Magic: The Combattening - Hearthstone

[eldaec]

Is there a regional breakdown on the 10M?

[Merusk]

Who cares, it's accounts created. In any game we've ignored that number as it's meaningless vs. active players, which drive revenue.  Seems like it's doing just fine there as its picking up the deep slack of WoW.

If it's a valid point of discussion, we've got a world of other games that've been dismissed here on that basis.

[Paelos]

I don't care how many accounts are created. I care about online account averages for a day.

[Lakov_Sanite]

http://www.hearthpwn.com/blue-tracker/topic/7082-the-word-random-in-card-text

"Wording on cards isn't THAT important..."

[schild]

Hey Ben Brody, I feel like you can go fuck yourself, you hack.

[Simond]

Meanwhile, being more constructive*:





They're not great, but they're a decent start if you're new.


*dohohohoho~

[Maledict]

http://www.hearthpwn.com/blue-tracker/topic/7082-the-word-random-in-card-text

"Wording on cards isn't THAT important..."

This is actually quite scary. one of the biggest games designers in the world is fundamentally unable to understand one of the most basic and required parts of a CCG.

Wizards have been posting about this for 10 years now, their website is practically a *bible* on how to make a CCG and yet here you have a complete moron posting that "how a card feels" is most important to them.

[Malakili]

These cards are simple, basic-set cards, and for some reason the word “random” just feels better on these cards. 'Feel' is really important to how we write cards. Consistency is important, but somewhat less so in a digital game where the computer handles the rules for you.

 

[Ragnoros]

Wizards have been posting about this for 10 years now, their website is practically a *bible* on how to make a CCG.

They really do write some amazing articles. Someone should go through, sort through all that content, and make it into an actual book sometime.

Edit: Closed my quotes...

[Morat20]

In that designer's defense, the actual game handles the mechanics. Card wording is infinitely more important when human players are actively interpreting the rules -- since that interpretation is how the mechanics get implemented.

I'm all in favor of a somewhat less ad hoc system of card information there, but frankly as long as they're not making paper cards and it's just electronic play, then it really doesn't matter than much.

I really don't like the 'the player will figure it out the first time they play it if they misunderstood bit', although it is pretty accurate.

[HaemishM]

It may be more important when humans are meant to interpret and adjudicate the rules but when you are trying to formulate a strategy or just decide if now is the right time to play this card or that, wording is a fuckload more important than "feel." Wording is how you make plans - feel is what you use when you don't give a fuck about the results. Feel is the ultimate YOLO!!!! shout just before you jump out of an airplane with a knapsack on your back instead of a fucking parachute.

[Hoax]

In that designer's defense, the actual game handles the mechanics. Card wording is infinitely more important when human players are actively interpreting the rules -- since that interpretation is how the mechanics get implemented.

I'm all in favor of a somewhat less ad hoc system of card information there, but frankly as long as they're not making paper cards and it's just electronic play, then it really doesn't matter than much.

I really don't like the 'the player will figure it out the first time they play it if they misunderstood bit', although it is pretty accurate.

That is retarded. I've played Hearthstone. By far the worst thing was not knowing how cards would interact or work because the cards don't actually tell you shit is inconsistent as hell.

[schild]

A game only handles mechanics AFTER you do a thing.

So, yea, cards need to be seriously fucking clear.

[Morat20]

It may be more important when humans are meant to interpret and adjudicate the rules but when you are trying to formulate a strategy or just decide if now is the right time to play this card or that, wording is a fuckload more important than "feel." Wording is how you make plans - feel is what you use when you don't give a fuck about the results. Feel is the ultimate YOLO!!!! shout just before you jump out of an airplane with a knapsack on your back instead of a fucking parachute.

I only skimmed the random bit, didn't go any further.

I've never actually gotten confused by a card that was random and didn't appear to be random on the text. (In short, so far the random/not random has been clear).

I find weird mechanics like, well -- ever had a stealthed minion with taunt? That's fun to arrange. (it won't taunt until it's unstealthed, actually).

Which does bring up one thing I'm curious about: Rogue combos -- does using the hero special ability (equipping the dagger) count as an action towards a combo?

[Tannhauser]

No.

[HaemishM]

Combo is a good thing to bring up about the shitty design. I think I'd gotten to level 10 with my rogue deck before I ever even heard of combos and it wasn't explained very well. You'd think somewhere in that basic rogue deck that you get before hitting level 10 you'd get one rogue card with combo. I don't think you do but I could be wrong. I just remember playing with the deck for a while without hearing the term and since that's a big part of the rogue deck's strength, it should be much earlier in the deck's lifespan.

