PDA

View Full Version : Banning instead of nerfing



fido_one
09-12-2014, 08:29 AM
I don't really play HS (not my thing), but just saw this article:

http://www.joystiq.com/2014/09/12/hearthstone-nerfing-leeroy-jenkins-starving-buzzard/

Will be interesting to see how the HS community deals with nerfing cards instead of banning them. Any big HS players in here care to comment?


EDIT: Let me please be clear in that I'm not inquiring about what CZE plans to do, Kami sums that up here:

PvP cards can and will be banned if necessary.

PvE cards and equipment (and even the actual PvE content) are subject to change (buffing/nerfing) as needed.

That was the official stance last I heard.
...and I agree with that stance. Question is - for those that play HS a lot, now that this nerfing has happened, what do you think about the policies of each game?

Kami
09-12-2014, 08:34 AM
PvP cards can and will be banned if necessary.

PvE cards and equipment (and even the actual PvE content) are subject to change (buffing/nerfing) as needed.

That was the official stance last I heard.

fido_one
09-12-2014, 08:36 AM
PvP cards can and will be banned if necessary.

PvE cards and equipment (and even the actual PvE content) are subject to change (buffing/nerfing) as needed.

That was the official stance last I heard.

Sorry Kami, I wasn't being clear in my OP and should have stated this as some background. I'm curious as to what the HS community thinks of nerfing now that they've done it to two seemingly big cards in HS. Do they wish HS would do the same as Hex or vice versa and why?

Thrawn
09-12-2014, 08:36 AM
It doesn't matter as much in HS because the cards don't have value and aren't being traded. In Hex you'd have very upset people (rightfully so) if they spend $60 (or whatever it is) to buy a play set of Angels off the auction house only to have the card in their collection changed and nerfed into a $1 card the next day.

People need to have faith that the cards they spend money on will hold some value, at least until the set rotates. If players don't trust the economy they will be more hesitant to spend real money in it. Even if a card is banned it can still hold value in casual games, other formats, vintage/legacy/pauper/etc. play.

fido_one
09-12-2014, 08:41 AM
It doesn't matter as much in HS because the cards don't have value and aren't being traded.

Oh yeah, of course... I didn't think of that very core element and I agree that lack of trading would really make nerfing a lot easier for a game. There are still other elements though and I wonder if this will provide some insight for how nerfing would affect the community for PvE equipment and cards...

incitfulmonk21
09-12-2014, 08:44 AM
pretty much what Thrawn said. In hex it would be cataclysmic to change cards once released because they are worth something.

For a game like HS where your collection has no value a change only means looking to find new ways to play so there should be far less complaining.

fido_one
09-12-2014, 08:47 AM
pretty much what Thrawn said. In hex it would be cataclysmic to change cards once released because they are worth something.

For a game like HS where your collection has no value a change only means looking to find new ways to play so there should be far less complaining.

Do you guys know if Hearthstone ever has plans to allow for trading? Google search comes up with some debate and I can't see if Blizzard has ever had an official stance on the matter.

mach
09-12-2014, 08:48 AM
It doesn't matter as much in HS because the cards don't have value and aren't being traded. In Hex you'd have very upset people (rightfully so) if they spend $60 (or whatever it is) to buy a play set of Angels off the auction house only to have the card in their collection changed and nerfed into a $1 card the next day.

People need to have faith that the cards they spend money on will hold some value, at least until the set rotates. If players don't trust the economy they will be more hesitant to spend real money in it. Even if a card is banned it can still hold value in casual games, other formats, vintage/legacy/pauper/etc. play.

Except there are no other formats in Hex right now. In tournaments and the proving grounds there is just a single Constructed format.

So for now at least, banning would upset people even more, since it would render the card totally unplayable.

This puts CZE is an awkward situation right now. They they've promised not to errata but they can't ban because it would effectively destroy the card.

Patrigan
09-12-2014, 08:49 AM
I don't see why the reaction? HS has been nerfing and buffing cards since the beginning.

Thrawn
09-12-2014, 08:54 AM
This puts CZE is an awkward situation right now. They they've promised not to errata but they can't ban because it would effectively destroy the card.

It's CZE. They would probably ban the card, people would complain, they would give everyone a free pack of cards for every copy of the card they had in collection to keep them happy. Changing a card is a bad option in PvP at any stage of the game even if it is possible in the digital environment.

Of course then people would probably start complaining about a free pack of cards being unfair for some reason, but that's a different discussion.

Grumph
09-12-2014, 08:57 AM
I don't think nerfing in a card game will go over very well at all. In an MMO or MOBA, nerfing a certain class or stat might not be all that obvious due to all of the equations that go into calculating damage and the fact that those games are group oriented, a stat or skill nerf to one class/character won't make much of a difference in the overall game play. A card game is different though, when a card that would have won you the game in a certain situation no longer does, it is pretty damn noticeable. I think in a card game, it is better to introduce new ways to deal with certain winning strategies rather than nerf them. I don't play HS though, so I can't speak on any specific nerfs happening there.

Daer
09-12-2014, 09:01 AM
This isn't new, hearthstone has nerfed cards several times before. For a couple weeks after a nerf then give full disenchant value for the rarity of the card. So since Leeroy Jenkins is a legendary you can disenchant the card for full value and craft a different legendary if you want.

Svenn
09-12-2014, 09:02 AM
Except there are no other formats in Hex right now. In tournaments and the proving grounds there is just a single Constructed format.

So for now at least, banning would upset people even more, since it would render the card totally unplayable.

This puts CZE is an awkward situation right now. They they've promised not to errata but they can't ban because it would effectively destroy the card.
Banning would ban it from tournament play, not proving grounds. No reason to ban anything in proving grounds. Also, eventually there SHOULD be some formats with different ban lists/no ban list.

mach
09-12-2014, 09:02 AM
It's CZE. They would probably ban the card, people would complain, they would give everyone a free pack of cards for every copy of the card they had in collection to keep them happy. Changing a card is a bad option in PvP at any stage of the game even if it is possible in the digital environment.

Of course then people would probably start complaining about a free pack of cards being unfair for some reason, but that's a different discussion.

I doubt 1 pack of compensation would make people happy if their Angels of Dawn were now worth pennies because it was now completely unusable.

In the current 1-format environment, I fail to see how nerfing is worse than banning. Banning will drop the value at least as much as nerfing does. If nerfing is done right the card will still be viable, as many of the HS cards which were nerfed still see significant high-level play.

mach
09-12-2014, 09:05 AM
Banning would ban it from tournament play, not proving grounds. No reason to ban anything in proving grounds. Also, eventually there SHOULD be some formats with different ban lists/no ban list.

So you'd make proving grounds a different format than tournaments? That entirely destroys one of the main purposes for proving grounds, which is to provide a free place to test your decks before you enter tournaments with them.

And yes, eventually there will be multiple formats. Once there are, banning makes a lot more sense. But we're still a ways away from that point.

fido_one
09-12-2014, 09:05 AM
I doubt 1 pack of compensation would make people happy if their Angels of Dawn were now worth pennies because it was now completely unusable.

