How do people keep missing the point when it comes to criticisms of card design?
It’s not a matter of win rates or how many people actually play the card. It’s a question of the mechanic itself and whether or not this is fun? Do we want the player winning the game with their decisions or do we want the card to win the game simply by being played or even just being in the deck?
This particular mechanic is irritating. The player does next to nothing to get a huge bonus usually by turn 5. The deck isn’t invincible or anything. It’s just more solitaire in an expansion that had too much of that
I’m not appealing to anyone. You thought the vast majority of people would say that Quest Hunter needs a nerf. I’m not so certain about that. Now, if you meant that the vast majority of people in this thread would say QH needs a nerf, well, that is probably true, but it’s also completely trivial.
Yes. In my opinion, a 54% win rate is not a problem. Do you think a 54% win rate is a problem?
The whole thread… the whole forum… is players sharing their opinions.
My facts are the win rate data for the deck. That’s the first thing I’d look at. Then we’d need to look a little deeper into win rates against different archetypes to make sure the deck isn’t like 90% vs control and 10% vs aggro.
No. What I’m saying is that I don’t think that a nerf is warranted just because a particular deck makes some players feel bad.
Ok… so here are what I think are all the points you are making and I will try to give my response:
That’s a good suggestion to how it could be nerfed and certainly making the reward HP cost 1 instead of 0 slows it dramatically, but why do you think it needs to be slowed?
Yes, but what makes you think it’s unbalanced? Is it the win rate? Because HSReplay shows it at around 54%, which I don’t think is unbalanced.
Just because devs decided it was appropriate for another quest card to be adjusted doesn’t automatically signify that it’s appropriate for this card.
Again, that’s a suggestion of how to nerf it, not a reason why to nerf.
We are in complete agreement here. But the key word there is “if”. And right now, I’ve seen nothing objective to suggest why Quest Hunter should be nerfed.
And there’s the disconnect. Win rates are completely objective. If a deck is winning 70% of games, it’s objectively too strong. If a deck is winning 50% of its games but goes 90% against control and 10% against aggro, it’s objectively too polarized. On the other hand, “whether this is fun” is completely subjective.
I understand. You find it irritating. Or some might say annoying or frustrating or even rage inducing. But those are feelings. I don’t think a deck should be nerfed based solely on if some players find it irritating.
No, far from it. It wins about 54% of its matches.
Quest hunter is highly annoying to me because you kind of have to pack tech cards to win against it reliably… well even with tech cards it’s iffy. I play Wild fyi.
Huh? I know the devs get to decide that. You know the ones who keep failing upwards because people who know what they’re doing keep leaving for other studios.
I’m saying that a good card game shouldn’t be dumbed down to the point that you don’t even need to worry about what your opponent is doing. You just complete your little quest and play every card as they’re drawn and win.
This reeks of a design philosophy that wants to make sure dumb people get to win too to keep them engaged and spending money
You are still misunderstanding me (or maybe you are intentionally being obtuse). I’m not the one claiming feelings should be a factor in design decisions. What I’m saying is that OTHER players are making the claim that the deck should be nerfed because they don’t like playing against it, because it’s annoying. Or irritating. Or frustrating. Those are feelings. And while feelings are perfectly valid, I don’t think they should be the primary driver of nerfs. I think win rate should. Win rate is objective. Feelings are subjective.
It’s the entire substance of your argument: “people want nerf, cuz feels bad man.” I put “muh feels” because I thought you could follow a conversation, and you did for several posts. Apparently that is no longer the case, or more likely you are intentionally being disingenuous when confronted with your dishonesty.
And of course we all know you’re being dishonest because you return to your “muh feels” spam with the rest of your post.
I went through every one of your posts to try to find where you explain WHY it should be nerfed. All I could find is suggestions for HOW it could be nerfed. I’ve seen many other posts that say the deck should be nerfed because it’s annoying or irritating or it’s not fun. Those are the one’s I’m referring to when I say nerfs shouldn’t be based primarily on feelings. If you (or anyone) has an objective reason to nerf the deck, please share it.
Then you would have found where I entered the discussion and why. You’re still so stuck in writing off everyone discussing the nerf as “muh feels” that you aren’t actually reading what they’re saying. Hence what I said earlier about taking a break from ranting about the people discussing the nerfs and actually reading through what people are saying. Not just me, but everyone else.