[eldaec]

you learn that it is random after playing it

Woah.

[Tannhauser]

Combo is a good thing to bring up about the shitty design. I think I'd gotten to level 10 with my rogue deck before I ever even heard of combos and it wasn't explained very well. You'd think somewhere in that basic rogue deck that you get before hitting level 10 you'd get one rogue card with combo. I don't think you do but I could be wrong. I just remember playing with the deck for a while without hearing the term and since that's a big part of the rogue deck's strength, it should be much earlier in the deck's lifespan.

I don't have a lot of luck playing ranked with Rogue but it's a fun class.  The combos are a cool idea and lets me play my preferred style, of chaining card plays for a strong effect.  Trump talks about value and there's good value in some Rogue cards. Defias Ringleader is a 2 cost 2/2 but if played as a Combo, also spawns a 2/1 minion.  SI: 7 Agent is a 3 cost 3/3 but the Combo allows him to do 2 damage anywhere.  Surgical. 

The current flavor is Miracle Rogue, which I can't really pull off due to missing some key cards.  But I've been beaten by it and it is some serious burst damage.

[schild]

You can really tell that they didn't learn much from Wizards simply by the fact combos weren't called Synergize. It's not a fighting game. It's a CCG.  

[Job601]

You can really tell that they didn't learn much from Wizards simply by the fact combos weren't called Synergize. It's not a fighting game. It's a CCG.  

It might have to do with Rogues from WoW and their combo point system.

[schild]

You can really tell that they didn't learn much from Wizards simply by the fact combos weren't called Synergize. It's not a fighting game. It's a CCG. 

It might have to do with Rogues from WoW and their combo point system.

I feel like they should disregard bullshit from WoW because this is a goddamn CCG.

[Simond]

You mean like the classes, the spells, the hero abilities, the weapons, and the creatures? 

[schild]

You mean like the classes, the spells, the hero abilities, the weapons, and the creatures? 

Actually, yes, that was their first design mistake.

[ezrast]

People talking about value is what bothers me most, for some reason. Good cards are efficient and that efficiency generates card/board advantage. I have no idea what "value" is.

edit: Also my favorite part of that article is "The word I use for the rules of how a card is written is 'templating'." as if the term is something that he personally came up with in the shower one day.

[schild]

Value is an abstract concept that has no place in Hearthstone. For one, the card pool isn't deep enough that you're mechanically doing things "for value." Second, it's a sort of tertiary trading/secondary market term.

It's not a term I expected to hear outside of competitive Magic (both in the market/trading and in play). I did, however, use it in Hex verbally when i put 7 Scrap Welders into a deck. For value. Also, I lost. I should mention the term "for value" is often used when you do things you really shouldn't be doing.

[Johny Cee]

Wizards have been posting about this for 10 years now, their website is practically a *bible* on how to make a CCG.

They really do write some amazing articles. Someone should go through, sort through all that content, and make it into an actual book sometime.

Edit: Closed my quotes...

I've said it before, but...

Of any type of game, CCGs are the most "solved" problem owing to the fact that WotC basically publishes everything related to how to successfully design a CCG.  Which is a big reason why Schild and I are facepalming some of these design decisions.

For instance, there are probably dozens if not hundreds of articles on templating of cards and standardization of card text so that card text tells the player just what the card will do, and the downfalls of early templating/text in confusing players. 

People talking about value is what bothers me most, for some reason. Good cards are efficient and that efficiency generates card/board advantage. I have no idea what "value" is.

When I think of "value"?  Knowing my opponent has direct removal, instead of playing a bomb make a more mediocre creature and use excess mana to advance board state to draw out the removal and set the stage for the finisher.  Or protecting a couple early creatures when playing against a deck with limited removal options and forcing them to expend a valuable removal spell for my mediocre guy, that will protect my heftier beatsticks or finishers.

Yah, you might even generate card disadvantage (or develop your board more slowly) from keeping that mediocre critter online and swinging, but if it drains one of your opponents guaranteed answers so that they can't respond to your plays the next 1-3 turns you've generated value.

In HS, it could be trading creatures a little disadvantageously to keep a flametongue out and buffing creatures that otherwise would be useless plays.

[Falconeer]

You mean like the classes, the spells, the hero abilities, the weapons, and the creatures? 

Actually, yes, that was their first design mistake.

But we do agree that it wasn't such a bad idea when it was handled by Cryptozoic, don't we?

[Tannhauser]

Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought Trump was talking value in that, for instance, a Leper Gnome costs 1 mana and is a 2/1 and the longer he stays on the board and does damage the higher his value.  If he attacks twice and is then killed he does 6 points of damage for 1 mana, that's good value.

