About 3 weeks ago, Hearthstone senior game designer Ben Brode delivered a very informative video with some design insights on Hearthstone. It is really awesome and you should check it out if you haven’t already.
I will start by saying that I love everything about this way of communicating with the community. Being this open and honest about the design process of a game is something a lot of game companies could learn from. It is really nice to see a developer talking about the challenges he faces.
I am also happy about the things mentioned in the video. Power Creep is a challenge for formatless card games and it is a problem when the game becomes very daunting for new players. At the same time it is important for Hearthstone that new content arrives regularly.
Hearthstone is strong when it is fresh. The streaming numbers for players and tournaments are at an all time high. We can also see from the increased server troubles, especially on EU, that there must have been a significant increase in activity. This should be no surprise as it has been just 2 months since 132 cards were released and the meta has yet to fully settle itself.
This stands in sharp contrast to the months just before TGT was released. Patron was the new kid in town. Everything else in the meta was known. It consisted of established decks that had been the same or mostly the same for the last year and a half. You knew what a handlock was, you knew what a face hunter was, and you knew for sure what a freeze mage was, but now they were using [card]Emperor Thaurissan[/card]. And for a lot of these decks, you still know what they are.
Staleness is an issue that I think Hearthstone has been dealing with for quite a while. It was especially bad with Hearthstone's launch as seven months would pass from open beta till Naxxramas was released. But with Blackrock Mountain and The Grand Tournament both looking like they will have limited impact compared to Curse of Naxxramas and Goblins vs Gnomes I can't help but think that we are getting to that point again. The game is getting too figured out.
We have known most of the decks in the Hearthstone meta for quite a while now.
Tavern brawls helped somewhat by providing a different kind of content but the effect was limited and the variety of brawls has decreased a lot. The brawls have been using a lot of repeated themes when they aren't straight up repeated. And with nothing on the line after the first pack, there is very little incentive to play them repeatedly after the first victory.
Hearthstone is weakest when everything has been figured out. When the current season of the ladder looks exactly like the last two ones, then numbers and interest drop. Numbers from Goldper10 confirmed that Hearthstone saw a significant viewership drop throughout June and July compared to May. The seven months and only 31 new cards released had their effect.
That is why it is reassuring for me that Blizzard does seem committed to keeping Hearthstone fresh as was stated by Ben Brode. I do have some doubts about the ways they have chosen to go about things, though. There is one particular quote I caught.
I see multiple problems with this statement alone, because a lot of the time the meta won't change even if powerful cards are released. It is actually incredible hard to make cards that are strong enough to enforce a meta change. Almost impossible, in fact. Strong decks are those who endure through new content and stand the test of time even against newer cards.
It is almost always the case that the only way a new deck can overtake the existing top of the meta is by being just as strong or even more so than the existing top decks. And if only one new top deck arises from an expansion then the meta as a whole stays woefully consistent, especially with the rate Hearthstone releases its expansions
It is often stated that Hearthstone's updates have been coming out incredibly slowly, but I think there is yet to be an opportunity where we actually put up some numbers to relate to. So let me take this opportunity to do so.
So far in 2015 Hearthstone Blizzard has:
- Released 163 new cards.
- Issued 1 balance change([card]Undertaker[/card] back in January).
Now lets look at the TCG most people like to compare Hearthstone to, Magic the Gathering. In 2015, it:
- Released 981 new cards through core sets and expansions.
- Cycled out 861 old cards that are now no longer part of the Standard format cardpool.
Some pretty big numbers but you have to remember, Magic runs on an entirely different business model, the standard block system. I often see people suggesting that Hearthstone will/should pick up a similar model but I don't think these people understand the exact scale that this system is usually applied on.
Anyway, if we take a look at another one of the largest competitors to Hearthstone, Yu-Gi-Oh, things look more moderate:
- Released 355 new cards
- Had 15 cards banned or restricted to 1 use in the deck for competitive matches.
- Softened up or completely lifted the restrictions for 28 cards that were previously banned or restricted.
Do note that this is for the US and EU or what is called the TCG part. This looks more moderate. Yu-Gi-Oh runs on a similar release model to Hearthstone and that can be seen as they have “only” doubled Hearthstone in card releases. In reality this matters very little. As is the case with Hearthstone, only a relatively small number of the cards make enough of a wave to be seen in tournament plays.
The real meat is to be found in the 15 cards that were banned or restricted to one per deck. It is here you find stuff like the final banning of the dragon rulers, a deck that has been tearing up the meta for years. Or the banning of the releaser Djinn, previously one of the biggest sources of frustrating lockdowns. These changes are one of the strongest drivers behind the changing meta in Yu-Gi-Oh.
In other CCGs, the status quo is a necessary evil, not something that is treasured or preserved
Common for both Magic and Yu-Gi-Oh is that their business models have incorporated safety switches to ensure the meta will evolve and gradually change over time. In Magic this is an absolute certainty as almost every card will be removed from the competitive cardpool about 2 years after their initial release whereas Yu-Gi-Oh has a more direct approach that usually only applies to cards causing frustrating and uninteractive play as well as cards that just outstay their welcome in the meta.
