just pump out an expansion and it gets stale really quickly.

[Mahourai]

- Cards should never, ever be altered after they are released. Degenerate cards can be removed from Standard via early rotation to Wild
- Only degenerate cards should be targeted for balance issues. Cards that are merely strong or ubiquitous should not be targeted
- The core set should either be eventually removed from standard or be edited to change its contents
- New expansions should be released more frequently. A large expansion every six months is too slow

[Violetti]

If history showed anything its every time the add/change something they make aggro even more retarded and stronger

might as well just stop doing more dmg to the game
thx

[Mahourai]

One of the weirdest concepts when discussing Hearthstone balance is the idea that aggro shouldn't be strong or dominant. Hearthstone is a game where the only permanents you can play are minions and weapons to attack and kill your opponent or his minions. If you don't like playing guys and attacking with them maybe this isn't the game for you.

[Kralljin]

One of the weirdest concepts when discussing Hearthstone balance is the idea that aggro shouldn't be strong or dominant. Hearthstone is a game where the only permanents you can play are minions and weapons to attack and kill your opponent or his minions. If you don't like playing guys and attacking with them maybe this isn't the game for you.

I think there's room between Smorc Meta and Hero Power => Pass Turns.

Currently we're at a point where Aggro Shaman / Pirate Warrior can finish games on turn 5 / 6 on a rather consistent basis, this is not fun if your mulligan basically tells you that you're not going to win this game.

[Mahourai]

Being able to finish the game on turn 5-6 if unopposed is not a mistake, it's essential to there being any healthy early-game decks at all.

[Kralljin]

Being able to finish the game on turn 5-6 if unopposed is not a mistake, it's essential to there being any healthy early-game decks at all.

Even if you have early game answers, these decks still crush you way too often.

Tech choices against aggro are too ineffective currently.

Aggro decks have a place in the Meta, but what is currently happening no longer falls under this category, the Meta has become even faster than Post Karazhan, and there Blizzard actually stepped in and Nerfed Aggro Shaman.

[Mahourai]

Blizzard's nerfs post-Kara were terrible, shortsighted, and largely led to the problem we have nowadays by dramatically reducing the power of all existing strong archetypes and hitting the wrong cards in Shaman. More frequent changes would simply generate even more problems.

If you want to play a slower deck, play Dragon Priest or Reno Mage or Control Warrior. They're all more than viable. Just don't expect every game to run at a speed you desire.

[Deleted]

One of the weirdest concepts when discussing Hearthstone balance is the idea that aggro shouldn't be strong or dominant. Hearthstone is a game where the only permanents you can play are minions and weapons to attack and kill your opponent or his minions. If you don't like playing guys and attacking with them maybe this isn't the game for you.

There is absolutely zero correlation between any of the above statements, and even less intelligible sense. Yes if one deck archetype becomes dominant, like aggro has since the beginning of hearthstone, that means the game is unbalanced. And no, playing "permanents" has nothing to do with anything. Talk about weird concepts indeed.

- - - Updated - - -

Just don't expect every game to run at a speed you desire.

Ohh don't worry, there is no danger of that happening any time soon.

[Mahourai]

And no, playing "permanents" has nothing to do with anything.

Of course it does. It means that almost all interaction is defined by minions attacking, and you can't get static effects like, say, Emperor Thaurissan's cost reduction, that aren't vulnerable to minion removal or attacks. This quite naturally leads games towards combat, and away from setting up combo victories or whatever.

It's an MTG term by the way, you can drop the scare quotes.

Yes if one deck archetype becomes dominant, like aggro has since the beginning of hearthstone

Well, it hasn't been. I mean I don't think it's controversial to assert that Patron (a combo deck) and Control Warrior were the best decks of their heyday.

[Deleted]

Of course it does. It means that almost all interaction is defined by minions attacking, and you can't get static effects like, say, Emperor Thaurissan's cost reduction, that aren't vulnerable to minion removal or attacks. This quite naturally leads games towards combat, and away from setting up combo victories or whatever.

No, it doesn't because nowhere near all interactions are limited to minions and they do not define combat. Huge range of gameplay occurs with spells, including many aggro decks. It would be a mind-numbingly boring game if that was not the case. And the notion that "if you don't like playing guys and attacking with them maybe this isn't the game for you" is ludicrous.

It's an MTG term by the way, you can drop the scare quotes.

I am aware of that. More to the point since it is not a Hearthstone term, I think I will keep my quotes.

Well, it hasn't been. I mean I don't think it's controversial to assert that Patron (a combo deck) and Control Warrior were the best decks of their heyday.

No but it is controversial to assert that the two are mutually exclusive; aggro has never stopped being a top strategy in Hearthstone, with or without patrons and control warriors. In fact, ironically, aggro was a descent response to patron warrior.