Iksar parla dei nerf: “giusto non colpire Face Hunter e Priest”WhatsApp
Attraverso una nuova serie di domande/risposte pubblicate sul forum ufficiale, lo sviluppatore di Hearthstone Dean “Iksar” Ayala ha chiarito alcuni importanti argomenti riguardanti i bilanciamenti ed i nerf che ciclicamente trovano spazio all’interno della locanda.
Iksar ha prima di ogni altra cosa risposto alle domande inerenti il mancato nerf per il Face Hunter e per il Sacerdote, spiegando che ne il Resurrect Priest, ne tanto meno il Face Hunter necessitavano in alcun modo di un bilanciamento visto che al legend questi mazzi non godono di percentuali di vittoria preoccupanti.
Lo sviluppatore ha spiegato che per capire quale mazzo bilanciare bisogna guardare a come questo si comporta ai rank più elevati dato che, nella totalità dei casi, i mazzi più (o meno) giocati in Legend saranno con il tempo, ed “a cascata”, anche i più (o meno) giocati anche ai rank inferiori.
Per quanto riguarda il capitolo “Galakrond Shaman“, Iksar ha ammesso che lui ed il resto del team hanno esagerato con questo deck, che sapevano perfettamente quanto forte sarebbe stato (secondo loro era in assoluto il miglior deck fino a ieri) e che si sono evidentemente spinti troppo oltre, cercando di intervenire nel limitare le potenzialità dell’archetipo con ben due tornate differenti di bilanciamenti.
Ad Iksar è stato anche chiesto come mai i devs non optino con maggiore frequenza verso i buff piuttosto che sui nerf, ed è presto arrivata una domanda tanto giusta quanto, quasi, scontata: Iksar ha infatti spiegato che è molto più semplice “ridurre” il potenziale di un singolo mazzo esageratamente forte piuttosto che potenziare gli altri 12/13 mazzi che non sono ai livelli di quello singolo.
Infine, ad Iksar è stato chiesto se con l’ultima espansione non avessero esagerato con il livello di potenza generale delle carte, ritenuto da molti membri della community eccessivamente elevato, e se non fosse stato meglio procedere invece con delle carte meno “esasperate” e forti per evitare poi delle tornate di bilanciamento. In merito però, è stato assolutamente positivo leggere l’opinione di Iksar, secondo il quale la situazione del gioco piace sia a lui che al resto degli sviluppatori.
Dean ha infatti affermato che per questa espansione (e per le future) il team ha deciso di lavorare correndo dei maggiori rischi e proponendo delle carte estremamente più forti di quelle già presenti nel gioco. In questo caso, il team di Blizzard ha confermato che preferisce correre il rischio di creare carte troppo rotte, piuttosto che proporre delle carte esageratamente “safe” e quindi, spesso, anche noiose.
Di seguito andiamo a vedere la lista completa con tutti i dettagli pubblicati sul forum:
Le domande/risposte sui social
Iksar: Face Hunter and Priest have both been very popular and rather successful from about rank 10 and down. Rank 10 to Legend don’t see very much success from either deck.
The reason we chose not to make changes to Priest or Hunter in this patch was not because players at those ranks don’t matter, it’s because we generally see a trickle down effect on the meta that starts in Legend and moves down to rank 17-18. We’d expect the population of both those decks to decrease as players experiment with new decks.
Face Hunter is generally popular at lower ranks because it’s a fairly low cost deck. Right now it’s weak to a lot of the Shaman, Rogue, and Warlock strategies out there and I imagine that will still be true after the nerfs to those decks. If Face Hunter still continues to be super high population after after 16.2 has been out for a bit it’s likely we would address that deck in some way that makes for a more varied experience.
Iksar: It’s a bug introduced with the new patch. I think Keaton may have already fixed it internally but we have to coordinate with the team to deploy the fix to you all. It’s a server side change so it shouldn’t be too long, will check in the morning.
Iksar: I think under the normal circumstances in Hearthstone history, maybe not.
The influx of card changes this expansion has a little to do with those cards being quite powerful, but it’s mostly that we wanted to try a different approach to the cadence we make card changes.
The changes I feel were absolutely necessary this expansion were the ones to Galakrond Shaman. It was really the only archetype that was at a power level unacceptable under any past circumstance. Even after the first round of changes, there turned out to be an undiscovered deck that played a little slower and was even more powerful than the version being used during the first couple weeks. During playtesting, we honestly just thought that Galakrond Shaman was an incredibly fun deck to play and wanted to push it to a level where it would be considered one of the more powerful decks. We pushed too far, it happens.
As far as the rest of the changes, I think in the past we would have waited a little longer to take action. There are some advantages and disadvantages to waiting. One of the advantages is that the fewer changes you make, the more I think players are motivated to deckbuild and create new solutions rather than depend on us to make balance changes to things that might appear to be slightly out of line. In general, it’s probably healthier for the game if your first reaction to a powerful strategy is to try and find ways to beat it rather than join along and ride the wave because investing time into finding alternatives is undermined by constant changes.
One of the core disadvantages is that change happens less frequently. If there is something that frustrates you, maybe you can play a different strategy but maybe you don’t enjoy that strategy as much. Maybe you don’t own the cards for it. Maybe your favorite class is just weak to whatever the popular deck is and you don’t get to play it. Some of these things are very hard to avoid, but a faster rate of change makes it so you are less likely to be frustrated by a particular thing for too long. Change can be fun. Expansions aren’t just fun for players with the new cards, they can be fun for players playing old strategies too because the meta environment totally changes.
So, why are we trying something different? Some of it has to do with research. We dug through a bunch of data trying to find out what the behavior of players is when they have a strategy they play get nerfed. I think it’s pretty reasonable to assume that a dedicated Shaman player might see a large decrease in play if their deck is nerfed in a way that makes them less excited to play it. It turns out, data hasn’t really backed up that theory in a way we might have expected. We’ve done this kind of research in the past, but as Garrosh might say, times change.
Of course, we’ve just started on a track to a different strategy. It’s possible we’ll find that over time increasing the cadence of change fatigues players in a way we would only find out after sticking to the strategy for a longer period. It’s possible that because we’re opting to change more cards more often, we’ll end up changing cards players didn’t think needed changes at a rate that makes people unhappy. We look to the audience for feedback on that, so let us know!
Iksar: We are, the window for success on buffs is super small though. We would be changing a super low population strategy with the hope it ends up in the window of 3-5% play rate or something.
Also making buffs usually requires much more change for similar impact. You could theoretically take a ‘bad’ deck to a decent deck with one change, but that one changed card would have to be so powerful that it would make for a bad experience.
Still, I’m sure there will be a circumstance where a buff makes sense and falls into place, just not this time
Q: Is DOD power level something to expect more of in the future? because tbh i like the “make a really strong set, then tweak it post-launch til we get it right” approach you guys are trying right now.
Iksar: The raw power of this set is pretty high, but I think the level at which people describe it is a little overblown. Galakrond archetypes are very meta and they are high density DoD, which makes the set representation really high. If the meta shifts, DoD population goes way down.
But yes, we tend to be less safe with the idea that it’s better to push and miss on the high power side than it is to play safe and miss on the low power side. We are trying to get it exactly right and not just power creep sets but there will always be misses
Iksar: It’s a subjective thing. I think it depends on what necessary means to you. Past us would probably have held off on the second round of nerfs and waited to see if the meta didn’t go high Shaman population. These second round of changes was mostly preemptive.
All of our data pointed to the post first-round nerf Shaman still being the best overall deck and it was still being refined. It hadn’t hit huge play rate yet, but we expect that it would have. Opted to make a change instead of waiting to find out.