For these games the balance changes are not just a means to correct the issues that may pop up with new content, it is new content all of its own. It is a change in the meta-game forced through. In those CCGs the status quo is a necessary evil, not something that is treasured or preserved.
I can only say that I wish Blizzard would pick up a similar model or at least switch attitude with regards to gameplay consistency. Consistency can be a lot of things including a game where the gameplay consistently stays the same, or a game where changes are issued consistently at predefined dates. So far for Hearthstone it seems that the only thing that is consistent is that whatever changes do arrive come about a month or two later than they probably should have.
It should be noted that neither of the models from Magic or Yu-Gi-Oh can be directly transferred to Hearthstone. I have already stated a myriad of reasons why the standard block system is not very applicable to Hearthstone and the numbers above should really tell the story. The pace of release is simply not there. Likewise it doesn't make an awful lot of sense to have a banlist for a digital game.
However, the core essence of the banlist system is something that very much could be transferred. Consistent and frequent gameplay changes at preannounced dates. Instead of banlist seasons, it would be balance seasons. And I would see such a system as a huge improvement to Hearthstone. We would know for sure that changes would be coming instead of dreading the thought that they aren't.
With "balance season", we would know for sure that changes would be coming instead of dreading the thought that they aren't.
Having something like balance seasons would also better accommodate card changes that are less urgent and more there to mix things up. How much would aggro be stifled by taunts if [card]Ironbeak Owl[/card] suddenly were to be shot down? If something were to be done to Life Tap, how should midrange react to the lack of Handlocks? Which 7 attack minions should be considered if [card]Big Game Hunter[/card] suddenly had his threshold raised to 8 attack?
These are the questions the pros and everyone else would have to start asking themselves should some of these changes come through and they are very similar to the questions that have to be asked whenever a new expansion comes through. Except in this case the answer almost certainly won't be “I just play my decks like I used to”. Balance changes, even in a small number, are so much more effective at forcing through a change in the meta than trying to release new cards and letting them sort it out.
Another thing that would be more natural is card buffs. This is something Blizzard traditionally has been very opposing of. Their stance seems to be that they would rather release an upgraded version of a new card since it essentially has the same effect.
The issue I see with this is that the cards we have seen rereleased so far were the very bottom tier of cards. [card]Booty Bay Bodyguard[/card] and [card]Magma Rager[/card] were both cards which were never even once considered good enough to be used competitively, even at the launch of Hearthstone. Thus even [card]Ice Rager[/card] and [card]Evil Heckler[/card] turned out to be insufficient. The choice of cards to be rereleased, if it had to make an impact on the meta, would have to fall on cards that were used in the past, and even some who were nerfed in their time. Which is when the real talk of power creep will start.
Direct cardbuffs however could serve a different purpose. Rather than trying (and failing) to bring an old faulty design to the meta it would be a way to improve the experience for newer players. Even if they only got access to the basic cards, should those be buffed it would give them a boost as well. They will still get stomped by experienced players with new cards but slightly softer than before.
[card]Defias Ringleader[/card] would be a good example of this. It was one of the strongest two drops at the launch of beta that was swiftly nerfed and rightfully so. But things have changed since then. Two drops are the area where Hearthstone has experienced the most “true” powercreep with cards like [card]Mad Scientist[/card] and [card]Haunted Creeper[/card]. Getting a 2/3 and a 2/1 for 2 mana is not really that impressive anymore, you can do that with a [card]Mechwarper[/card].
More frequent balance changes would be a much more efficient way of changing the meta.
Rebuffing that card could help lifting minion-based Rogue decks up from the depths of the abyss and even if it fails at that it would still provide a stronger option for new players who want to try out Rogue as Ringleader is one of its common cards from classic packs. That would not be the case if it was rereleased in a new pack that they wouldn't have as easy access to.
The thing that can be said about the banlist system is that it is not a promise of any specific change. Indeed it happens quite rarely that Konami pushes through the exact changes the community wants and it has also happened that a new banlist simply didn't have any changes for the season.
The promise in this system instead is one of consistency. Changes to the game will happen, but they will only happen at specific dates and under basically no circumstances will a change occur outside of those. Meaning that the community is given very little intensive to complain outside of the banlist seasons.
What this would transfer to in Hearthstone would be that complaining about Patron at this time and place would be almost pointless because a system of balance seasons would almost certainly rotate around the period right after Blizzcon, giving the meta maximum time to settle for the HWC. But at least we would know that for sure, and we would also know when an eventual fix for a deck like patron would arrive, whereas in this point of time we have no clue. We mourn because it is all we can do.
Ultimately I just wish to see more general content from Hearthstone. There is no other TCG in the world where the expansion is an annual event. I think it is an area where Blizzard could improve a lot.
