Nuh-uh!
Am I doing this right? Did I just prove that toohfairy is real?
Because you’re saying that player feedback isn’t taken into account BECAUSE YOU SAY SO! And anyone who argues against it using facts and stats and stuff is WRONG BECAUSE YOU SAY SO!
Calling others ‘professors’ doesn’t make your baseless argument any more valid, you know.
There has never been a nerf purely based on player feedback and there’s never been a nerf that wouldn’t have happened without player feedback.
Purist and simplest form of the argument for you bud.
Proof? Where?
It made me wonder if they have some metric they look at, or just their general perception of player salt.
How do you figure? Perception is reality. And when a laarge majority of the player base makes the same claims… it probably has merit. I realize that the Blizz faithful and try-hards don like when their brutally overpowered/braindead decks get exposed but thats how it goes. They cling to “its all my skill” that gets wins but it isnt… its the stupid decks.
So, yeah… millions and millins of players cant be wrong. Sorry.
Perception isn’t reality.
Millions of people can be wrong. Its very possible. That’s not to suggest a million hearthstone players agree on anything.
Is it really that hard to believe that blizzard doesn’t care about what people think?
If there was something irksome for players to perceive, it could easily also be reflected in statistics. Just because statistics and perception are often misaligned, doesn’t mean they always are. For your reasoning to hold up, you’d have to show that statisical anomalies that didn’t bother players were the cause of nerfs. I.e., that they are necessary and sufficient.
I don’t know enough about the data in question here to say if you’re wrong or right, but that’s clearly the bar for what you’re trying to argue.
Also, your impression of what is and isn’t anomalous is a somewhat subjective perception.
For instance, highly polarized matchups are easily reflected in statistics, but the perception of them being unfair or bad is ultimately rooted in player sentiment.
Fiery Waraxe, Execute, and Mana Wyrm are 3 that come to mind immediately. They caught a lot of people off-guard, there are even meme’s about public opinion that druid should be nerfed over Mana wyrm.
Polarized match-ups were their reason for the nerfs. So I dont know how subjective the developers opinion is. It’s their game. It’s clearly a logical place to step in as well. Do you want to automatically lose or win a game? Why not just play a coin flipping simulator?
There is also a phenomenon I’ve noticed on these forums where people hear new words and terms from streamers or elsewhere… then use them incorrectly lol. “Design space”, “Oppressive”, “Polarized”, ect.
The forums were littered with threads about “Polarized” match-ups that werent after that nerf. Just more evidence player input is somewhat of an illusion.
Fair enough, we can at least say, then, that some nerfs are made without player perception of unfairness. Of course, proving someone didn’t do something (especially something as vague as “take player perception into account”) is pretty much impossible, so that’s probably the best we can do here, setting aside for the moment the contentious issue of whether some nerfs (shudderwock, etc) are driven by player perception of unfairness rather than some data-derived conclusion of the same.
Exactly the point, though. There’s nothing statisical unsound about a coin flip generator, providing it works properly (and if not, you nerf heads or tails). But it is boring, which is ultimately a player’s subjective impression. Same with a lopsided matchup, the reasons devs use that as their reason for nerfs is that players hate the feeling that a game is lost as soon as the queue into their opponent (which I gather is what you meant by the analogy to the coin flip). Player perception is what matters. They may have internalized that to a point that they just infer it from their data, but it doesn’t change why they are doing it.
The devs are always going to want to make the game that people enjoy playing, because that’s the best way to get people to spend money on the game and play it more and give the developers accolades and recommend it to their friends and whatnot. So that’s actually a pretty strong argument for them to be valuing people’s perception and nerfing accordingly.
So is your argument simply that player feedback on forums and the like is unimportant compared with staying within quantitatively derived boundaries that they’ve empirically determined maximize player enjoyment? Put another way, they know when a game is balanced for optimal fun/engagement/value and they don’t care what the forums say?
