The terrible reason why the popular is nerfed

The vast majority of Hearthstone players are under the effect of a particular delusion. They think that they can see everything they need to know just from the perspective of their deck queuing up against random opponents, but the truth is that this doesn’t even come close to being the case unless you have a giant collection and play with a wide variety of archetypes and play a lot. Unless you’re no-life AF you can’t know what’s overpowered by just playing the game.

Data aggregator websites are a much better indicator, because they look at thousands of games from the perspective of almost all deck archetypes.

So what do players do instead of realizing they can’t know? They presume that players gravitate towards the decks that win the most (completely disregarding whether they themselves gravitate towards those decks) and thus presume that the most popular decks are the most powerful ones. Of course, the truth is that some people gravitate towards decks because those decks win, some players gravitate towards decks for completely different reasons, and most players do a little bit of both.

Imagine, hypothetically, the best designed archetype ever. It would have two qualities:

  1. it would be appropriately powered, that is, having a winrate very close to 50% against the field as a whole, and
  2. players would love to build it and play as it, that is, it would be very popular.

Right now, according to those sensible standards, the best designed deck in the meta is Kazakusan Druid. It does fun things so players love it despite a winrate within 1% of 50%. But because of delusional thinking, players post replays of single games acting as if it’s proof that a deck is broken because your opponent had the joy of doing something awesome this one time.

The better designed a deck is, the more certain it is to have several threads complaining about it on these forums. Because of three reasons:

  1. the delusion that popularity means overpowered, and
  2. fun designs let decks do awesome things, which because of
  3. confirmation bias is interpreted as further evidence that the popular deck is overpowered when awesome happens.

There is an inmate psychological truth for humans: a single negative experience has as much impact as 5 positive experiences. Without self-awareness, players would need to have five times as much fun as their opponents to feel like they’re having as much fun as their opponents. As overall fun increases, this perceived inequality increases. It’s literally the case that the funner the game becomes, the more unfair it feels relative to how unfair it actually is.

There is no design solution to this problem that fits the business model of a trading card game. Enthusiasm for particular cards is rooted in how fun they are to play, not in how fun they are to play against. That enthusiasm for cards is what drives sales. I’m not trying to say that every fun design is appropriately powered — sometimes those cards actually cause decks to win too often. But if a design is both appropriately powered and fun, it’s going to both drive sales and cause a massive outcry on social media demanding it be nerfed.

Currently, Blizzard’s strategy is mostly to listen to that outcry. But this is ultimately a bait and switch sales tactic. It’s punishing players for being attracted to fun cards.

What’s the alternative? Ultimately, it’s not one that Blizzard can implement. If the community doesn’t change, this kind of bait and switch is the best and only way to sell packs — they have no other option given the market. But if the customer base developed some good sportsmanship, things would be different. By “develop good sportsmanship” I mean: be aware of the natural inclination to view one negative experience with equal weight as five positive experiences, understand how selfish this inate desire is, and endeavor to fight this inclination to find inner peace with a balanced one positive experience per one negative experience. Part of the way you can do this is to share in your opponent’s fun when they have a spectacular win. That’s being a good sport.

Nothing is forcing you to be a good sport. I certainly can’t. But as a community, we can’t blame Blizzard for designing like this if are going to keep acting the way we have been acting.

3 Likes

lol… shilling mediocre 50% win rates…

Yes guys being average and barely winning half your games is something to strive for…

BS.

1 Like

I don’t have any problem with players who seek to exploit weaknesses in game design to achieve overpowered builds (for this or other games), or who do so successfully. I consider that one of many valid ways to have fun with a game. But I think a lot of that fun is in the journey more than the destination, and for players who aren’t all about winrate maximization there can be a detrimental effect on fun for being drawn to an archetype purely for its winrate. Blizzard should nerf decks that win significantly more than average, and buff decks that win significantly less than average.

1 Like

This is the only part of your topic that I’m not sure about. Blizzard being in ultimate control of their game and the decisions implemented into it are on Blizzard. Blizzard listening to what is likely the minority of players whining may not be the best way to balance Hearthstone – even in terms of profit. Albeit, we don’t have all of the information that Blizzard does have regarding profit made.

Do you have any experience with other CCGs? Is this also how they function?

