Interview; two expacs per year?!

[Gorgodeus]

Thats close to 300 cards a year if they keep pace with past ones.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is far less than the roughly 800-1000 MtG releases per year.

[Mormolyce]

So BRM/TGT/LOE will no longer be in Standard once 2017 hits?

Something like that. I'm still not 100% clear on exactly when they'll do the changeover but "Year of the Kraken" will include BRM, TGT, LoE and the "spring 2016" expansion.

So I presume the Year of the Kraken ends in early 2017 (maybe March?) at which time BRM, TGT and LoE cycle out. Then the Year of the ____ begins and will include the 2016 expansion(s?) plus the 2017 ones. So each expansion is around two years, overlapping two "Year of the"s.

I guess that means some get less time than others. LoE was released in Nov 2015 so it'll actually have more like a year/year and a half of relevance. If I'm right about that.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe it's because you are from Australia and aren't used to how greedy US companies are

Ahahahaha. Us poor ignorant Australians.

P.S. Of course companies care about making money. That's literally what they were invented to do.

[Nikkaszal]

I agree that the new format is good for the health of the game.

BUT

Maybe it's because you are from Australia and aren't used to how greedy US companies are or something, but the fact is, US corporations only care about money. If you think activision has anything other than money in mind when they make decisions you have blinders on.

I mean it's $2 USD for 5 cards that you probably already have, and when you disenchant them you get 1/4 of the value back in dust, it's specifically designed to be small transactions that you don't pay much attention to and a disenchanting method that doesn't feel rewarding enough so you keep turning back and saying "Ahh it's only $2 I'll buy it."

Oh you're absolutely right, you see I live outside of America and therefore I am a barbaric savage ignorant to the world. Please salute your flag to activate your Super Freedom Eagle form and educate this neanderthalic communist plebian about how Blizzard is greedily sucking up my money with a game I HAVE BEEN PLAYING EVERY DAY FOR FREE FOR YEARS

[Ravex]

I agree that the new format is good for the health of the game.

BUT

Maybe it's because you are from Australia and aren't used to how greedy US companies are or something, but the fact is, US corporations only care about money. If you think activision has anything other than money in mind when they make decisions you have blinders on.

I mean it's $2 USD for 5 cards that you probably already have, and when you disenchant them you get 1/4 of the value back in dust, it's specifically designed to be small transactions that you don't pay much attention to and a disenchanting method that doesn't feel rewarding enough so you keep turning back and saying "Ahh it's only $2 I'll buy it."

Those damn companies only existing to make money want to make money to continue existing.


THOSE GREEDY BASTARDS

[HisDudeness]

Oh you need it actually spelled out for you? Okay. Here it is:

The more cards that exist in a format of play, the harder it is to balance existing AND FUTURE cards.

You say "just balance" as if this is, for example, an RPG where one class is doing X% more damage than the others and needs a numbers tweak. This is a card game. There is not a single card that can be balanced in a vacuum; a change to a single card will not only affect it, but also interactions with other cards, whole decks, even whole classes.

With every new card added, this "balancing" difficulty widens. Say you get your dream wish and the game becomes magically balanced by changing a whole shit-ton of stuff - what happens when the next expac is released? Is everything still going to be "balanced" then? Fuck no. It would (a) either need to be looked at entirely AGAIN or (b) the new cards would have to be worthless so none of them get played to avoid upsetting your "balanced" game.

And this would continue forever.

Now from what I gather, you are of the opinion that cards should be CONTINUOUSLY changed to "balance" the game... even though you haven't really stated anywhere what you mean by balanced. Apart from that point in itself, even though HS is digital and COULD change cards every week, not only would this be a hideous amount of work involved but it would also make a complete shambles of the metagame. The meta needs to evolve naturally, which it does, as there is no one deck that beats everything. Strong threats come up, new decks come about to counter it, new decks come up to counter THAT, and so on and so on.

Standard does its own job of balancing the game. By thinning the card pools, the developers are free to add newer cards that (a) don't have to worry about breaking or being broken by half the available selection and (b) can IN THEMSELVES BE APPROPRIATELY BALANCED BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT FORCED TO POWER CREEP ON EXISTING CARDS.