In the current 1-format environment, I fail to see how nerfing is worse than banning. Banning will drop the value at least as much as nerfing does. If nerfing is done right the card will still be viable, as many of the HS cards which were nerfed still see significant high-level play.

Wouldn't banning spike the value of the card? As Svenn said, you'd still be able to eventually use it in some formats, they'd remove it from packs -

...wait, how is CZE going to handle that? Let's pretend you ban AoD - will my remaining set 1 packs still be able to drop it?

-> On nerfing the HS stuff, thanks for the information, wasn't aware they nerfed before and Daer's comment (#12) is also interesting on how they mitigate fallout from a nerf.

Thrawn
09-12-2014, 09:10 AM
...wait, how is CZE going to handle that? Let's pretend you ban AoD - will my remaining set 1 packs still be able to drop it?

Good question. If they would ever ban something in limited how would that work? More stuff they can do with digital to be figured out I guess. If it doesn't drop from packs anymore it would end up as that "super rare card that only dropped for a while in Set 1".

mach
09-12-2014, 09:12 AM
Wouldn't banning spike the value of the card? As Svenn said, you'd still be able to eventually use it in some formats, they'd remove it from packs -

...wait, how is CZE going to handle that? Let's pretend you ban AoD - will my remaining set 1 packs still be able to drop it?


It's unlikely that they'd remove it from packs. So the supply would stay the same, but demand would plummet. Economics tells us that the price would therefore plummet.

I doubt the possibility of being able to use it in future formats would cause it to hold much value. By the time Hex introduces a format equivalent to Legacy or Vintage, the card may not be that powerful in that format.

Thrawn
09-12-2014, 09:15 AM
I doubt the possibility of being able to use it in future formats would cause it to hold much value. By the time Hex introduces a format equivalent to Legacy or Vintage, the card may not be that powerful in that format.

Well that's the fun of trading. Is that banned card you stocked up on when everyone else dumped it at 100 plat each going to be worth 1 plat or 1,000 plat in a year?

bootlace
09-12-2014, 09:18 AM
HS needs to introduce more cards rather than infinitely fine tuning and changing cards that aren't even that OP.

fido_one
09-12-2014, 09:23 AM
Good question. If they would ever ban something in limited how would that work? More stuff they can do with digital to be figured out I guess. If it doesn't drop from packs anymore it would end up as that "super rare card that only dropped for a while in Set 1".

This. Depending on how they handle this will affect how much I hoard and when/how I buy packs. I vote for keeping them in the packs already acquired but Thrawn has a very good point here about limited.

So one way of solving this is by CZE saying 'if you open your archived packs in limited, you won't be able to acquire banned cards, opening packs purchased before the ban in the WoF screen will still allow for the drop on those packs.' But then how do you differentiate set 1/2/3/x packs purchased before and after the ban?

Would love an orange answer on this if CZE has figured this problem out.

S117
09-12-2014, 09:33 AM
And understand the difference between banning and nerfing...

Nerfing is: Ok this card is a little too strong so we're going to tweak it a bit to reign in the power level.
Banning is: This card is so cataclysmically powerful (usually in the context of being used alongside another card released later) it is warping the format to where, in virtually EVERY deck, people either play it or play against it.

So the aforementioned AoD:
Is she powerful enough to nerf? Maybe. That's up for debate and hey maybe CZE would have toned her down like EoC or Jadiim in alpha if they had another pass at the cards.
Is she so powerful that every top placing tournament deck either runs Diamond and 4 copies of her or [x] shard with 4 copies of [y] card (that is only good for killing AoD)? No not really...

Svenn
09-12-2014, 09:51 AM
Wouldn't banning spike the value of the card? As Svenn said, you'd still be able to eventually use it in some formats, they'd remove it from packs -

...wait, how is CZE going to handle that? Let's pretend you ban AoD - will my remaining set 1 packs still be able to drop it?

-> On nerfing the HS stuff, thanks for the information, wasn't aware they nerfed before and Daer's comment (#12) is also interesting on how they mitigate fallout from a nerf.
Why would they remove it from packs? Banning it just means that you can't add it to a deck of a certain format, that's it. They would continue to drop from packs of that set forever.

fido_one
09-12-2014, 09:56 AM
Why would they remove it from packs? Banning it just means that you can't add it to a deck of a certain format, that's it. They would continue to drop from packs of that set forever.

As Thrawn pointed out, limited draft and sealed presents problems.

ossuary
09-12-2014, 10:12 AM
fido, thanks for reminding me to add "ban vs. nerf" to the list of new player common topics. :)

whytw0kane
09-12-2014, 10:13 AM
Banning cards people have paid for because there wasnt enough testing done on them by the development team is absolutely laughable.

Magic have the excuse of not being able to change physical cards, Hex has none, if something is too strong change it, simple as.

bootlace
09-12-2014, 10:16 AM
Things would have to go very VERY wrong for them to ban a card in limited (like say a common that gets you a reliable turn 3 win).

In terms of 'compensation' for cards that get banned from constructed formats, they can make it salvageable for a limited time into crafting material that's about equal value based on AH prices.

ossuary
09-12-2014, 10:18 AM
if something is too strong change it, simple as.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

-- H. L. Mencken

Xenavire
09-12-2014, 10:21 AM
Banning cards people have paid for because there wasnt enough testing done on them by the development team is absolutely laughable.

Magic have the excuse of not being able to change physical cards, Hex has none, if something is too strong change it, simple as.

I find it interesting that you don't agree with a single design choice made by this company, yet stick around to play (I assume).

I'll go back to ignoring you now.

whytw0kane
09-12-2014, 10:22 AM
I find it interesting that you don't agree with a single design choice made by this company, yet stick around to play (I assume).

I'll go back to ignoring you now.

Might as well get my moneys worth out of what I put into the very falsely advertised kickstarter

fido_one
09-12-2014, 10:24 AM
Might as well get my moneys worth out of what I put into the very falsely advertised kickstarter

Get your moneys worth by.... annoying the community with your griping?

Pro tip: you don't have a back a project on kickstarter to do that! I just saved you a lot of money in future investments my friend!

Turtlewing
09-12-2014, 10:42 AM
Except there are no other formats in Hex right now. In tournaments and the proving grounds there is just a single Constructed format.

So for now at least, banning would upset people even more, since it would render the card totally unplayable.

This puts CZE is an awkward situation right now. They they've promised not to errata but they can't ban because it would effectively destroy the card.

Well yes, if they do it the stupid way and don't tun on an "open format" at the same time.

However there are currently 3 formats of constructed play "casual tournament", "competitive tournament", "proving grounds". That they all use the same banned/restricted list not doesn't have to remain so if that list ever becomes other than the empty set.

incitfulmonk21
09-12-2014, 10:54 AM
I find it interesting that you don't agree with a single design choice made by this company, yet stick around to play (I assume).

I'll go back to ignoring you now.

I actually have him on ignore because well I politely disagree with everything he says but in one thread he actually started contributing and even saying non ridiculous things. Then I read this thread and was sad once more. I just wish the ignore list deleted the post all together, to tempting to just hit view post button because you have a glimmer of hope for something constructive. :(.

