Not entirely sure how humungous it really is, but power creep is unavoidable, healthy and IMO required for a CCG to be successful.
The rules and mechanics of the game should heavily influence the direction of the power creep of course. I think Blizzard has failed in this regard. Not that I could do any better mind you. Hearthstone, as it’s designed, is virtually impossible to balance in the amount of time they have between sets.
In order to make profits, each set needs to heavily impact the new meta. It’s simply easier to test that the new stuff beats the old stuff than to try and make anything resembling a balanced game. I honestly don’t think games lasting fewer turns is a desired result of this method, just an occasional byproduct.
2 Likes
If we take the premise that power creep is snowballing expansion by expansion, isn’t there a point at which it destroys the game itself?
It doesn’t have to. As I said, the new cards/themes/mechanics just need to be able to beat the established. The easiest way is of course to just make better versions of existing stuff. This would of course snowball out of hand for any classes that are already doing very well. It’s dangerous to print great cards for classes that are on top. Even if those great cards are designed for different archetypes, they could easily slot into existing ones and anger many players.
The harder way is to design different archetypes that are as strong (if not stronger) than existing ones, but not so strong that they break the game. Many people complain that Blizzard abandons archetypes every expansion, in particular when they weren’t successful to begin with. IMO this is the correct design philosophy though. The mini set and patches should be used to buff any of the new archetypes that performed poorly. A new set should bring a new archetype to each class that behaves fairly differently and is capable of beating the previous one. Every deck has it’s weaknesses and it shouldn’t be impossible to design an archetype to take advantage of the previous ones.
How these new archetypes would fit together as a whole in a brand new meta though is more or less a crapshoot that can’t be easily predicted. When done well, the old archetypes aren’t abandoned either, because they will still be viable against plenty of other decks and the new meta takes shape.
Btw, does anyone else constantly misspell “Hearthstone” while typing? Almost every time I have to correct myself lol
1 Like
In theory, yes.
There are also other aspect to think about.
How many games have you seen surviving 10years and more?
Other aspect of the game can also be expanded, e.g. 40HP, armor, etc, etc.
The problem with ‘powercreep’ is the pace/amount of it being introduced, and how the dev balance it.
1 Like
Thanks for your insight. As for this, though, yes I misspell Hearthstone as Heathstone a lot, especially on my phone.
In a sense, yes. Is you changing for the better destroying your old self? I’d say it is. But in the sense of the mythos of the Phoenix.
It’s nostalgic over-attachment, identifying with the old for the comfort of familiarity, which makes people object to power creep. They fear the Phoenix’s flames, turning what they know to ash.
Yes. This is happening all of the time as cells die and new cells are born. Your analogy also seems to suggest that power creep is better. Or at least that Hearthstone has changed for the better. Maybe it has, but you’ll find many players that disagree.
I would say there’s a component of that, but not to disregard more constructive takes on Hearthstone now versus before.
It is better. But it’s not the same. The fundamental premise of the attack on power creep is that power level should remain at original levels. This premise isn’t defensible, so it’s falsely taken as axiomatic.
I think that’s a generalization. Players aren’t solely arguing that HS is worse now because it isn’t then.
Some are. Well, they might add some garnish, but a steak with parsley on the side is a steak.
Don’t make me invoke He Who Probably Shouldn’t Be Named (Anymore (Because He Left Months Ago)).
1 Like
Oh, and I didn’t mean to imply that change is always better. Change can be for the worse. But staying the same is never better, it’s just the same — well, not quite, because atrophy. The call of the better is what we follow into the unknown. Sometimes that works out. Sometimes it doesn’t.
Staying the same is better if you’re perfect! If perfection exists.
I edited my post a bit late. A shame, because I was anticipating a response that already came.
1 Like
Should add: the most inescapable atrophy is one of standards. Standards are themselves interdependent, subject to trillions of moving parts throughout the universe. Therefore, what it means to be perfect is itself a moving target; even if one could somehow grasp it for a fleeting instant, it would dart away in the next.
Like a Quidditch snitch. Let’s see how many posts with Harry Potter references I can make in this thread. 3 so far, kinda.