I don't have all the card lingo down, I quit playing Magic twenty years ago.

[eldaec]

You mean like the classes, the spells, the hero abilities, the weapons, and the creatures? 

Actually, yes, that was their first design mistake.

But we do agree that it wasn't such a bad idea when it was handled by Cryptozoic, don't we?

Hero abilities are the single most dumb design decision in hex.

Weapons in hex only apply in pve - which I doubt will ever be implemented.

[Falconeer]

I mean, Cryptozoic used that for the WoW TCG back then and clearly they liked the mechanic (unlike the "quests" and the "emergency" mana) since they decided to recycle it in Hex. The WoW TCG wasn't M:tG, but it was good.

[eldaec]

I mean, Cryptozoic used that for the WoW TCG back then and clearly they liked the mechanic (unlike the "quests" and the "emergency" mana) since they decided to recycle it in Hex. The WoW TCG wasn't M:tG, but it was good.

Main reason they don't ruin hex is that they aren't very strong.

I certainly think CZE like the concept. But hey, sometimes people are wrong what are you going to do.

[Sophismata]

I mean, Cryptozoic used that for the WoW TCG back then and clearly they liked the mechanic (unlike the "quests" and the "emergency" mana) since they decided to recycle it in Hex. The WoW TCG wasn't M:tG, but it was good.

I thought Upper Deck designed and (initially) published the WoW TCG. Cryptozoic bought the rights or something after several years. Upper Deck also did the VS TCG (which I thought had some solid mechanics and decent design).

[Maven]

Correct. UDE did the first... 9 sets? Crypto took over when the partnership fell apart -- IIRC it was their initial flagship product and part of the justification for forming. Employees of UDE transferred over to Crypto for continuity / talent acquisition and to keep the game going.

Ben Brode (Brody? Seriously schild, are you six? Ben may not be perfect but he's a good guy, show a little respect) formerly worked on the Blizzard end of the UDE partnership in the Creative Development department before transferring over as one of the initial designers on the Hearthstone project. Ben's had a long, successful career at Blizzard -- one of the few members of its pre-WoW QA staff to move up into development.

Relying too much on feel for a non-emotional component of a game does seem like a basic design error. Ben's a TCG fanatic, one of the core faithful, surprised that this is an issue. That post seems to be conciliatory while justifying and explaining why they did it in the first place (in order to show their position).

[schild]

You mean like the classes, the spells, the hero abilities, the weapons, and the creatures?  

Actually, yes, that was their first design mistake.

But we do agree that it wasn't such a bad idea when it was handled by Cryptozoic, don't we?

Wut? I'm confused.

Blizzard has to design cards that are exclusive to certain heroes. In fact, from the looks of things, the vast majority of the set's cards are split between the heroes. Particularly the good commons/uncommons.

None of the cards in Hex are tied to a hero. Sure, there's synergy. But I've made BR Decks with a blu...SAPPHIRE hero and splashed SAPPHIRE to enable him.

One structure limits the design space, the other expands it. I'm not sure, based on my previous comments about Hearthstone, that I have to explain which was limited and which was expanded.

[schild]

Ben Brode (Brody? Seriously schild, are you six? Ben may not be perfect but he's a good guy, show a little respect)

I misspelled his name and had no clue I did as such. Fuck you for thinking otherwise. I don't go around typing Micro$oft, why would I start being juvenile about names here?

Carrying on...

Ben's had a long, successful career at Blizzard -- one of the few members of its pre-WoW QA staff to move up into development.

Relying too much on feel for a non-emotional component of a game does seem like a basic design error. Ben's a TCG fanatic, one of the core faithful, surprised that this is an issue. That post seems to be conciliatory while justifying and explaining why they did it in the first place (in order to show their position).

When you have to explain away a core design decision, there's a problem. Being a TCG fanatic does not actually qualify you as a game designer, nor does being QA (exhibit A: 90% of gaming QA, who is trained incredibly poorly). There's some great excuses and mistakes that can be made in a lot of genres. Really, every single fucking one of them except TCGs. Mark Rosewater, Richard Garfield, Aaron Forsythe, and a host of other people over at Wizards have gone out of their way to make sure you can't make core design mistakes when developing a TCG by writing down nearly every mistake for every set including the ones that existed before blogs. Not only at the set level, but through every step of the process.

There's also the obvious issue of institutionalization at Blizzard. Yes, Blizzard is basically Shawshank. With a cult. So, basically, a less profitable and arguably worse-dressed Apple. But that's another can of worms. One that is being matched by the sort of bland vanilla shitshow that is Heroes of the Storm.

Edit: I accidentally a 'y.'