Now if we can just get a community boycott of quoting him I can have a happy forum experience again.

Xenavire
09-12-2014, 10:59 AM
I actually have him on ignore because well I politely disagree with everything he says but in one thread he actually started contributing and even saying non ridiculous things. Then I read this thread and was sad once more. I just wish the ignore list deleted the post all together, to tempting to just hit view post button because you have a glimmer of hope for something constructive. :(.

Now if we can just get a community boycott of quoting him I can have a happy forum experience again.

Yeah, I would ignore him if it felt more effective. I just 'ignore' him but skimming over his posts, not actually ignoring him (which is effectively a big 'read me!' sign. :p)

hex_colin
09-12-2014, 11:03 AM
Personally, I'd be fine walking the middle ground on this issue, e.g. "for 4 weeks after the release of a new set the dev team reserves the right to make changes to cards - please keep this in mind when making purchasing decisions, etc.". Then, after 4 weeks (or whatever relatively limited time window) the cards are completely locked and they can move to banning as needed. I completely understand why they decided on the "no changes" policy though.

Also, remember, bans don't need to be quite as restrictive as in other games. Most cards are not OP on their own, but as the result of unintended synergies with other cards. In HEX it should be easy for the team to ban combination of cards rather than a complete ban of a single card, and only in particular formats (e.g. competitive constructed). That way you could play one card as long as you weren't playing the other member of a degenerate 2 card combo.

hashinshin
09-12-2014, 11:06 AM
I've NEVER understood this logic:

We can't nerf cards, that would reduce their value!

But we CAN ban cards entirely, because reducing their value to nothing is somehow better!

To me it just sounds like people are afraid of new technologies and are unwilling to adapt to change. Nerfing will retain FAR more value in a card than banning, when banning reduces a card to a joke value and will almost never be sold again. ESPECIALLY if it was a card only being used in standard you just reduced the value of the card to rocks. One minute you had cards in your hand worth money, the next you have rocks in your hand.

fido_one
09-12-2014, 11:10 AM
I've NEVER understood this logic:

We can't nerf cards, that would reduce their value!

But we CAN ban cards entirely, because reducing their value to nothing is somehow better!

To me it just sounds like people are afraid of new technologies and are unwilling to adapt to change. Nerfing will retain FAR more value in a card than banning, when banning reduces a card to a joke value and will almost never be sold again. ESPECIALLY if it was a card only being used in standard you just reduced the value of the card to rocks. One minute you had cards in your hand worth money, the next you have rocks in your hand.

I don't agree with this actually, banning can spike a value of a card, no doubt about it. I err on the collector side of things and banned cards are really appealing to have in my collection. I know it's a fringe example, but look at the power 9 in MTG.

As someone else pointed out you won't know until the card is banned - it'll reduce it's value to zero or increase it dramatically. It's what makes the TCG part very TCGey.

Turtlewing
09-12-2014, 11:11 AM
Personally, I'd be fine walking the middle ground on this issue, e.g. "for 4 weeks after the release of a new set the dev team reserves the right to make changes to cards - please keep this in mind when making purchasing decisions, etc.". Then, after 4 weeks (or whatever relatively limited time window) the cards are completely locked and they can move to banning as needed. I completely understand why they decided on the "no changes" policy though.

Also, remember, bans don't need to be quite as restrictive as in other games. Most cards are not OP on their own, but as the result of unintended synergies with other cards. In HEX it should be easy for the team to ban combination of cards rather than a complete ban of a single card, and only in particular formats (e.g. competitive constructed). That way you could play one card as long as you weren't playing the other member of a degenerate 2 card combo.

The first paragraph is not really practical. 1: what do you realistically expect to uncover in 4 weeks that weren't uncovered in the year of internal testing? and more importantly: with a fixed probationary period you just encourage the power gamers to hold off on tehir broken combos until after the grace period.

The second paragraph is actually the most insightful thing I've read on the topic.

A smarter ban system could do a lot. Though they would need to be careful about not over using it (it needs to be easy to determine what cards you can't use).

Turtlewing
09-12-2014, 11:13 AM
I've NEVER understood this logic:

We can't nerf cards, that would reduce their value!

But we CAN ban cards entirely, because reducing their value to nothing is somehow better!

To me it just sounds like people are afraid of new technologies and are unwilling to adapt to change. Nerfing will retain FAR more value in a card than banning, when banning reduces a card to a joke value and will almost never be sold again. ESPECIALLY if it was a card only being used in standard you just reduced the value of the card to rocks. One minute you had cards in your hand worth money, the next you have rocks in your hand.

There are multiple formats.

A card is rarely problematic in all formats. Bans can be used to selectively fix the damaged formats while not affecting the others at all. Nerfs can't cleanly handle treating different formats differently (having cards behave differently in each format gets annoying real quick)

bootlace
09-12-2014, 11:15 AM
In HEX it should be easy for the team to ban combination of cards rather than a complete ban of a single card, and only in particular formats (e.g. competitive constructed). That way you could play one card as long as you weren't playing the other member of a degenerate 2 card combo.

Pretty cool idea - just make an addition on the card itself (this card can't be in your deck if you have a card named "x" in your deck - Servant of Shathak and Jank Bot work similarly). A bit messy but better than an outright ban or nerf into irrelevance.

fido_one
09-12-2014, 11:15 AM
The first paragraph is not really practical. 1: what do you realistically expect to uncover in 4 weeks that weren't uncovered in the year of internal testing? and more importantly: with a fixed probationary period you just encourage the power gamers to hold off on tehir broken combos until after the grace period.

The second paragraph is actually the most insightful thing I've read on the topic.

A smarter ban system could do a lot. Though they would need to be careful about not over using it (it needs to be easy to determine what cards you can't use).

I don't know gentlemen - I think banning combos would muddy the mechanics people are trying to learn very, very quickly. "Tunneling can do this and this, and ZOMG I can combine it with a card that reverts to do THIS and I'm sooo excited this could be awesome... wait a minute, I have to check the banned combo list to see if something that powerful really exists or not."

I will say that the digital format can at least FLAG cards that have been banned in some way without damaging the card. Not a great help, but it is something - when I'm trying to build a deck and I try and put a banned card in there I can get a message saying 'AoD is a banned card, you can not play a deck with this card in the following tournaments: x,y, and z'

hex_colin
09-12-2014, 11:16 AM
The first paragraph is not really practical. 1: what do you realistically expect to uncover in 4 weeks that weren't uncovered in the year of internal testing? and more importantly: with a fixed probationary period you just encourage the power gamers to hold off on tehir broken combos until after the grace period.

No amount of internal testing can replicate a few weeks of playing by 100,000+ folks. The rate at which we discovered "broken" cards at the very beginning of Alpha was staggering with only a few thousand players. And, I think there are enough folks who care about the game being fair and balanced that we'd root out most of the combos.


The second paragraph is actually the most insightful thing I've read on the topic.

