Things that should not exist in Hearthstone

[SecretLan-1638]

@Marcoscongas-1413

You want to choose which mechanics are acceptable like a little Napoleon.

Hahaha that’s an interesting way to describe the process of game design/development, but all I am doing is providing my perspective on the current design vision of the Wild format and encouraging Blizzard to make bold decisions:

@SecretLan-1638

some of the stuff you identify is indeed design space that has been historically problematic in eternal CCG formats from other games with much more dynamic rules/mechanics (and therefore more ability to make corner-case strategies actually fun for the majority of players, including opponents). Others can comment on standard in Hearthstone, but I agree some of this stuff has a negative impact on Wild and in general feel that the format could benefit from more active attention/support from Blizzard.

Then later more specifically:

@SecretLan-1638

The main difference between Hearthstone and something like Magic in this respect [resurrection mechanics] is that Magic has a graveyard/discard pile, and that is a game zone either player can interact with that does fundamentally change the feel of how these mechanics work… whereas Hearthstone’s version of the mechanic has very few limits other than the fact that it is entirely based on RNG, which really only punishes decks for running a variety of minions/potential play patterns.

@SecretLan-1638

While I realize reanimation strategies are meant to be abused in CCGs in general, it seems to me like 100% of the time they come up in Hearthstone they are effectively used as infinite copy/redundancy effects more than anything else. This combined with a handful of key minions that serve as very effective roadblocks creates a situation where there is a very easy package of cards that you see over and over again built around resurrecting the same small pool of 2 or 3 minions, effectively copying those minions infinite times often starting very early in the game around turn 4 or 5. I’m thinking all the N’Zoth/rebirth shenanigans, big priest, shaman stuff with Scrapyard Colossus etc.

And I think the big problem with how these mechanics are expressed has always been the fact that resurrection in Hearthstone really functions as reproduction more than anything else, and control decks very quickly figured out a way to eliminate dynamic play patterns from their decks entirely by doing exactly what I describe above years ago, and those decks still remain largely unchanged to this day.

@SecretLan-1638

In other words resurrection effects as they exist in Hearthstone enable extremely risk-averse strategies, and that kind of stuff doesn’t always lead to the best gameplay. A lot of this just comes down to structural limitations of Hearthstone as a game made for mass consumption via mobile devices…

So, again, if you disagree and think that [any given mechanic/play pattern] is a good example of fun, dynamic CCG gameplay then we can agree to disagree on that no problem, and I would love to hear exactly why you love it because that would be a positive contribution to this discussion. But remember we are strictly talking about design here, not development - the OP was all about the inherent quality of general play patterns, and that is very much design’s department.

And I understand your desire to shut this stuff down, I really do, it can feel threatening to see people try to armchair develop a game you love by suggesting changes etc you disagree with, and the discussions get even murkier with questions of pure design like this one… I just try not to waste my time getting involved in other people’s bad ideas because I know Blizzard is going to make their own decisions in the end with community feedback being only one part of the equation… and I personally have faith in Blizzard’s ability to decide for themselves how they choose to implement it into their design choices. I just find these discussions interesting, honestly.

Speaking of which, I actually remember the last time we had this convo you had a lot of meaningful things to say about the history of these mechanics in Modern MTG, specifically Hogaak. As a reminder:

@SecretLan-1638

Other more established CCGs get around these problems with specific riders on specific minions that create undesirable play patterns when resurrected (Emrakul etc) as a way to control exactly which big minions are appropriate for resurrection play patterns and which ones are not. I personally think Hearthstone could use a Wild-only keyword for this…

@Marcoscongas-1413

And all of the rules changes and downsides didn’t stop Hogaak from taking over the meta.

They first tried to ban cards around Hogaak, and it didn’t work. It still reigned the meta. Until they finally banned Hogaak, but a whole bunch of collateral damage was made in the process with the previous bans, rule changes, etc.

Let’s not make the same mistake WOTC made. Just nerf the stupid cards.

