It’d be appreciated if y’all actually read my posts in full before replying. I know y’all don’t read that fast, and ya kinda missed the whole marketing angle.
I read quicker than you think.
If you want actual Blizzard insight, here’s the VS Podcast from last month that starts with an interview with Gallon.
https://www.vicioussyndicate.com/vs-data-reaper-podcast-episode-78/
I actually do read that fast.
I already said this, but you disagreed with me.
It can be both, honestly.
2 Likes
But it’s a minion that can be killed off, eliminating the disruption. Maybe it’s just the first spell on your opponent’s next turn is countered. Kind like cards that make spells cost 1 more next turn or the next spell costs 2 more. I think more access to spell disruption would be good.
That’s true. But if you look at the reasons they cited for eliminating OG Quest Rogue and the manner in which they did it, they are completely contradictory.
You mean whether they log off after facing a particular deck? That’s a terrible stat. It’s chock full of noise with very little signal. I would be surprised to find Blizzard saying they do this.
For instance, my #1 cause of turn 1 or 2 concedes is not that my opponent frustrates me. It’s either that I just noticed the time and have to go, or I just noticed my phone battery is below 4%.
Your experiences are typical, but everyone else’s are not. Got it.
Say all you want in regards to your opinion. I’m just giving examples of the kind of information Blizz has access to in regards to customer engagement and play patterns.
Go listen to Gallon if you want to disagree.
3 Likes
I’m not saying my experiences are typical. I’m saying that my experiences would cause noise in the statistic being measured. It’s a gigantic leap of logic to assume early concedes and logoffs are an indicator of player frustration. It’s also a gigantic leap of logic to assume that early concedes and logoffs are an indicator of playing before going to work and losing track of the time. There are just so many things that can cause this that it means nothing.
I didn’t mean to start a controversy, guys. I asked questions and you answered them. I’m satisfied with the answers.
I appreciate you guys taking the time to try and educate the old man:)
Jeez, gimme a minute. This man can only listen to one podcast at a time, but yours is on deck.
that you’re as in tune with the game as the people who create and develop it.
2 Likes
And if you can parse that information to find what percentage of ended sessions are in relation to particular decks (assuming with relative confidence that there’s a fairly even dispersion of your above-described logoff reasons) then you can still put together a fairly clear picture of player sentiment through game engagement, not social media.
This is just surface stuff that I’m talking about, too. They have access to everything.
1 Like
They can be more in tune than me regarding their business interests, but their business interests are not necessarily current player interests — not necessarily our interests.
Their business interests are maximum player engagement, laid out by broadening Hearthstone to a platform instead of just traditional CCG (and as someone who dislikes BGs, I can still respect that it’s been a rampant success for the brand) further elaborated on by Ben on his Angry Chicken farewell interview where he discusses that they want to design HS to be a game that existing players can continue to jump back into on a perennial basis, creating a sense of retention despite breaks rather than just attempting to munch up as much market share as possible, as quickly as possible.
2 Likes
Scrotie… are you really that decided to fight a match so obviously lost?
Devs have mentioned they have data to support their decisions. No idea what data they are talking about. But that’s not the point.
There is one simple thing - HS is still up and running, it still generates profit, it keeps solid playerbase. So I guess their actions based on their data are actually working despite your subjective objections.
1 Like
Subjective? Nonsense. So far no one’s given any objective support for the other side, merely an appeal to authority. I’m planning on listening to one of those authorities to see if there’s anything objective there, which is going just a bit out of my way to steelman my opponents here.
Meanwhile, it is objective that popular decks are popular, meaning players like them — and if they’re not loved for high winrates, then that’s some genuine love. I have hard numbers.
1 Like
I’m not listening to it in Chrome for Android, because if I switch to anything else I lose audio. And they have a Spotify mirror but the most recent episode isn’t up yet. So you’ll have to wait for me to listen. Saturday, I think.
Really? Really? You are comparing varden to what is on average an 8/8 and can be done normally at least two more times after the first one is played. Huge huge huge difference there
This episode is from Feb 13. I use Google Podcasts to listen to their stuff.
Oh my bad. Gonna listen now.
1 Like