Why do you think Archivist was nerfed? It seems to me that was purely due to people complaining about the long matches. What do you reason was the real motivation?
Re the lingo. Yeah, the number of people that used infinite or exponential value to describe stuff that wasn’t makes it pretty clear not everyone has a firm grasp on the underlying meanings of the terms and are engaging in buzzwordry.
Polarizing seems pretty appropriate to me, though, in that it indicates an accumulation of some property (in this case, win-rate) around one of two options. Alternatively it could be like polarized sunglasses, I suppose, but that might still work.
Player perception matters. I agree, Though I still standby the statement that the player’s input does not matter. If they are taking input from anyone, its their internal testing teams or other developers, and they are more than likely only seeking that input after seeing a big data anomaly.
The game was developed before it had a player base. The game has values and standards. They have a very straight-forward way of applying nerfs. I can list a few trends that you can easily see from Blizzard.
This is what I’m saying. Yes. I respect a game company that doesnt bend down to pressure from its player-base honestly. Sometimes they are just flat out wrong and dont know what they want.
You have to make two assumptions that player input matters, in light that there has never been a nerf solely on a deck or card frustrating players.
If you know both of these to be false, then isn’t it obvious that player input doesn’t really matter? The changes are going to happen regardless. So how can it not be irrelevant ?
My understanding is that it made the tournament Warrior mirror matches really boring to watch… which is definitely a new frontier for them in terms of a reason to nerf something, but I get why they did it. Pro players take a long time to take turns, those matches were taking ages.
For first time in HS history I feel like it is hard to keep up with all the balance changes. I welcome it, keeps the game fresh.
Only concern is that mechs will be overly dominant since they are already on the upswing.
Those Paladin buffs have me a bit nervous.
I mean, I legitimately enjoy Mech Paladin. It was one of my favorite decks until the GI nerf killed my Divine Memeshield build, but seriously. Potential overkill.
Because a business have no reason to ignore people bringing in their revenue. Players don’t like them? There is a reason for them to apply nerf. Why BP is not nerf yet? Because they know wild isn’t their revenue driver and thus ignore wild way too much.
Still they did say in an official statement they do care about player perception and of cuz it’s super common sensical to do so. A good recent example is archivist. Is it broken? Nope. In fact is it even played much? Nope. Decks tt kills control warrior way earlier. Its just there for control shaman and warrior mirror. Why is it nerf? Because its super boring to play an he and get a draw out of it.
This needs to be said again. Customer feedback matters, but in many cases it should also be ignored. The customer isn’t always right. Sometimes the customer is a selfish, self-centered, self-destructive idiot who can (and should) be told to cram it sideways with walnuts.
Obviously there are cases where customer feedback is important. But this isn’t Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” we’re talking about here where companies are ignoring complaints about basic health and safety. This is a much less vital area of tiny degrees of consumer opinion. In many cases, customer feedback on this sort of level is counter-intuitive to good business practice.
Perception is not reality.
The Earth did not magically become a globe spontaneously because of Galileo.
I can’t think of a more ridiculous assertion lol.
Schrodinger’s Geology?
Galileo.
Collapser of the greatest culmination of wavefunctions ever recorded.
Yes it actually is. The meta is loaded with wanker decks and the OPs list is quite accurate. Those are actually facts and perception. Again, sorry you guys keep trying to spin it to your liking but it is what it is. The OP is dead on. Maybe they can fix the game? Oh…wait… too hard.
You make me laugh sometimes, lol.
Perceptions may agree with facts, but when they don’t perceptions are misleading while facts remain the accurate sources of truth.
Facts describe reality, perceptions are interpretations of it, and since perceptions can be misleading, they are in the best case redundant and in the worst case completely false.
You can perceive facts AND you can perceive falsities; therefor perceptions can not singularly be trusted to describe reality.
Riddle me this:
If I perceive Murloc priest in standard as the best deck in the game is it also the reality?
Not if my perception is that you don’t have such a perception.