@Marcoscongas-1413

All that text and rule changes on previous cards did was create a situation where old graveyard effects became unplayable and new graveyard effects were simply created to work and be strong within the new guidelines.

Which is what global res changes would do if implemented in Hearthstone.

We would be killing dozens of cards that are not problematic and just see play in meme decks as collateral damage just to nerf Big Priest, when Big Priest can get nerfed independently. If needed, which I am not sure is the case right now.

@SecretLan-1638

Ah, I see - I misunderstood, I thought you were referring to my first paragraph describing the graveyard rider WOTC puts on large minions they specifically don’t want to be part of resurrection play patterns, and the example I gave was Emrakul.

Hogaak is literally the exact opposite of the example I gave from WOTC, can’t even be played from your hand and is made to be played from graveyard… I’m not aware of any minions in Hearthstone with a similar design, and obviously you can’t put an anti-resurrection rider on a card like Hogaak. The point I made was that anti-resurrection riders are the tool WOTC uses to put much-needed boundaries on resurrection mechanics in MTG because they have a history of being toxic, but can also be pretty fun when implemented with care. As a matter of fact, Hogaak is banned in modern while Emrakul remains legal to this day, largely as a product of that rider, and a lot of cards on the modern ban list are directly related to graveyard/resurrection mechanics because it is a very tricky design space existing outside the game’s usual power structures.

But we can agree to disagree on the systemic nature of the problem in Hearthstone, that’s basically what I meant when I said I would still be happy with the changes you suggested even though they seemed to be coming from a different place in terms of goals (killing the deck vs making its’ mechanics more fun - not like I’m playing resurrection priest so makes no difference to me lol).

@SecretLan-1638

My perspective, however, has always been that the resurrection mechanics in Hearthstone really don’t function as or feel like resurrection to me - they feel more like reproduction, and are much more boring as a result. All you need to do is get one minion out one time then you can make as many copies of it as you want, forever. The end result is a play pattern that maximizes redundancy/reliability by playing the smallest pool of minions possible then repeatedly tutoring/reproducing them (while actively punishing putting anything else onto the board). So I do think it is a systemic issue related to the quality of the play patterns in question, but again we can agree to disagree on that no problem.

RE: acute concerns with specific cards, in combination with there being no limits whatsoever on the minions that are viable in this strategy this particular function of res mechanics in Hearthstone (the reproduction aspect) really does constrain future development in addition to encouraging what I perceive to be some really boring play patterns. I brought up Emrakul because it is a damn cool card that is literally only able to exist because of that rider. And the fact that they put that rider on it meant they didn’t need to constantly look over their shoulder at legacy, vintage etc when designing it to be fun in standard. And it ended up defining an iconic deck in Modern that had to put a lot of work into hardcasting it at 15 mana, or cheating it onto the board (in a way very similar to shadow essence, actually) but for diminished value. The deck is certainly fun/powerful enough without having the ability to manufacture Emrakuls at will or cheat surprise extra turns onto the board, and if your opponent deals with the first one you need to do something difficult again to get a second - which is basically what people mean when they talk about dynamic gameplay in CCGs.

While the monsters people res in Hearthstone aren’t at that power level yet, resurrection in Hearthstone is random, MTG is a different/better game with sideboards etc, I do think it is worth considering the way they manage these exact issues in their game. It really doesn’t seem like that big deal to put a “can’t be resurrected or copied” keyword on cards like obsidian statue, scrapyard colossus etc as they rotate out of standard, and this could in fact be a reasonable compromise between the systemic and acute camps, hence it being my first suggestion… there are plenty of other minions to use out there that don’t just immediately grind the game to a halt once your opponent plays shadow essence on turn 6, and actually do interesting proactive stuff instead… I guess I would rather have the designers make the cards they want and slap a rider on the stuff that has a lot of potential or proves to be problematic in wild.

And I realize this was a long post and you are probably busy so didn’t have the chance to reply, but I am genuinely interested in your actual thoughts on the design of these play patterns. Like I said, I find these discussions interesting.

Thanks for the response!