A smarter ban system could do a lot. Though they would need to be careful about not over using it (it needs to be easy to determine what cards you can't use).

Thanks. I've been pushing this for months - it's one of the few things I've been particularly vocal about in my discussions with the devs.

hex_colin
09-12-2014, 11:19 AM
I don't know gentlemen - I think banning combos would muddy the mechanics people are trying to learn very, very quickly. "Tunneling can do this and this, and ZOMG I can combine it with a card that reverts to do THIS and I'm sooo excited this could be awesome... wait a minute, I have to check the banned combo list to see if something that powerful really exists or not."

I will say that the digital format can at least FLAG cards that have been banned in some way without damaging the card. Not a great help, but it is something - when I'm trying to build a deck and I try and put a banned card in there I can get a message saying 'AoD is a banned card, you can not play a deck with this card in the following tournaments: x,y, and z'

Well, that's the saving grace - the advantage is that the game can give you real time feedback during deck building and/or saving that you've broken a deck building rule (i.e. included a combination of cards that are not allowed to be played together). I don't think that's any more complex than all of the other stuff we're considering when building decks anyway - it's a TCG, it requires some skill, thought, and knowledge to play well.

ossuary
09-12-2014, 11:26 AM
The selective ban is a very interesting idea, I'd like to hear more. Do you have a newsletter? :)

The main difficulty would of course be making it obvious and intuitive what is banned and why, but that's surmountable.

A lot of the problems with insufficient testing can be solved by having (trusted) community members help with the beta testing. Not a wide-open test realm server like your World of Warcrafts, but more like a selected closed beta from people with a proven track record of helpfulness, balance insight, and impartiality. Again, it's not a perfect solution, but it's better than no additional testing at all.

I understand why people keep pushing the idea of nerfing/buffing being better than banning, but I continue to disagree with it categorically, since collection value matters to me. You can't put a price tag on security and confidence. :p

fido_one
09-12-2014, 11:30 AM
I understand why people keep pushing the idea of nerfing/buffing being better than banning, but I continue to disagree with it categorically, since collection value matters to me. You can't put a price tag on security and confidence. :p

Sorry, I should have realized this would immediately go to nerfing vs. banning in Hex - I started the thread as I was more interested in what HS players thought of a nerfing system in practice. As Thrawn pointed out, however, there is no trading so it's a poor comparison to make.

New questions if people want to answer them:

Does HS ever plan on implementing trading?
Are there comparable digital only TCGs that are better examples? Solforge? Duel of Champions? I know some of these don't have trading but are planning on implementing them at some point.

incitfulmonk21
09-12-2014, 11:38 AM
Sorry, I should have realized this would immediately go to nerfing vs. banning in Hex - I started the thread as I was more interested in what HS players thought of a nerfing system in practice. As Thrawn pointed out, however, there is no trading so it's a poor comparison to make.

New questions if people want to answer them:

Does HS ever plan on implementing trading?
Are there comparable digital only TCGs that are better examples? Solforge? Duel of Champions? I know some of these don't have trading but are planning on implementing them at some point.

There are almost no dTCG's with trading and the ones that do have it follow the ban over nerf rule. Obviously it is a hex forum so things will skew that way but trading takes a game from just something to have fun and play with to now there is actual money on the line when things get changed. The T in TCG pretty much ensures one method over the other at least in my opinion. I hate nerfing period but I would not tolerate it in a game where I spent money with knowledge that a card had at least some real world value and because someone decided it was to powerful it now held no value.

hashinshin
09-12-2014, 11:41 AM
The selective ban is a very interesting idea, I'd like to hear more. Do you have a newsletter? :)

The main difficulty would of course be making it obvious and intuitive what is banned and why, but that's surmountable.

A lot of the problems with insufficient testing can be solved by having (trusted) community members help with the beta testing. Not a wide-open test realm server like your World of Warcrafts, but more like a selected closed beta from people with a proven track record of helpfulness, balance insight, and impartiality. Again, it's not a perfect solution, but it's better than no additional testing at all.

I understand why people keep pushing the idea of nerfing/buffing being better than banning, but I continue to disagree with it categorically, since collection value matters to me. You can't put a price tag on security and confidence. :p

As a collector what difference does a card being nerfed or banned make to you?

Lockon
09-12-2014, 11:58 AM
I'd say using both in some fashion, with nerfing being more common than banning, and both being EXTREME measures in the first place, i.e. said card is COMPLETELY dominating competitions to the point that you either play it or not even bother at all. Now, I don't want things getting nerfed and banned left and right, but I'd say keep the football, you might need it, if you catch my symbolism.

mach
09-12-2014, 12:00 PM
I don't agree with this actually, banning can spike a value of a card, no doubt about it. I err on the collector side of things and banned cards are really appealing to have in my collection. I know it's a fringe example, but look at the power 9 in MTG.

As someone else pointed out you won't know until the card is banned - it'll reduce it's value to zero or increase it dramatically. It's what makes the TCG part very TCGey.

Correlation != causation.

P9 are not worth more because they are banned. They would surely be worth even more if they were legal in Legacy.

Take a look at the two cards most recently banned in Magic's main format (Standard):

http://www.mtggoldfish.com/price/Worldwake/Stoneforge+Mystic#online
http://www.mtggoldfish.com/price/Worldwake/Jace+the+Mind+Sculptor#online

They immediately plunged in price and never recovered, despite seeing plenty of play in Legacy.

Certainly, cards which have been banned can go up in price despite being banned. But being banned itself is a huge downward pressure on demand and therefore price.



There are multiple formats.

A card is rarely problematic in all formats. Bans can be used to selectively fix the damaged formats while not affecting the others at all. Nerfs can't cleanly handle treating different formats differently (having cards behave differently in each format gets annoying real quick)

This will be true in the future, at which point banning will make a lot more sense. However, at this point there aren't multiple formats. And there probably won't be for at least a year or two.

Turtlewing
09-12-2014, 12:05 PM
I don't know gentlemen - I think banning combos would muddy the mechanics people are trying to learn very, very quickly. "Tunneling can do this and this, and ZOMG I can combine it with a card that reverts to do THIS and I'm sooo excited this could be awesome... wait a minute, I have to check the banned combo list to see if something that powerful really exists or not."

I will say that the digital format can at least FLAG cards that have been banned in some way without damaging the card. Not a great help, but it is something - when I'm trying to build a deck and I try and put a banned card in there I can get a message saying 'AoD is a banned card, you can not play a deck with this card in the following tournaments: x,y, and z'

Well a ban list could look something like this:

Banned:
Angel of Dawn
Comet Strike
Vampire King & Reversion

Restricted (1 per deck):
Master Theory Crafter

Where "Vampire King & Reversion" indicates a combo that is banned. Then when you save the deck the existing "deck not legal" warning can be expanded to warn you of what formats it is illegal in and why. So if you build a Vampire + reversion deck you might see:

"Warning: This deck will not be legal in:
Competitive Constricted (Vampire King & Reversion is a banned combo, Angel of Dawn is a banned card)
Legacy Constructed (Angel of Dawn is a banned card)"

Turtlewing
09-12-2014, 12:08 PM
This will be true in the future, at which point banning will make a lot more sense. However, at this point there aren't multiple formats. And there probably won't be for at least a year or two.

