So far, Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft has shown Blizzard's impeccable talent for game balance. Despite the occasional need for adjustments, the studio has smartly found the proper balance of letting the meta-game evolve using the tools provided. All that careful balance is going to see a huge shift with the upcoming release of Curse of Naxxramas, and not necessarily for the better.
Hearthstone has cautiously avoided the "pay-to-win" label. By randomizing powerful Legendary cards and choosing not to include any kind of trade or bartering system, the underlying economy has remained essentially sound. Pro players have shown over and over again how, with enough skill, you can reach Legendary rank without spending a dime. Crafting Legendary cards is so outrageously expensive that it's more a consolation for junk cards than a goal in itself. It's this magic combination of randomization and a solid economy that has made it so inviting.
Much as I'm looking forward to Naxxramus, I'm afraid of the inevitable dramatic meta-game shift over a very short period of time. More importantly, I'm concerned that Blizzard is undercutting those two elements that make the balance work so well. The powerful Naxx cards are prizes, not random Legendary drops. On top of that, you can practically purchase them outright. Yes, the actual method is to buy single-player campaign stages and then earn them, but the net effect appears to be the same: you'll be putting money into a piece of content that guarantees you access to certain powerful cards.
I should note, of course, that you can purchase the Naxxramas cards with in-game gold, but fans who have not already saved up are more likely to buy with actual money. Averaging 50 gold per day--the midpoint between the two most common tiers of daily quests--it would take two weeks to earn enough gold to buy just one Naxxramas pack. The bundled discount isn't available for paying with gold. Getting all five would take months, well past the time that other players will have incorporated it into their own strategies.
Obviously Blizzard wants to make money on this expansion, and it's hard to blame them. Hearthstone is a huge hit, and I think gamers owe it to themselves and the studio to toss some money into the studio's coffers if they've been enjoying it for any significant amount of time. Still, tying such a competitive edge to sales feels contrary to the groundwork and goodwill laid so far.
I'm sure, also, that shaking up the meta-game is part of the point. The current meta-game is something of an escalation match, as high-level players develop new strategies designed to undermine whatever the current dominant class type is. Miracle Rogue trumps the Hunter's hounds, then Frost Mage freezes Miracle Rogue's removal options, and so on. By throwing so much new into the mix, Blizzard can disrupt this trend and force a new several-week or even months-long period in which players figure out new strategies.
Even at this, though, Naxx may be creating a greater imbalance. Dominant classes like Hunter and Rogue are getting cards that appear to augment their existing strengths. (The Rogue ability to return a friendly minion is a staple of the Miracle Rogue, and it comes with a 5/5 creature to boot.) Meanwhile, classes that consistently get low marks in the power rankings are getting Naxx cards that can easily be made functionally useless, or even a detriment. The Priest and Paladin's both buff another minion upon death, meaning a player will simply have to wipe it out last. The Mage's secret, which gives two copies of a defeated minion, could easily be used to clog the hand by giving her two junk cards.
I have enough faith in Blizzard to think that it considered this, and has already play-tested strong strategies using under-powered classes. Plus, it's comforting knowing that the studio has metrics in place and is willing to adjust the game as necessary when unforeseen problems emerge. My own reservations certainly won't stop me from getting Naxx and playing alongside everyone else, while keeping an eye on how the community shifts its strategies in response. My trepidation isn't about my own impending losses, but rather the notion that someone who doesn't spend the money won't stand much of a chance.
-
Steve Watts posted a new article, Opinion: Hearthstone's Naxx expansion threatens impeccable balance.
What a horrible night to have a curse-
CCG's need a regular infusion of new cards in order to survive. Keeping the game fresh outweighs any balance concerns.
It's pretty unrealistic long term for HearthStone to keep the gap between the haves and have-nots as narrow as it is right now. So let's stop pretending it's the champion of F2P games and instead start giving it credit for being both the highest quality and most affordable digital CCG on the market.
Don't forget that there is always Arena, where everyone has "access" to every card.
