No joke, it quickly became a game of finding Brann. (1) It used to be a Reno game, now it’s a Brann search game. (2) Developers = Stone heads. When it was first released (no patch), the balance was right. (3) Just don’t do anything. Don’t touch it for no reason. The very initial version (early release without any modifications) was the best.
2 Likes
The company was sold to Activision ages ago and the skill dropped to 50%. Now it was-resold to Microsoft and I get it dropped to 25%.
You can literally hear better game design from players who play only for a month.
1 Like
I think it is a matter of thinking and mindset rather than a matter of technology. It’s been less than a year since I played this game, but it’s more of a puzzle game than a card game. Not a card game. It’s a puzzle game. They balance with manipulated draw cards and manipulated starting cards, 'every time the answer is already decided. The system was created in a way that simply creates situations that are difficult to answer to. Perhaps they think this is ‘smart’ and they think fun comes from this. But that’s not what fun is. True fun and ‘possibility’ comes from unpredictability. Unpredictability does not simply mean randomness or luck. It means a situation that the players on both sides did not expect. Of course, it is difficult, and that is why they cannot develop further and are selling themselves like prostitutes here and there. I’m sure the developers are probably 99.999% nerds. It’s not fun if more than 90% of the ‘correct answers’ are given when you pay a card. But they don’t know. Even if know it, it’s difficult to achieve balance like that. Appropriate users may be happy to solve ‘test papers with answers’. They too will soon get tired of it. Therefore, the meta flows in a way that overcomes ‘the above-mentioned tiring situation’. This is why their expectations are wrong. The reason developers don’t know is because they are the answerers.
Think I have to agree with this. There was lots of diversity. Demon hunter still would have needed a slight nerf because it was so far ahead of the pack, but other than that lots of deck choices. My favorite was Wheel Lock, which is now dead, like most decks.
From what I can tell, meta is basically Brann war and aggro hunter.
1 Like
100% agree with you. meta is Basically Brann war and aggro(spell) hunter.
1 Like
Ok. We’ve got a mini rock paper scissors now. While I don’t mind rock paper scissors, when it’s diverse, this just doesn’t feel that way. So, here’s the breakdown.
- Brann war is the best overall deck by miles, but it does have 1 weakness.
- Spell hunter stomps Brann war, but it’s the only one that does from what I’ve seen.
- So now, the war players are switching to anti spell hunter decks; seen some priest, shaman, and excavate lock decks that handle spell hunter pretty well.
- Once the these anti hunter decks drive the hunters away they’ll go back to Brann war.
No. I mean, I guess technically 0.1% of new players can, but most players in their first month are so incredibly bad. I’m not having a super high opinion of the devs here, I’m just sayin…
Yes and no. Piloting and constructing in Hearthstone specifically may need experience more than a month, but
a) one may be already experienced at noticing bad patterns of Dev behavior (e.g. I’m new but I know the company for decades from WoW
b) some are very experienced in other constructed games (e.g. some Hearthstone players rank fast if they were playing MTG for years)
c) they may have experiences you don’t have; e.g. some never f2p; I have more experience than them at how f2p is treated and designed.
The ability to spot problems has NOTHING to do with the ability to create solutions. You can notice bad behavior all day long and it doesn’t mean anything about your ability to do a better job in the devs’ shoes.
I’ll tell you a big example. Recently the Devs started telling us how they decided to nerf Reno and the like[or generally some OP(“no agency”) cards (because Reno also got buffed)]; some Players started praising them on how “they finally realized it” and how smart that is; but the Devs obviously knew and they did it on purpose for months if not years before they reached this point.
How do I know; I know the company and how it behaves for decades; they have this bizarre idea that they make the game “exciting” with “yo-yo imbalancing” (but I find it self-destructive (because it’s certain they see profits short-term (but they probably have losses long-term))).
I hypothesize that there are no losses for the strategy long-term and that you’d do exactly the same thing yourself if you were in their shoes.
It’s certain that’s what they may hypothesize too. But what’s more likely here: long term planning or short-term profits planning?
We know it’s a systemic problem across the entire field of multiple Industries for Share Holders to look only for the next 1 year.
No. I’m telling you that there is absolutely no significant long term drawback to the strategy. A small number of social media complainers like yourself is NOT significant. The vast majority simply consoom product then get excited for next product. Think how stupid the average person is, then realize half of gamers are stupider than that.
It is simply business best practice. If a business doesn’t do it, they are wrong.
That’s hard to prove when it’s very easy to prove that multiple Industries are pressured for profits for the next 1 year when they ignore even the next 4 years (before we go to “wild” ideas of planning for 10 years).
But I also see patterns that specifically deny the notion.
a) Some say “well the game will die anyway because it will become old”; nope we’re not in the 1990s anymore; video game tech can easily last for 20 years with very mild updates (especially since phones are much slower than PCs)
b) Some players often take big breaks before they re-evaluate what game to play; well if you have 10 card-games to play after the reevaluation you might start with another next time; that’s how some started playing HS too
c) Blizzard games after the Activision acquisition often have sudden drops in popularity; that is not easily explained by the World changing since the World has 10X more potential players now; maybe Microsoft will fix it.
Brann has been a problem ever since they launched it.
If up until now they had some issues playing it, now its just disgusting. Always wins. You cannot do anything against it now.
Also 4 in 5 games i play are against warrior.
Why is anyone shocked?
Way to be an a$$hat to the community you’re trying to be a part of.
Blizzard - please enable the Ignore option for accounts that are private.
1 Like
Agree.
All three nerfed Paladin cards are boring.
Zarimi is annoying to play 8 dragons.
Every nerf just makes it less fun to play.
No need for anything other than nerfs for outliers.
The players are not their babysitters. Point out is player right, and you have to eat your own food.
If it’s going to be rock paper scissor, how do you solve Brann?
Because if there isn’t a clear answer already, i don’t know what those people are doing.