You have to be trolling or incompetent to think that the creation of a banned list won't trigger the creation of new formats.

ossuary
09-12-2014, 12:13 PM
As a collector what difference does a card being nerfed or banned make to you?

Banning a card harms (but not destroys) the playability and value of one card, or possibly a few cards associated with the banned card. Nerfing ANY card devalues ALL cards, as all cards are permanently potentially on the chopping block.

Nerfing an ability in an online game like World of Warcraft makes sense, because you didn't pay money directly to get that ability, and you can't sell it to someone else. Changing the power level of that one ability doesn't harm anyone's investment - people won't quit the game forever because one attack ability changes from doing 15 damage to 14, and that change won't prevent people from choosing to play the game in the first place.

A TCG, however, has a money investment aspect. If people know that any card, any time, could be changed to not work the same way anymore, that will scare them away from playing in the first place. People who already own the cards will be afraid their collection will be devalued by nerfs. People who want good cards will be concerned they will be "too good" and get nerfed, so they won't risk spending much (if any) money on getting them. The entire economy is devalued, and the value of everything is way lower than it would have been if the power level was safe from tampering by nerfs/buffs.

It has to do with reliability, security, and confidence. The game being digital makes card edits possible. It doesn't automatically make them better. In this respect, following the traditional TCG model is necessary. :)

mach
09-12-2014, 12:17 PM
You have to be trolling or incompetent to think that the creation of a banned list won't trigger the creation of new formats.

Let's say they ban Angel of Dawn today. Do you really think it makes sense for them to offer queues in two formats:

1. All Set 1 cards except Angel are legal
2. All Set 1 cards are legal

Each format splits the queues and so comes at a cost. Banned cards or no banned cards, it does not make sense to create a new format until we're a year or two in the future and sets start rotating out.

mach
09-12-2014, 12:29 PM
Nerfing an ability in an online game like World of Warcraft makes sense, because you didn't pay money directly to get that ability, and you can't sell it to someone else. Changing the power level of that one ability doesn't harm anyone's investment - people won't quit the game forever because one attack ability changes from doing 15 damage to 14, and that change won't prevent people from choosing to play the game in the first place.

A TCG, however, has a money investment aspect. If people know that any card, any time, could be changed to not work the same way anymore, that will scare them away from playing in the first place. People who already own the cards will be afraid their collection will be devalued by nerfs. People who want good cards will be concerned they will be "too good" and get nerfed, so they won't risk spending much (if any) money on getting them. The entire economy is devalued, and the value of everything is way lower than it would have been if the power level was safe from tampering by nerfs/buffs.


Bad analogy. The proper analogy is with nerfing an item, which you did spend resources to acquire and which you can trade to someonce else (assuming it isn't soulbound). And guess what? They have nerfed overpowered items many times, and it doesn't cause any problems. It doesn't scare people away from playing. People still spend gold to buy items on the in-game AH, and break the rules to spend real money as well.

So your argument is nothing but FUD. It isn't actually a problem as long as people maintain confidence that the company will handle nerfs fairly. There are two main ways to do this, and we can look to Hearthstone for examples:

1. When you nerf, don't nerf excessively. Example: Defender of Argus and Ardent Commander are still top-tier Constructed cards after their nerfs.
2. Offer compensation, like HS's temporary increased disenchant value.

Thrawn
09-12-2014, 12:45 PM
http://www.mtggoldfish.com/price/Worldwake/Stoneforge+Mystic#online
http://www.mtggoldfish.com/price/Worldwake/Jace+the+Mind+Sculptor#online

They immediately plunged in price and never recovered, despite seeing plenty of play in Legacy.

Stoneforge appears to be at it's highest value since about March and Jace is "only" worth about $32 instead of $45.

If Jace had instead been balanced by say increasing the casting cost, removing the third ability, etc. that would of spiked the price down much worse because the reason people want it is because it's so good.

I do agree that banning is a bit different when we only have one or two sets, but I can't image Hex a few years down the line suddenly changing to "Ok, from now on no more card changes, we are banning them instead." without a complete riot from people at the major shift in policy.

As an aside though nothing has needed banning yet, so if they continue to have the sets well made it might not be an issue for a few years either.

mach
09-12-2014, 12:54 PM
Stoneforge appears to be at it's highest value since about March and Jace is "only" worth about $32 instead of $45.


You're not looking back far enough. Right before it was banned Jace was worth around $80 (online price).



If Jace had instead been balanced by say increasing the casting cost, removing the third ability, etc. that would of spiked the price down much worse because the reason people want it is because it's so good.


Depends on the exact change. As I said, the key to smart nerfs is to nerf as little as possible while still fixing the problem.



I do agree that banning is a bit different when we only have one or two sets, but I can't image Hex a few years down the line suddenly changing to "Ok, from now on no more card changes, we are banning them instead." without a complete riot from people at the major shift in policy.


Your policy could be "we will nerf if the card is too powerful for all current Constructed formats, and ban if the card is too powerful for at least one format and okay for at least one format." That way the policy stays consistent. It bans unless banning would make it unplayable everywhere, which would surely tank the value the most. (Example: Contract from Below is one of the most powerful Magic cards ever printed. But it's banned everywhere, so it's worth pennies.)

Banquetto
09-12-2014, 01:20 PM
Banning a card harms (but not destroys) the playability and value of one card, or possibly a few cards associated with the banned card. Nerfing ANY card devalues ALL cards, as all cards are permanently potentially on the chopping block.

Sorry, I don't understand why banning a card doesn't ALSO mean that "all cards are permanently potentially on the chopping block"?

Svenn
09-12-2014, 01:28 PM
Sorry, I don't understand why banning a card doesn't ALSO mean that "all cards are permanently potentially on the chopping block"?
Because the card still exists as is and can still be played as is. It just means you can't use it in certain formats. Some people will want that crazy awesome card for something outside of those tournament formats (I'm a big fan of just playing for fun games with friends, and building crazy decks for it, for example). The difference is that I can still do that with a banned card, whereas a nerfed card is now worthless to me EVERYWHERE.

You know that a card can be banned from specific formats at any time, but even if it is you still have a very powerful card for other formats.

wolzarg
09-12-2014, 01:56 PM
Banning is massively favorable because once you feel confident the tools are there you can unban look at bitter blossom back in not above original value. Sure you can nerf and revert similarly but it leaves people questioning long term value much more and takes more work.

mach
09-12-2014, 02:00 PM
Because the card still exists as is and can still be played as is. It just means you can't use it in certain formats. Some people will want that crazy awesome card for something outside of those tournament formats (I'm a big fan of just playing for fun games with friends, and building crazy decks for it, for example). The difference is that I can still do that with a banned card, whereas a nerfed card is now worthless to me EVERYWHERE.


Why is a nerfed card worthless? There are plenty of nerfed HS cards which are still top-tier.