TL;DR - thinking you can wave a magic balance stick every week is laughable.

Oh no kidding? The more cards the more harder it gets to balance? You don't read well do you? I stated way earlier in this thread that I think the card release should be lowered. Nice try though. Onto your next absurd comment. You never played a game that requires balancing have you? Why do you think I used RTS's as an example. They are constantly being tweaked. Constantly! I'm not saying it becomes balanced after 1,2,3 or even 4 patches but showing that they are putting forth the effort do so shows they are trying. Heck, The RTS I did mention that was pretty much balanced after many years of tweaking was done by the players who played it. Not the actual designers. They ask me to come in and start balancing the game, Sure, until then screw that. I'm not going to waste my time on a game based on RNG where the future is nothing but RNG.

What you don't understand is when you balance the current game. You have something to go off of. You have a better understanding of what to release. You really don't understanding the balancing of games which is very clear. You just want new cards and this game to be straight up RNG luck fest as you have so oh clearly stated. Keep living in this bubble where you don't think this game can be balanced. It can be...easily. Just takes intelligence. And that, you lack.

- - - Updated - - -

Those damn companies only existing to make money want to make money to continue existing.


THOSE GREEDY BASTARDS

Can't even begin to reason with logic like this. Yes, I realize it's sarcasm but when a company is raking in billions and puts out shit games...cough HS/HOTS/Overwatch...they will plummet. Just wait. These shitty games will catch up to them.

[Nikkaszal]

Can't even begin to reason with logic like this. Yes, I realize it's sarcasm but when a company is raking in billions and puts out shit games...cough HS/HOTS/Overwatch...they will plummet. Just wait. These shitty games will catch up to them.

Holy shit... BenBos is possessing people now

[HisDudeness]

If you think HOTS and Overwatch are going to be incredible games..You have a lot of learning to do. Hots is TERRIBLE.

[deadman1]

Oh you're absolutely right, you see I live outside of America and therefore I am a barbaric savage ignorant to the world. Please salute your flag to activate your Super Freedom Eagle form and educate this neanderthalic communist plebian about how Blizzard is greedily sucking up my money with a game I HAVE BEEN PLAYING EVERY DAY FOR FREE FOR YEARS

I was actually talking shit about greedy american corporations and admiring the fact that other countries aren't as greedy and self centered.


Good job reading what you wanted to read and acting like a douche. I can't fathom being that biased against america that just hearing the word america sends you into a hate spiral like that.

I was saying they are greedy. Yes you can play it for free, BUT IT ISN'T AS EFFICIENT.

I now have negative zero respect for you.(yes I know negative zero isn't a real number) You are shameful.

PS - Welcome to my blocklist because I've never seen you post anything that wasn't painfully hostile.

- - - Updated - - -

Those damn companies only existing to make money want to make money to continue existing.


THOSE GREEDY BASTARDS

What?

They are greedy, everything is overvalued, they aren't just making money to operate, they are making money to drown in profits.

I'm not blaming them, I'd do the same probably, but it isn't exactly consumer friendly, also it's a hard counter to the point Nikkaszal made. For some reason he doesn't think that an American corporation is greedy. Nikkaszal doesn't think that activision is greedy, they are the most well know greed factories on this planet.

[Ravex]

I was actually talking shit about greedy american corporations and admiring the fact that other countries aren't as greedy and self centered.


Good job reading what you wanted to read and acting like a douche. I can't fathom being that biased against america that just hearing the word america sends you into a hate spiral like that.

I was saying they are greedy. Yes you can play it for free, BUT IT ISN'T AS EFFICIENT.

I now have negative zero respect for you.(yes I know negative zero isn't a real number) You are shameful.

PS - Welcome to my blocklist because I've never seen you post anything that wasn't painfully hostile.

- - - Updated - - -



What?

They are greedy, everything is overvalued, they aren't just making money to operate, they are making money to drown in profits.

