Some years ago before the release of DH, Ben Brode answered a question about additional classes and why it was a bad idea.
I wish I could find that conversation, as he was right about almost everything.
The new classes have killed design space and fundamentally destroyed what was a mathematically balanced game philosophy.
Three basic playstyles. Aggro/ control /midrange
Nine classes with three variations each.
3x3x3.
Mathematically elegant. Far easier to balance while affording some creativity between the three aggro decks, the three control decks, the three midrange decks.
Not now. All of that has been destroyed by Blizzard in the never ending race to the bottom of your wallet.
There are only three types of play, so I’m not sure what you mean.
Aggro/ control/ midrange.
Tempo and combo are merely variations on the other three, and not actual distinctions.
Filling up the game with more content only duplicates what already exists.
Superfluous and game choking.
Vicious Syndicate put forward in a podcast a long time ago that there were only two fundamental theories in Hearthstone; Tempo driven decks and Resource driven decks. Everything lies somewhere on the sliding scale of Tempo to Resource. Anywhere from a true face deck (something like Face Hunter) to a true attrition deck (Elysiana Control Warrior).
Everything is pretty muddled in this regard right now, too. You might note that, right now, the peak Tempo deck is Miracle Rogue and the peak Resource deck is… also Miracle Rogue. Tempo decks that never run out of cards never allow the opponent to turn the corner and get back in the game. It’s the type of deck like the original design team was afraid would result from Priest being given good Tempo. They just get ahead and stay ahead because they never run out of resources.
Rogue situated as it is (and this could be any class, it’s just Rogue right now) means you have to be at least this fast to compete or have at least this many resources to compete. Many classes have been driven off the board entirely. I think the big failing of Unholy DK is that it lacks good resource generation (be it random cards or draw). It’s trying to play a fair Aggro deck in a toxic meta.
The more I watch streamers queue into Miracle Rogue, the more absurd it becomes. Rogues are consistently putting up boards on turn 3 stronger than any Beast Hunter could put up on that turn and they’ve been the gold standard for curvestone since the beginning. Streamers keep asking themselves out loud why they are facing this crap over and over again, and it’s pretty clear that Rogue is currently getting to play an entirely differently constrained version of hearthstone where they just plop stuff for free early and send it to the dome free of consequence.
I think there are risks with introducing a new class, sure. But I think DK is fine.
I think DH in general isn’t as well designed for the types of decks they’re trying to push with it (like Relics). They keep trying to force value-based Rogue and Hunter too, which doesn’t really make sense.
I think this is interesting, but what about aggro decks? Like face hunter. Those don’t play for either. They’re not looking for tempo, and they’re not looking for value.
In terms of this specific design element, yes. The game is just designed differently, but excessive value/tempo isn’t really a thing, and there’s a lot of disruption.
One could argue it’s a variation on control, but that isn’t strictly accurate.
Math is math. Only when you get people saying 2+2=5 does it approach lunacy.
if only…
Days without runestones (the failed multi currency system from HoTS) and p2w bgs were better days for everyone. The amount of predatory monetization now is insane.
The only option is to add Monk to even things out.
So do I. After spending a couple of hours searching, all I could find from BB on new classes is in here:
"Seeing a new “hero that isn’t cosmetic” is unlikely. This is because “when you open a pack, there’s a higher chance that you’ll get a card you can’t use”
Nothing even remotely related to 9 classes, 3 archetypes, 3x3x3. Thats a theory I have only ever seen posted by you, that has never reflected any actual meta since the game launched in 2014.
I have been following the socials just as long as you Mall.
There is a point where you do what is best for your product and its sustainability. I can think of quite a few examples of customers wanting things that were detrimental or unreasonable.
Initiative is a better term (i.e. the person doing things, rather than the person reacting to the player doing things). But tempo is pretty clear. It’s basically just having more options than your opponent does. More stats on the board, more active cards in your hand that can do things.