You are assuming the best case for bans (it still retains its value due to other formats) and the worst case for nerfs (the card is rendered completely unplayable and becomes worthless).



You know that a card can be banned from specific formats at any time, but even if it is you still have a very powerful card for other formats.

Again, this will only be true once there are actually other formats.

S117
09-12-2014, 02:08 PM
I think some advantage, too, is with how much more drastic banning is. If you're a dev team and nerfing/buffing cards is on the table...well what the heck let's make that AoD a 6/6 on top of everything else. If it is too strong they can roll it back a bit. Now that's an extreme example but I'd hope if you're a good dev team and all you can do is ban cards it makes your card design process a bit more stringent...

Either choice is an imperfect solution but like Colin said there is just no amount of testing you can do that will nail down every last exploit that can come up when you put the cards into the hands of thousands of players playing thousands of games over thousands of hours. The best you can do is try to hit the majority of them before they become a problem. So far I'd say HexENT has done a good job but we're only one set in atm.

TheSwallowsNest
09-12-2014, 10:00 PM
TCGs have typically dealt with overpowered or broken cards by releasing new cards, the usage of block sets, and occasionally banning cards.

I see these nerfs as further evidence that blizzard will release new cards/content on an extremely slow schedule. Also I don't think blizzard will ever use block sets or obsolete old cards, so I expect them to continually nerf existing cards in order to move the game in new directions.

Ebynfel
09-13-2014, 04:58 AM
I've NEVER understood this logic:

We can't nerf cards, that would reduce their value!

But we CAN ban cards entirely, because reducing their value to nothing is somehow better!

To me it just sounds like people are afraid of new technologies and are unwilling to adapt to change. Nerfing will retain FAR more value in a card than banning, when banning reduces a card to a joke value and will almost never be sold again. ESPECIALLY if it was a card only being used in standard you just reduced the value of the card to rocks. One minute you had cards in your hand worth money, the next you have rocks in your hand.

Last I heard, it wasn't as much of an economics thing as it was a "slippery slope" to nerf or redesign rather than ban. With that option, and a constantly rotating cardpool(unlike HS which nerfs rather than bans), The devs felt the possibility of changing a card would be entirely too enticing. The finality of a ban is simple. It's black and white. You can wake up tomorrow and find a card isn't usable i na format, and know for sure it's unusable. Versus waking up potentially every month and having to relearn cards and their interactions, or seeing an old favorite get the nerf stick. Followed by potentially another and another. The issue as far as I recall, is completely about the capability and what that could mean in the long haul, not about the potential value. Though the current top performers always being potentially on the block has been mentioned as a negative a time or two before.

LNQ
09-13-2014, 08:23 AM
There are almost no dTCG's with trading and the ones that do have it follow the ban over nerf rule.

Pox Nora had trading yet nerfed cards.

hexnaes
09-13-2014, 08:30 AM
I think some advantage, too, is with how much more drastic banning is. If you're a dev team and nerfing/buffing cards is on the table...well what the heck let's make that AoD a 6/6 on top of everything else. If it is too strong they can roll it back a bit. Now that's an extreme example but I'd hope if you're a good dev team and all you can do is ban cards it makes your card design process a bit more stringent...

Either choice is an imperfect solution but like Colin said there is just no amount of testing you can do that will nail down every last exploit that can come up when you put the cards into the hands of thousands of players playing thousands of games over thousands of hours. The best you can do is try to hit the majority of them before they become a problem. So far I'd say HexENT has done a good job but we're only one set in atm.

And there were quite a few adjustments to set 1 before closed beta started. That worries me more than anything about future sets. Hex has already "nerfed" cards, showing they were a bit sloppy in their initial design.

They produced a good draft set, but constructed balance for the original set 1 was kind of poor. Hopefully they do a better job on constructed balance in future sets and not focus too much on drafting.

Vorpal
09-13-2014, 09:15 AM
Hearthstone has nerfed tons of cards. Generally no one cares because you can turn the nerfed card into any other card of similar rarity, and there is no trading so you havent really lost anything.

BlackRoger
09-13-2014, 11:16 AM
Why is a nerfed card worthless? There are plenty of nerfed HS cards which are still top-tier.

You are assuming the best case for bans (it still retains its value due to other formats) and the worst case for nerfs (the card is rendered completely unplayable and becomes worthless).

And there are even more nerfed cards which were competitive and now are barely played, for example the priest mind control and the gnome who turns something to a 1/1 or 5/5.
Now imagine you payed 10$ for the gnome and now he ain't even good enough to make a single deck, and you start to see the problem.

Then again as people said without actual card value or multiple formats, nerfing in HS isn't really a problem.

mach
09-13-2014, 02:13 PM
And there are even more nerfed cards which were competitive and now are barely played, for example the priest mind control and the gnome who turns something to a 1/1 or 5/5.
Now imagine you payed 10$ for the gnome and now he ain't even good enough to make a single deck, and you start to see the problem.


I think that was on purpose, and really quite clever.

Tinkmaster was a fundamentally unfun card in competitive play, since it often made games determined by the result of a coin flip (whether the minion became 1/1 or 5/5). So a slight reduction in power wouldn't work like it did with other cards. They wanted to ban it from competitive play, but with only one format that would ban it from casual as well. So they chose to nerf it to oblivion.

When you have multiple formats and so banning is an option, choosing to nerf overpowered cards doesn't mean you can't have banning as an option as well. So you nerf if reducing its power is a good solution to the problem, and ban if it isn't. That way you impact the value of the card as little as possible. With something like Defender of Argus, a slight power reduction which still leaves it a tier 1 card will almost certainly cause less value loss than a ban.

And, of course, those who spent $10 for Tinkmaster weren't unhappy because they could trade it in for any other Legendary.

hashinshin
09-13-2014, 02:15 PM
TCGs have typically dealt with overpowered or broken cards by releasing new cards, the usage of block sets, and occasionally banning cards.

I see these nerfs as further evidence that blizzard will release new cards/content on an extremely slow schedule. Also I don't think blizzard will ever use block sets or obsolete old cards, so I expect them to continually nerf existing cards in order to move the game in new directions.

Yes, blizzard will be slow to release new cards and content!

... Entire naxx set just released. New set already announced. Game progressing very healthily, most popular card game of all time by a long shot.

Xenavire
09-13-2014, 02:35 PM
Yes, blizzard will be slow to release new cards and content!

... Entire naxx set just released. New set already announced. Game progressing very healthily, most popular card game of all time by a long shot.

Have you never heard of MTG? :p

Ebynfel
09-13-2014, 04:04 PM
Yes, blizzard will be slow to release new cards and content!

... Entire naxx set just released. New set already announced. Game progressing very healthily, most popular card game of all time by a long shot.

Naxx launched and added 30 some odd cards or so? And how long had the game been at release when these few cards came. It's an entirely different model and we're comparing apples to oranges here.

TheSwallowsNest
09-13-2014, 09:47 PM
Yes, blizzard will be slow to release new cards and content!

... Entire naxx set just released. New set already announced. Game progressing very healthily, most popular card game of all time by a long shot.