I'm not blaming them, I'd do the same probably, but it isn't exactly consumer friendly, also it's a hard counter to the point Nikkaszal made. For some reason he doesn't think that an American corporation is greedy. Nikkaszal doesn't think that activision is greedy, they are the most well know greed factories on this planet.

Still not greedy.

If people still bought packs at 5 bucks, not greedy, if they bought it at 10, not greedy, 100? STILL not greedy.

The consumer decides the price what items will be bought and sold for.

Why do you think we have never seen another skin pack? We decided they were trying to charge too much money.

However packs have never changed in price besides a sale.

Think about it.

- - - Updated - - -

If you think HOTS and Overwatch are going to be incredible games..You have a lot of learning to do. Hots is TERRIBLE.

Do you listen to Linkin Park by any chance?

[Nikkaszal]

I now have negative zero respect for you.(yes I know negative zero isn't a real number) You are shameful.

PS - Welcome to my blocklist because I've never seen you post anything that wasn't painfully hostile.

Oh god... you can't mean that. Please tell me it isn't true. I'm so sorry, I don't know how I'm ever going to go on with this dishonour hanging over my head like a cloud

[Deleted]

Well they also said 1 expansion a year for wow. You know how that turned out

[rda]

Well they also said 1 expansion a year for wow. You know how that turned out

Nah, in the case of HS they will deliver, because it's pretty easy to stamp out cards with flashy effects and they get to charge money for that.

They'd do an expansion a month if they thought people would keep buying.

[Nikkaszal]

Well they also said 1 expansion a year for wow. You know how that turned out

Well they're on track so far. First year with new cards saw an Adventure and an expansion. Second year saw two Adventures and an expansion. Soooo...

[HisDudeness]

Yeah, I really liked this song back in the day. It was the name of my first WoW character also like 7-8 years ago. And yes, They will keep releasing expansions and adventures. It doesn't require much from them to do this.

[Mormolyce]

Can't even begin to reason with logic like this. Yes, I realize it's sarcasm but when a company is raking in billions and puts out shit games...cough HS/HOTS/Overwatch...they will plummet. Just wait. These shitty games will catch up to them.

Hearthstone generates $20m a month according to this old estimate.

http://gamerant.com/heartstone-profit-monthly-900/

That's more than Dota 2, apparently.

So yeah I'm sure Blizzard is about to go down in flames because you don't like them.

- - - Updated - - -

Well they also said 1 expansion a year for wow. You know how that turned out

I'm fucking glad they didn't go through with that.

- - - Updated - - -

I now have negative zero respect for you.(yes I know negative zero isn't a real number) You are shameful.

Negative zero is a real number.

-0 = 0

[Deleted]

Oh no kidding? The more cards the more harder it gets to balance? You don't read well do you? I stated way earlier in this thread that I think the card release should be lowered. Nice try though. Onto your next absurd comment. You never played a game that requires balancing have you? Why do you think I used RTS's as an example. They are constantly being tweaked. Constantly! I'm not saying it becomes balanced after 1,2,3 or even 4 patches but showing that they are putting forth the effort do so shows they are trying. Heck, The RTS I did mention that was pretty much balanced after many years of tweaking was done by the players who played it. Not the actual designers. They ask me to come in and start balancing the game, Sure, until then screw that. I'm not going to waste my time on a game based on RNG where the future is nothing but RNG.

What you don't understand is when you balance the current game. You have something to go off of. You have a better understanding of what to release. You really don't understanding the balancing of games which is very clear. You just want new cards and this game to be straight up RNG luck fest as you have so oh clearly stated. Keep living in this bubble where you don't think this game can be balanced. It can be...easily. Just takes intelligence. And that, you lack.

Mmm, my instincts tell me not to argue with you because of the many, many ad hominem attacks you use, but I'll give it one try. I work as a CCG designer full-time and Nikkaszal explains the problem of card balance as well as a professional would. It is in fact a mathematical issue. Every single card added to the game affects the balance of the entire game. Every new card affects every existing card. A card that is previously deemed too weak can suddenly become too strong due to the addition of another card. Sometimes, these effects can be predicted, but the amount of side effects a change has is too big to be handled by any human or even machine. Card games are that complex.

