Wild has tanked

Yeah this is definitely true. Wild IS more difficult to balance because of the breadth of card pool (arguing otherwise would be dumb) but I don’t think the people working on HS are so incompetent that they’re unable to. Many of the people on the team play other card games, have experience playing other card games, have experience playing games in general that have a lot of parallels such as MOBAs and fighting games (there’s actually a ton of varying concepts that these three genres have in common).

I think what’s more likely the case is that there’s some decision made beyond what the devs are in control of that have their hands tied from doing much more. The most the player base can do is express an interest in a format. If Wild tomorrow say a growth of say 50,000 in the NA servers (unlikely), there might be discussions in some new life for the format. Problem is that many people are f2p and the barrier to entry is so high. Other people become disinterested because of FOMO of cards they want to play because they don’t want to play some budget aggro deck. I made my climb playing two different decks, big shaman and pirate priest. Big shaman is nearly 14,000 to play and pirate priest is dirt cheap, both are extremely good. Benefit of pirate priest is that many of the cards are from sets legal in standard and the rest are commons so building a wild deck for pirate priest is EXTREMELY affordable. Also happens to be arguably the best deck in the format. Discussions for pirate DH, freeze mage, and OTK druid and all three of those decks also use many cards from standard legal sets.

I think the problem would be easier to handle if they run simulations and/or formulations of the problem; something similar to SimCraft if you’re aware of the software for World of Wacraft; the Blizzard Devs there have reported that they have their own simulation software for testing balancing.

It would be mainly a matter of automatically creating decks (or at least using all the netdecks) and predicting the outcomes of the average game given certain gameplay scripts of optimal play; that way they would easily see what card is OP or weak; it’s very fast with fast hardware.

I would not be surprised if they already do it or if it’s already in development or if it’s already planned (because it’s something a developer would think intuitively (especially since WoW already does it)).

1 Like

I mean that could be one solution. The technology exists. Might alleviate one issue people have with wild (the balancing). The other issue with the format ultimately exists in accessibility. There probably could be some kind of promotional where they either sell wild packs dirt cheap, give out free packs from certain years, or something. I mean there’s no reason why sets that are 5 years old are the same cost as sets in the current standard block. Currently, nobody is buying wild sets. How much can it really hurt them to sell packs that are $2 (USD) and unplayed and unbought for $0.79 (USD)? You could even argue that they could be $0.50. I mean would someone be willing to buy United and Stormwind bundles if the packs were $0.50 a piece? More likely than they are willing to buy them at $2.00 and if someone is trying to build a wild collection they’re not just spending $0.50 at a time, they’re probably spending $15-$40 at a time on product that Blizzard is just currently not selling.

Throw people a bone. Blizzard gave away literally hundreds of dollars of standard product to Chinese players so they could get back into the game. That’s CURRENT product. They can’t find any way to sell old product to current players?

To promote the old packs again, the gameplay must be quality (they’d have to fix balancing first).

I’m sure they prefer to focus on Standard and if a card effect they like is in Wild they re-release it.

I wrote so many warning threads during the first year of HS:

1). Tone down and slow down the powercreep of cards. You devs have started HS by placing too much power into cards for the very first Classic set, because you want “turns to feel powerful.” Such a design philosophy resulted in it feeling like Hearthstone’s very first set already included powercreep built into it. It also resulted in serious design constraints, since their original intent was for Classic to be an “evergreen” set.

All of this played into why they had to split constructed into the Wild and Standard formats so early in Hearthstone’s history. It’s also why they had to HoF some cards.

2). Don’t treat your game as temporary fad or gimmick that has to be quickly milked for all the money it can make in just a couple of years. HS has a good foundation that if developed and stewarded correctly, it will not need to be overhauled for about 20 years (in instead of 10, like it needs already). Don’t make bad decisions that create a “jump the shark” impact on Hearthstone’s future.

3). New players are the game’s future, so much is needed (and has been done) to improve the new player experience.

4). Balance cards early and often, because it can be easily done for a digital CCG. Man, it them forever to come around to this direction of thinking.

5). Cards and decks need to promote interactive gameplay. Why has it taken ten years for devs to begin to understand the fundamental importance of this?

HS has been grossly mismanaged since year one. Take all the profits that HS has made in the last tears, and that amount could have and should have equaled more than ten times that amount. if the devs had a better understanding and vision for what they created. Those hypothetical potential profits can never be realized or recovered. They will forever remain as opportunities lost.

When Wild was created, I warned the devs not to treat it as a dumpster-mode for cards that will hardly ever see balance changes. The devs clapped back by promising that they would constantly monitor and balance the Wild format. Yeah right!

When Wild was created I weighed in on this early on. I suggested that they should announce that other modes would exist in the near future which would utilize older cards in order to encourage players not to DE their cards as an easy way to keep up with Standard. They did not head my advice, so it’s just another money losing failure on their part, and eventually there will be an outcry from some players when they wish they still had access to their disenchanted cards.

I suggested the Twist format. I event used the word “twist” in my vision for the format, but the devs rushed into the concept in a very bungling and inept way while trying figure out how to grossly monetize the new format from its beginning. Finding a new way to market old cards was just not appealing enough to the devs, who may have killed the concept before it even really got underway.

Ya! Seriously, why risk missing out on full refunds for nerfed cards? HS is already showing big signs that it needs to be remodeled or revitalized, which will likely involve changing a lot of cards.

I thinks it’s mostly a time resource issue. I am sure that creating three expansions (with three mini-sets) require a lot of time and effort, especially with how large and overturned the new archetype packages tend be (which I think is a bad thing for HS). It would not be surprising if management or beancounters hamper the devs as well.

I know on the surface this ^ makes sense, since it’s old product and most of those old cards have little to offer, since many of them are no longer competitive. A small discount may be OK, but a big one will just create a cheaper way for players to acquire dust.

They can’t do that now. I play for about 2 years regularly and I’m already a lost cause for being expected to have wild cards; new players from this point would be even worse off; i.e. in order to support Wild they’d have to drastically give cards to people for free.

But the entire subject is moot since it has a systemic balancing issue; they already struggle to balance Standard only and Wild “balancing” is usually a couple of blatant bans that don’t do much; maybe they should start considering developing good simulation.