The next set has not been announced [SNIP].

Patrigan
09-13-2014, 11:08 PM
TheSwallowsNest, he's probably referring to this: http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/08/22/next-hearthstone-expansion-to-include-around-100-cards-bought-via-booster-packs/

It's not really an official announcement on their website, it's more a confirmation what the next set will be like.

edit: a better link http://www.gosugamers.net/hearthstone/news/28412-next-hearthstone-expansion-in-development-to-feature-close-to-100-cards

Kami
09-14-2014, 07:06 AM
Please observe the Code of Conduct.

Biz
09-14-2014, 12:41 PM
HS is more than fair when they change cards (nobody ever loses money), and most of the time it's great for balance (shiv / pagle / sylvanas / blood imp / flame imp / charge+alexstraza etc.)

the way I view it (from the perspective of someone who basically 'beat' the game) is:
over time, the players and future employees will be increasingly more and more qualified to judge balance than the designers were at the time when they created the cards

when a class/deck/card is too strong, it basically makes anything weaker unplayable. that severely reduces the card pool because most cards are not strong. smaller card pool = fewer decks/classes and fewer ways to build them

Werlix
09-14-2014, 02:20 PM
I think for the "Standard" constructed format we don't really need to worry about bans/nerfs as regular new sets combined with the natural rock/paper/scissors quality of TCG decks means that the meta will cycle and good players will find work arounds :)

When eternal formats become a thing we'll have to look at bans etc.

Banquetto
09-14-2014, 02:39 PM
HS is more than fair when they change cards (nobody ever loses money), and most of the time it's great for balance (shiv / pagle / sylvanas / blood imp / flame imp / charge+alexstraza etc.)

As an aside.. while it sounds from that sentence like Hearthstone changes cards a lot, virtually all of those were pre-release.

Since release, two cards have been changed slightly (Unleash The Hounds and Eaglehorn Bow), and they have just announced that the next patch will change two more (Leeroy Jenkins slightly, Starving Buzzard more significantly).

Arbiter
09-14-2014, 04:08 PM
New questions if people want to answer them:

Does HS ever plan on implementing trading?
.
No, they have said that not having trading was a deliberate design choice. The crafting system is there, instead, to help people build their collections. You get a fair boost to your collection when playing for the first time as well, which would have to be removed if trading was to go ahead.

ossuary
09-14-2014, 04:24 PM
In other words, every card in HS will always be completely worthless, and the money you dump into the game disappears into a black hole forever. Good to know. :)

fido_one
09-14-2014, 05:02 PM
No, they have said that not having trading was a deliberate design choice. The crafting system is there, instead, to help people build their collections. You get a fair boost to your collection when playing for the first time as well, which would have to be removed if trading was to go ahead.

Thanks Arbiter, I googled it but couldn't find a clear answer and have been increasingly curious if they had an official stance or not.

Very interesting approach.

mach
09-14-2014, 05:46 PM
In other words, every card in HS will always be completely worthless, and the money you dump into the game disappears into a black hole forever. Good to know. :)

That's true of Hex as well until Cory gets the lawyers to let people cash out.

The HS approach is probably a response to what they learned with D3. It definitely has its advantages (such as higher drop rates, more free stuff, and people not needing to spend some of their game time on trading), and was probably the better approach for their main target audience.

hexnaes
09-14-2014, 06:07 PM
That's true of Hex as well until Cory gets the lawyers to let people cash out.

The HS approach is probably a response to what they learned with D3. It definitely has its advantages (such as higher drop rates, more free stuff, and people not needing to spend some of their game time on trading), and was probably the better approach for their main target audience.

As a player of both games, I agree with this. I don't see any real difference between my digital collection of cards of the two games.

I can't easily transfer the cards from either game for cash, so they're basically both in the "black hole" as far as I'm concerned.


As far as the ban/nerf argument. I appreciate both sides. I lean a little more towards "adjusting" problematic cards as opposed to banning them. Hearthstone and Hex really only have one constructed play mode. Because of this, a ban of a card would make it worthless.

Unfortunately, the banning precedent set by MTG seems like it's carrying over to Hex. In the age where we aren't playing with cardboard, there's better solutions to mistakes made in development.

Because it's pretty difficult to produce a perfectly balanced game, I'd rather the health of the overall gameplay take precedence over my perceived collection value.

Werlix
09-14-2014, 06:07 PM
In other words, every card in HS will always be completely worthless, and the money you dump into the game disappears into a black hole forever. Good to know. :)

Their worth is in the game, not out of the game - like almost every other computer game. I can't "cash out" my champions and skins in LoL either :) I don't ever want to sell my Hex cards, I want to play with them :)



Because it's pretty difficult to produce a perfectly balanced game, I'd rather the health of the overall gameplay take precedence over my perceived collection value.

Well said, agree :)

hashinshin
09-14-2014, 07:03 PM
The problem seems to be the following misconceptions:

1. That banning rather than nerfing somehow keeps your collection worth more. This is false to a degree that makes me wonder if people are putting any thoughts in to the matter or are just saying "YEAH WE HATE CHANGE, and I don't want to think about it because new stuff scares me."

2. That banned cards retain worth. Very rarely is this true. Once you leave standard your card's value plummets, so banning from standard ESPECIALLY when the card is standard viable early basically turns your card back in to paper and you can flush it. After it leaves standard banning cards for other rules pretty much wrecks their value again, since they are only ever used in one ruleset at a time typically. Think about it this way: I have $1,000,000 in hashinshin funbucks. They are valued at a clean $1,000,000 by every hashinshin funbuck valuer. Nobody buys them though, because hashinshin funbucks are worthless. You can have a $50 banned card and nobody cares because nobody is buying it.

3. That nerfed cards instantly become worthless, rather than... balanced. Sure, lets say 25% of the time the nerf goes too far and cards lose almost all value. Eye of creation is a good example of this. HOWEVER, would angel REALLY become an unplayable card if it required 2 sapphire for it's effect? If it went to a 3/4? If it lost steadfast? Maybe it's value goes from a $15 card to a $5 card. However, that's a lot better than being a "$15" card that never gets traded because there's literally nobody looking for it anymore.

LordGorchnik
09-14-2014, 07:36 PM
Because it's pretty difficult to produce a perfectly balanced game, I'd rather the health of the overall gameplay take precedence over my perceived collection value.

Wise words.

Banquetto
09-14-2014, 09:03 PM
In other words, every card in HS will always be completely worthless, and the money you dump into the game disappears into a black hole forever. Good to know. :)

Correct*. It's a F2P online game, not a Trading Card Game.


* Well, I'm sure you can sell an account with an awesome card collection on the black market. But there is no legitimate way to sell your cards.

Jinxies
09-15-2014, 01:11 AM
I'm used to FFGs approach to solving problematic cards but I I'm not sure if that would work for Hex. Overpowered cards(or combos) get hit with Restriction, you can only have one restricted card in your deck (but a full playset of it), some really problematic cards get banned, and some get an errata (and future printings have the new wording). A card called Prince's Plans for their Game of Thrones game recently went through the following: Restriction, errata to add Deathbound (making it go into a separate discard pile when resolved) and finally ending up with the text remove from game when resolved. It works fine, adds interesting deckbuilding choices about what restricted cards to use and actually banned cards are rare, currently no cards are banned.