The fact that you still are stuck on “muh feels” shows you haven’t done that. The fact you think there aren’t object reasons posted in this thread show you aren’t reading any of these posts rationally. until you do, rational discourse with you is impossible, because you will keep spamming
“MUH FEELS”
and
“POST THINGS PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY POSTED BUT I REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE!”
I don’t entirely agree. There are times that some decks that just feel absolutely atrocious to play against, and that has led to nerfs in the past. Demon Seed is probably the easiest example that I can reach for at the moment, maybe the Tortollan mage deck with Potion of Illusion that just went virtually infinite being a second example. I think win rates should be the primary driver of nerfs for sure, but there are times when an interaction feels so bad that it should also be nerfed.
That said, I don’t feel that that’s the case with Questline Hunter.
No doubt about it. I happen to disagree with that design philosophy because it is subjective.
While I don’t like the idea of nerfs for interactions that feel bad, it seems the dev team is aligned with your view here where win rate should be the primary driver of nerfs, but on rare occasion, an interaction that feels bad might be cause for a nerf. I would disagree with it, but it’s their game.
I’ve read the thread multiple times. Please show me three completely OBJECTIVE reasons in this thread why quest hunter should be nerfed because I just cannot find them.
That’s a reasonable perspective to have. As you said, we’re free to disagree. Life would be boring if everyone agreed, after all. And I think when it comes to something like this kind of game, where every expansion tries something new and creative and different, there are going to be both hits and misses. And those opinions aren’t going to line up for everyone. Some things people love are going to be things that others hate (such as Tikatus, for example) . I do agree that objective measurements are best, but winrate isn’t always going to be the best measurement of average player enjoyment, and that’s why I personally think that some additional nerfs are warranted on occasion. Those interactions may not be frequent because of consistency issues attempting to perform the interaction (much like the difficulty OTK decks have performing their combo), but community feedback is one of the only ways they can address that. I will also note that not every community reaction leads to changes, and I agree with that as well; I think in many cases the team is also weighing in whether it’s functioning as designed, or if it breaks their design philosophy. For instance, Tikatus wasn’t nerfed, but Tortollan was, because the way it worked was counter to their intent. It’s not always going to line up with what players want; much like new mechanics, their approach to nerfs and buffs is going to be hit or miss as well.
At the end of the day, I don’t always agree with them, I don’t always trust them to make the right call, but I do sincerely believe they’re doing what they think is right. And for some players, that’s ultimately going to be why they leave. Unfortunately, that’s inevitable. It’s impossible to satisfy everyone, they can only do the best that they can.
Rarran just put up a video about the progression of Hearthstone and I think he made a lot of good points. The Ben Brode era broke major new ground that newer games are now iterating on (much like WoW iterated on the ground that games like EverQuest helped define), but people have rose colored glasses about the past. And Year of the Raven was just… weird. And the Ben Lee era has been move faster, take more chances, make more changes. I think that has definitely had its pros and cons. In many ways, some things are objectively better (duplicate protection, new/returning player decks/etc.), but for some people, subjectively worse. (And in the case of how they’ve handled Merc packs and excess coins, objectively worse.)
I think what brings me the most hope about the game as a whole is that Ben has stated that Year of the Hydra is going to be focused on improvements and stability rather than trying to launch major new systems. That’s overdue, imo. The problem with “move fast, break things, fix them as you go” is that you tend to just accumulate tech debt. Seeing them willing to invest the time and energy into paying that tech debt down? That’s what I really wanted to see, and what gives me the most hope for the future. But I also understand that not everyone will agree, and that doesn’t make them wrong, either.
People like to use rose colored glasses to defend the current indefensible practices of the present team to strawman and claim that fans of past iterations of the game never had issues. A simple internet archive search proves otherwise.
Literally introduces two major new systems, like dredge and colossal minions, and this is just right out the gate so far. They talk big, but have zero clue and only say what they think sounds good at the time.
Goes on to keep spamming same posts that prove otherwise.
I thought by major new systems he meant things like Achievements and the Rewards Track, not keywords.
There’s nothing in the thread offering an objective reason. And now you’re getting nasty. I’ve been willing to have a discussion on the issue but you seem to want to make this personal. I’m done with you. I’m sure you won’t be able to control yourself from having the last word, so go ahead, but I won’t be responding to you in this thread any further.
New keywords aren’t the kind of systems that I was referring to. System changes to me, and what I meant when I posted, would be things like the introduction of the Core set and retiring of the Classic and Basic sets, or new modes like Duels/Mercenaries/Classic. New keywords happen every expansion like clockwork and I don’t count that the same.