You compare with RTS games. Not necessarily a bad comparison, but I think you're being too simple about it. Most RTS games (take SC2 for example) only add a few new units and mechanics with their expansions. Card games add hundreds of cards every year. Imagine having to keep SC2 balanced if you'd add 100 new units with every expansion. If you add in the expectation that every unit would have to remain balanced... well, that's simply not possible.

I take it that your definition of balance is that each card in HS has to see a decent amount of play in order to call it balanced. That is not feasible for a game with hundreds (or even thousands) of cards. As a side-note: it's not even what developers strive for. This is subjective, but the general opinion is that the charm of these card games is that the community gets to dig for powerful combinations of cards. Between releases the community engages in a competition to create the best decks. Often developers implement cards that don't seem powerful (not even to them) knowing that there's a good chance their mechanic will find a good place in some future decks.

Off-topic: try to contain your anger. Filling your posts with ad hominem attacks won't make them very useful. Stay on target, don't repeat yourself and give examples to strengthen your points. And don't listen to the voice in the back of your head that urges you to not change your own opinion. We all have it, but it's counterproductive to give in to it.

[rda]

^^ I don't know why you wrote all this. Your opponent *agrees* that more cards are harder to balance than fewer cards, that's obvious. His point is that Blizzard do very little to balance the game despite having unique possibilities to do so from being digital, and that this shuffling out some cards in favor of others is not much at all, the root of the problem isn't that (and that shuffling out is really just Blizzard wanting people to keep needing and buying new cards more than anything else).

[Deleted]

^^ I don't know why you wrote all this. Your opponent *agrees* that more cards are harder to balance than fewer cards, that's obvious. His point is that Blizzard do very little to balance the game despite having unique possibilities to do so from being digital, and that this shuffling out some cards in favor of others is not much at all, the root of the problem isn't that (and that shuffling out is really just Blizzard wanting people to keep needing and buying new cards more than anything else).

I'm not just saying balancing becomes harder the more cards there are. The message is that, at the numbers that are normal for a CCG (and we're at that point already) trying to keep every card viable at every moment in time is impossible. It has nothing to do with laziness or greed. It really is as close to impossible as things get in game development.

I tried to point out that balancing cards after their release, although possible in a digital game, doesn't work. It'd require you to re-balance the entire game every time content is released. A single card is often all it takes for a whole bunch of others to go from weak to strong. When a whole lot of cards are currently not being played, that doesn't mean the CCG is unbalanced.

I agree that cards like Doctor Boom should be nerfed. Cards that are basically an auto-include in every deck without any counter available in the meta are really harmful to the game. The problem with Doctor Boom is that it provides a huge bang for your buck without a clear counter. Nerfing it would've been easy and good for the health of the game.

However, I strongly disagree that re-balancing the game should be a main focus. In general it's no problem when cards are deemed too weak. Those cards will likely have a place in future expansions. Cards that are way too strong are a big problem, especially if they are powerful on their own rather than in a specific deck. Those are cards that can and should be tweaked.

[rda]

I'm not just saying balancing becomes harder the more cards there are. The message is that, at the numbers that are normal for a CCG (and we're at that point already) trying to keep every card viable at every moment in time is impossible. It has nothing to do with laziness or greed. It really is as close to impossible as things get in game development.

I tried to point out that balancing cards after their release, although possible in a digital game, doesn't work. It'd require you to re-balance the entire game every time content is released. A single card is often all it takes for a whole bunch of others to go from weak to strong. When a whole lot of cards are currently not being played, that doesn't mean the CCG is unbalanced.

I agree that cards like Doctor Boom should be nerfed. Cards that are basically an auto-include in every deck without any counter available in the meta are really harmful to the game. The problem with Doctor Boom is that it provides a huge bang for your buck without a clear counter. Nerfing it would've been easy and good for the health of the game.

However, I strongly disagree that re-balancing the game should be a main focus. In general it's no problem when cards are deemed too weak. Those cards will likely have a place in future expansions. Cards that are way too strong are a big problem, especially if they are powerful on their own rather than in a specific deck. Those are cards that can and should be tweaked.