I’d like to add that I believe the lack of any social interaction, aside from silly emotes, might help lead to this inability to have fun alongside your opponent, whether they or you win. Other games I’ve played that allow for social interaction allow for far more fun when losing.

1 Like

If they’re the majority of the voices, it’s still a problem even if they’re the minority of the players. Back In The Day™ we had an industry for reviewing products for pretty much every industry of products, and technically we still do… but now those reviewers are much more at the mercy of the terminally online, as far as their business models go. And any game developer needs to take the reviews of its product that people have ready access too as a key element of its marketing.

The prominent online influencer reviews tend towards an aggregate of the reviews of their followers, and the prominent online influencer reviews drive people who aren’t even playing Hearthstone to come (back) to the game or not. This can’t be looked at purely in terms of current playerbase, but also potential playerbase.

Blizzard has come out several times now and highlighted decks that surpassed many others in winrate but were criminally underplayed for whatever reason.

Man I really miss Tian Ding giving us direct, first-party insight into some of this stuff. It was funny to find something that was actually busted but handwaved by the community, or legitimately mediocre but overpopulated.

5 Likes

That is a lot of words that can be summarized in “I don’t know anything about good game design”. Kazakusan is not good game design. A single card warping the meta is bad.

5 Likes

Yes but it sells packs.

Just wait till the sales slow down a bit then its okay to nerf…

Wait… that sounds horrid…

1 Like

I agree. Kazakusan is an awesome design imo. The nerf didn’t really hurt the card much but there are way more bs decks out there #KazakusanPride

1 Like

That’s still plenty possible, it’s just that the data comes from other channels. And if third parties are doing it anyway, it makes sense to no longer commit the resources.

Sure, but that data (often via HSR if you’re trying to be as current as possible) can get muddied by how poorly they parse for over-too-early matches, leading decks winrates to often get inflated to a degree by not including losses thay should’ve been recorded under a particular archetype’s performance.

Blizz can much more easily weed this out, as they know immediately what both players’ full decklists were.

2 Likes

“Awesome design”. It’s horrible from a balance standpoint, it’s horrible from a powerlevel standpoint, it’s horrible from a skill-level standpoint.

2 Likes

If HSR got its act together, it could go from being a bit of a joke to making ridiculous money off subscriptions. In a way it’s sad how much better VS is able to interpret what’s essentially the same data pool (both grab from HSReplay’s Hearthstone Deck Tracker).

All of the empirical data says no regarding power level. What do you think the winrate is for Kazakusan Druid? Protip: it was in the OP.

I don’t think there’s any difference between being horrible from a power level standpoint and being horrible from a balance standpoint. They’re the same thing, and Kazakusan Druid isn’t.

There are ways to empirically measure the skill cap of an archetype, but they’re time-consuming and relativistic (meaning: you’d need to calculate it for other archetypes as well to fully appreciate the difference). But I’m not saying Kazakusan Druid is a high skillcap deck, I’m saying it’s a fun deck.

It’s an 8 mana 8/8 with a condition that you most likely have to build your deck around that removes your entire deck for 2 copies of 5 strong cards and not being skill requiering can be said about a lot of cards AND decks that are currently meta.

Yeah it promotes abusing stall/removal = it’s bad design. No other deck in the meta is dumber than the Kazakusan decks.

1 Like

I don’t care nor do I talk about it from a winrate point of view. Gamedesign wise from a powerlevel point the design is utter trash. Power level and balance are not the same thing.

1 Like

If winrate isn’t the measurement of power, what is? The power of your feelings?

1 Like

Ease of play compared to effect on boardstate/damage output is powerlevel. I’m done responding to you. You don’t know gamedesign.

1 Like

Look at the current standard quests. They were broken, easy to complete. Like play some pirate. Not that hard, but at least it took time.
With kazakusan you can cheat it out, it has the same deckbuilding limitation as quest in some ways, but you can just play it, no waiting or anything to complete.
And the rewards are more busted then any other questreward other then maybe the warlock one.

3 Likes

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
— Sherlock Holmes

What you’re doing here is theorizing before you have data, towards a conclusion that Kazakusan Druid is overpowered. The fact is that Kazakusan Druid has a winrate of roughly 50% — this can be verified on websites that collect information from thousands of games. It is not significantly overpowered, and that isn’t even an opinion. You should start there.

2 Likes