Thrawn
09-15-2014, 06:57 AM
It seems most of this thread can be boiled down that some people care a lot about card value and the economy side of the game, and other people not so much. Not saying either side is right or wrong, but neither side is likely to budge on this topic.

But since (I think) HexEnt has already said they will not be making errata to released PvP cards it's all just discussion anyways.

wolzarg
09-15-2014, 01:05 PM
would angel REALLY become an unplayable card if it required 2 sapphire for it's effect?
Yes... Yes it would. :p

quite literally in most decks its run in now.

Zophie
09-16-2014, 01:02 AM
Because it's pretty difficult to produce a perfectly balanced game, I'd rather the health of the overall gameplay take precedence over my perceived collection value.

Agreed. I'd rather have a card be worth less, than have it be worthless.

hashinshin
09-16-2014, 04:40 AM
Something to consider is this, since this is what the thread I feel largely is discussing:

Is angel banworthy? No, it's not... breaking the game or anything, some people play without it, MOST people use it, but most people were using delver of secrets too and that was considered fine.

Is angel nerf worthy? YES. Dear god yes.

Does Angel at it's current power level make the game less fun to play? I think you'd be hard hit to find a person who disagreed with this and actually played/plays the game. Well... other than the crazies that TCGs tend to attract that are secret in to masochism.

nobody is going to ban angel, but it's within the realm of possibility to nerf angel. That's entirely the intent of nerfing rather than buffing. Banning angel would turn it in to digital dust, while nerfing angel would retain worth. Sure, for the first couple of weeks people would FREAK OUT and sell them all at a low price to try and "salvage some money out of it." However once people realize that a 3/4 angel or an angel without steadfast or an angel with 2 sapphire in it's passive is still VERY playable the price will go back up. Not back to normal mind you, but slowly back up.

When it comes right down to it everyone I know refuses to play hex constructed simply because they got burnt out due to angel. That's me, that's 5 other people, that's a lot of people. Since humans are very similar to each other I know then that there's more of us out there that simply aren't playing constructed due to angel. The question then becomes what do we do about angel? Do we give blue a powercreepd buccaneer? Well buccaneer is already a top tier card and doing that would just result in the same situation but for super-buccaneer this time around. Do we just say everyone has to play blue to deal with angel? Do we just powercreep the fuck out of the game and set 3 is so ludicrously powerful that the game falls apart? Do we start enforcing constructed decks taking $60 as an entry fee just to get your angels? Hex won't survive that.

The simple fact of the matter is that without nerfing angel I don't see a solution to the problem other than:

A. Powercreeping set 2 and 3 so hard that either theme decks or combo decks that don't need angel just out power her. Then the problem becomes that the meta becomes dwarves vs. shin'hare (or whatever themed decks became best) which ALSO is boring. Maybe not as bad though if they don't have mandatory $15 exotics though...

B. Introducing Angel counter cards. But then the problem becomes everyone has to use them, other cards similar to angel get wrecked by the meta, and now there's a bunch of card hate running around. TCGs already suffer near universally from creature killing being too easy, so this solution will simply exacerbate many issues.

At the end of the day angel is an issue, angel DOES make the game less fun, and a game new on the free2play market simply CAN NOT afford to have pay2win attached simply because angel is running around dominating everyone from a mythic rare rarity level. There are so many reasons angel is bad for the game that I don't think even a post THIS LONG can detail them all.


Being an old stubborn player base has never helped any game. It's why quake lost to halo, it's why halo lost to CoD, it's why DotA lost to LoL, it's why EQ lost to WoW, it's why TCGs as a whole lost to hearthstone. You can keep clinging to old ways but it'll only make you look sillier in 10 years when people are describing why hearthstone was such a success and they use other TCGs from the same time as reasons why.

Jinxies
09-16-2014, 05:23 AM
I honestly don't feel there's anything wrong with Angel. It's a strong card sure but aside from those fringe game where it comes out on turn two it's not that big of a problem. I don't play with mine (in part because I don't have a full playset yet) and the few times I actually do run into a deck using them I've always had some sort of answer to it already in my deck be it murder, turbulence or buccaneer.

Svenn
09-16-2014, 06:28 AM
I honestly don't feel there's anything wrong with Angel. It's a strong card sure but aside from those fringe game where it comes out on turn two it's not that big of a problem. I don't play with mine (in part because I don't have a full playset yet) and the few times I actually do run into a deck using them I've always had some sort of answer to it already in my deck be it murder, turbulence or buccaneer.
Pretty much this. I don't have a problem with Angel. It's never really been much of a problem for me. There are plenty of answers to it in all shards (Turbulence, Murder, Mesmerize, Inner Conflict, Chaos Key, any bounce card, etc). Not to mention that you have to actually draw it within the first couple turns (but NOT on your first turn before you play a diamond shard) for the real beneficial part of it to kick in.

Is it powerful? Sure. Does it make the game less fun? No.

plaguedealer
09-16-2014, 07:43 AM
Imo angel is fine and will be worth less and less as more card draw is entered into the game.

Turtlewing
09-16-2014, 09:19 AM
I think you'd be hard hit to find a person who disagreed with this and actually played/plays the game. Well... other than the crazies that TCGs tend to attract that are secret in to masochism.

I disagree. I haven't been playing as much recently because the limited card pool is getting a bit stale but I was doing 2 drafts a week and spending hours a night in the proving grounds for a while there.

Angle is a strong card, but it's nowhere near worth quitting the game over.

Also to nerf it such that people actually stop complaining about it you'd have to remove its signature ability all together (the reason people don't like it is it's random and it sucks to be on the losing side of a random effect, not because it's possible to trigger on turn 2 instead of turn 3).

Thrawn
09-16-2014, 09:33 AM
Does Angel at it's current power level make the game less fun to play? I think you'd be hard hit to find a person who disagreed with this and actually played/plays the game. Well... other than the crazies that TCGs tend to attract that are secret in to masochism.

"I think this, if you disagree you're secretly crazy and a masochist." - Nice argument.

Angel is ok as is, it certainly pushes the line, but it isn't broken. If it was overpowered I'd rather see it banned or restricted in constructed tournaments than changed or nerfed in any way.

You can throw around generalizations all you want but people have different opinions on these things.

orimaarko
09-16-2014, 07:35 PM
Question is - for those that play HS a lot, now that this nerfing has happened, what do you think about the policies of each game?

I don't mind the nerfing in Hearthstone. Currently Hunter is overplayed on ranked ladders. The Meta is slowly adapting, but right now, if you wish to progress on the ladder you either play hunter, or play a deck that beats hunter with a decent chance to win other against the other Anti-hunter decks. The devs over there have a specific direction they want to take the game and they swing the nerf bat when they feel like the community has found something that takes the game in a different direction.

The game is remarkably well balanced as a result of the actions by the devs.