This is a hardcore genre and HearthStone is as accessible as it's going to get.-
-
-
-
the primary purpose of Magic releases is for the Standard format which includes the last two years of cards and the limited format that is ~250-600 cards. That's plenty of work to balance and currently far larger than Hearthstone's equivalent format. Legacy essentially gets 0 support from Wizards R&D, Vintage isn't considered at all. Modern does get plenty of consideration now but that's so far from where Hearthstone is it isn't really relevant. Plus Magic is far harder to balance than Hearthstone by virtue of its additional complexity.
-
-
this is a strange critique to me given that Magic wouldn't have existed 20 years and be more popular than ever if it had serious balance issues. What you describe as power creep is merely balancing the power of creatures today with the power of spells from Magic's inception. Notice the complete lack of creatures on the banned and restricted lists in Legacy and Vintage? That's because spells have historically been massively more powerful. Only very recently have creatures started to be good enough to affect Legacy and Vintage. Speaking of which, you complain about Thragtusk but all it was was a Standard staple, just like any Standard season. It had absolutely no effect on Modern or any older formats. It's a completely forgotten card now. Snapcaster is a very powerful creature in older formats precisely because it lets you reuse all those powerful spells. I don't see how this is a bad thing. Legacy and Vintage being dominated by combo decks like they were in the past is by no means a balanced format. Now they actually have viable aggro decks in the meta by virtue of strong creatures existing.
I'm not sure why you have this idea that there shouldn't be staples of the top tier competitive scene. Can you describe a game of significant complexity where this isn't the case? (CCG or otherwise) Obviously with new sets constantly coming out there will be periods of more and less diverse formats but to claim Magic is imbalanced is crazy. Modern has at least 8 viable tier 1 archetypes that are all equally powerful despite a card pool of 8000+ cards. Legacy has even more viable tier 1 archetypes with an even larger card pool.
I'm no NetRunner pro but it seems to me there's a reason the pro CCG players aren't gravitating towards it. Obviously it's much easier to balance a smaller card pool (with fewer mechanics). It's also much harder to break the game's balance with thousands instead of millions of players looking at it. You also keep complaining about "slot in replacements" which is a nebulous complaint but again one that's easy to avoid with smaller card pools. At some point you're going to need to re-use concepts, especially when you're making releases designed for limited formats, a significant draw do Magic (and Hearthstone) which NetRunner doesn't support.
Finally, I would say that Wizards has the right philosophy where they think that if they're literally never banning a card then that means they're simply playing it safe in design. There's no way you can perfectly balance a game this complex. So if powerful things don't emerge it just means you're playing it safe and not printing things that push the envelope.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Hearthstone is not balanced. If Naxx wasn't' coming out then they would be rebalancing existing cards, as they've done numerous times during the beta and post-release.
This sort of thing is needed to keep card games fresh. MtG adds cards every three months. What kept Hearthstone fresh was rebalancing of cards. Dominant classes and decks were replaced by other ones, encouraging diversity on the latter.
Blizzard is done with rebalancing cards, now its really time for new ones. IMHO they need to be aggressive with expansion releases, at least two a year.-
-
-
-
IMHO they need to keep it up. Wizards Of The Coast are masters of design in CCGs and they release new cards every quarter.
Maybe Blizzard needs to staff up in the design department for Hearthstone, idk. You make an excellent point about Blizzard being a "when its ready" company, but volume really matters for games like this. They can't pull a Blizzard/Valve when it comes to Hearthstone IMHO.
I played non-stop since the start of open beta, but the moment June hit I stopped almost entirely. In hindsight this lines up with no rebalancing and no new cards. I don't know what the trends for player population are but I don't expect it'll be great when most decks you run into are the same.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Yes. I was playing Priest, which I usual do, and had nothing but two mind vision cards in my hand. The Shaman that had nearly killed me only had one card. I used mind vision, got the legendary, used it again and got a second one.
He played his, I killed it and played my second one which I used to kill him.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-