Keeping every card viable with current numbers is infeasible, not impossible. Thankfully, no one is asking for keeping every card viable, people are asking to keep more cards viable. This is obviously possible and degrees of it are feasible. (Now, I don't know whether the game would be served better by working on balance or by working on something else. Frankly, I don't care. It isn't my game, it is theirs. All I am saying that current balance is abysmal and I would welcome better balance. Whether or not they do it is their choice entirely.)

You say that balancing cards after release doesn't work. This is a nice blanket statement, I don't see you elaborating why. I mean I get that changing one card might lead to having to change other cards, so what? that's the case for many games, not just card games, they manage. Many companies do a much better job at balance - in the presence of this scary "one piece of the puzzle affecting many others" thing - than Blizzard, eg, balance in LoL is miles ahead of balance in HotS (I am trying to keep within the same genre, if you want something comparable to HS, you'd have to ask others for examples). I disagree with the statement that balancing cards after release doesn't work completely.

/shrug

[Deleted]

Keeping every card viable with current numbers is infeasible, not impossible. Thankfully, no one is asking for keeping every card viable, people are asking to keep more cards viable. This is obviously possible and degrees of it are feasible. (Now, I don't know whether the game would be served better by working on balance or by working on something else. Frankly, I don't care. It isn't my game, it is theirs. All I am saying that current balance is abysmal and I would welcome better balance. Whether or not they do it is their choice entirely.)

You say that balancing cards after release doesn't work. This is a nice blanket statement, I don't see you elaborating why. I mean I get that changing one card might lead to having to change other cards, so what? that's the case for many games, not just card games, they manage. Many companies do a much better job at balance - in the presence of this scary "one piece of the puzzle affecting many others" thing - than Blizzard, eg, balance in LoL is miles ahead of balance in HotS (I am trying to keep within the same genre, if you want something comparable to HS, you'd have to ask others for examples). I disagree with the statement that balancing cards after release doesn't work completely.

/shrug

You can balance some cards for sure. Especially cards that are very strong by themselves. Doctor Boom is the prime example again. There are cards similar to that that could've been balanced, but honestly not a lot. Getting those few cards balanced would likely have made HS balance a lot better, but saying things would be much better after such a balance patch is as much a blanket statement as the other way around. It takes weeks for the new meta to sink in and making balance changes is very tough.

League is a rather good comparison. It has the same numbers problem where every added champion can interact with every other champion in the pool, causing the need to constantly rebalance all champions and items to keep the game healthy. Riot does a very good job at that. Still, it's much easier balancing those champions because their kits are mostly rather generic. For example, in Hearthstone you may see a card added that buffs all units with +1 Attack (including summoned tokens) which can be hugely impactful on cards that cause small tokens to spawn. In League you won't quickly see a champion who buffs the damage of all minions and summoned creatures by 20%, because they know that would cause players to stack minion controlling champions and minion buffing champions. In League the abilities are rather standalone (each champion has some personal movement / damage / cc / sustain / etc.). The danger of kits that focus on support is visible in champions like Thresh, Tahm Kench and Kalista, but luckily the impact of tiny (5 man) teams can be overseen. There's a lot of wiggle room for balance in their numbers too (335 to 330 movement speed changes are not a rare sight).

In a CCG (HS is nothing special here) things get out of hand way more quickly. Even when you stick to rather boring vanilla cards, things can get out of hand quickly. I think a good example would be the Shielded Minibot. It's almost impossible to balance a 2/2 Divine Shield unit when it is deemed too powerful. You cannot take 1 off its health or attack or it likely becomes too weak. Changing Mana cost is even more impactful, because that moves the card to an entirely different category. You'd basically be removing the old card and introducing a similar new one.

In the end I think we can agree to disagree on most of this. I agree that Blizzard should balance some of the more problematic cards, but I respect their choice to be strict and instead just say: "It's our goal not to balance cards unless absolutely necessary." Different companies, different philosophies. And hey... HS is at 40 million accounts? They're doing something right!