Yea, they had to announce that new mode earlier than they were thinking after the new skin caused such a bit of a PR uproar. I love the idea tho (for many reasons), and we actually wanted to do something similar in Pox, but during SOE days players pushed hard for 2v2 so we went in that direction instead of developing 1v1 modes (especially since modes like Highlander and Capture the Flag were made for Pox... hyped and enjoyed and then people just didn't really play them). League saw this with their Dominion game-mode and largely just makes special modes temporary now. Someone made a suggestion that Tavern Brawl should be the 3rd button instead of the 4th, which seems like a nothing change, but it actually does look a lot better:
Neat article I read re: Top Tier decks: http://hearthstoneplayers.com/hearthstones-deck-why-wont-they-die/ "In fact, Freeze Mage was virtually non-existent after the nerfs, and wasn’t revived for months until a player by the name of Otter successfully piloted a Freeze Mage to #12 Legend (EU) and RDU sweeped Amaz 3-0 with Freeze Mage at Dreamhack." This part was interesting, as we see that even with TONS of players, this sort of thing still occurs. It's probably related to the Decklist effect that the internet has had on MTG, particularly online variants.
"Leaked" (like whatever) patch content points to some kind of Ragnaros vs Nefarian brawl thingie. So we'll get to play with that that op Bane Shift from the adventures.
I do agree. I also find that in general, card games feature a lot more diversity than tactical games, in large part because of the "trading" restrictions that tactical games tend to have, along with the ability to do things like bounce/deck manipulation etc. Most tactical games don't have the concept of a deck or hand, and while Pox has the '"runedock" but it's not really a hand, so things like Discard/Bounce just doesn't work, so you just lost a whole bunch of design space right from the get go - which definitely has an impact on diversity.
@Sokolov Read and learn. Maybe if you stopped with this "shoebox buff round" (that you handled to a bunch of noob players to make) then Pox would be closer to being balanced. Quote from Ben Brode Bad Cards are Good It's impossible to not have bad cards. Cards are judged on their power level in relation to other cards. Making one better will make another one worse, now that card has become bad. Changing cards requires a significant amount of time to tune them properly - the same amount of time new cards take to balance. This then ends up setting back the release of new content. New card designs fit better into expansions. Changing old cards too much can lead to a negative response from players that have come back to the game after a break. They are no longer in a familiar environment with what they have. Buffing old cards between expansions could lead to drastic meta changes, like those seen at the start of sets. They don't want to get rid of the phase where the meta has settled between set releases - that removes the tinkering phase. Cards that may not be powerful are still good for Hearthstone. They can appeal to different types of players. You can be encouraged to think in different ways.
Oh, nice! I love talking about this stuff. Here's the magic article from 2002 which basically says exactly what Ben says: http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr5 So this is a fairly common refrain, and I actually agree with all those points. But I would also acknowledge that like a lot of things in Game Design, there is a lot of debate and in general, it's all tools and knowledge and you have to decide what the right ones to use are in a given situation. Also, one of the skills of a game designer is being able to explain/justify a particular position (such as ben is doing there) - it doesn't mean it universally apply (or even specifically in that scenario, tho in this case I do think Ben is right about Hearthstone specifically). ~ Pox's situation is slightly different tho, which changes the equation somewhat. First, Pox had a large revamp less than a year ago. So would I have done that massive revamp? Probably not - when I did a small revamp, I focused largely on nerfing stuff that had gotten out of control in terms of ability creep (some people would say I didn't go far enough). I like the upgrade change that came with the revamp, but I am not sure it was worth it. But regardless, what's done is done and since then, Pox now has a bunch of runes from the revamp that are just meh, or have extreme overlapping roles, and this loss of diversity, in particular for themes, isn't really the same situation as just "bad cards." It's the destruction of was slowly crafted before - and there's merit in addressing those issues. Keep in mind that we really can't fix themes that got rekt without buffing on some level and buffing themes (particularly the ST ones) is something you desire. Regarding this specifically, I am curious if Ben's statements changed your opinion on wanting the ST font bonus changed or Ferrens buffed, etc. because at face-value those things are opposed to each other. Second, Pox is not a card game. Unlike Hearthstone and Magic, which are card games, and therefore much more combo heavy, as well as having a greater variance/tolerance for "bad cards," Pox's window for this is narrower, and is generally not a combo game. In fact, Pox has a history of being anti-combo, because due to its nature, such combos are often game winning in of themselves. We can talk more about why if you'd like, but this isn't necessarily true in card games. But basically, bad cards don't necessarily stay bad in card games, but bad cards tend to have a greater chance to stay bad in a game like Pox. Third, most of Pox's changes are champion-based, because they behave much less like cards than non-champions. This is because the non-champion runes in Pox actually falls under the card model a lot more, while champion runes are more susceptible to the previous point. In general, what you see is that champions that are bad stay bad, Fourth, unlike Hearthstone, where changes in functionality often needs code changes, we can change champions fairly significantly and easily without that. Fifth, they have a much bigger R&D budget than Pox does, and therefore does way more testing before launching cards. I'd call this a luxury because I have never had that with Pox, and have been asked to do with a lot more with a lot less. Thus, I am more inclined to take advantage of knowledge post launch than I would otherwise be. If Pox had a team of internal testers, we could do this stuff internally, just as Blizzard does with Hearthstone. We also note they had no problem buffing/changing/reworking a good deal of cards even during open beta. Basically, like how Randomness works in certain ways in Card Games like Hearthstone, but would have problems in Pox, the situation in Pox is a little different. ~ Personally, I'd love to get to a point where patches only had a couple nerfs to the most problematic things. But there is still a bunch of rebuild work from the revamp left to do before that can be realistically considered.
Oh, look, I think its the first time we agree since you came back: Gedden f*cked Pox up with his revamp.
Brawl is.... interesting. On one hand you have Nef which has a great early game but isn't really aggro. Then you have Rag with a great late game but not really control. Leaning towards Rag as my favourite. I play a lot of mage variants (except mech) so I am used to taking a lot of hits at the start and making a comeback. If you can stabalise at 30 health+ you have the game in the bag. Around 20 health it starts to get a bit dicey. A lot of crying on the forums about Rag being UP but I'm not seeing it . Pre-constructed decks isn't good for re-play value, hopefully next week brings something with more longevity.
I agree 100% with your analysis, specially as far as Rags power is concerned. I'm yet to loose with him, and I had an epic win with 3 health, other board full and that sweet hero power hitting face. RNG is a biatch, but I do like it as a part of the game and there is fun in it. Other than that, I feel Brawl will be in a sweet spot as far as gamplay is concerned. The classic reward pack will always be nice, and even if you only play to get it and dont touch it again for another week its still a good option to do daily missions and whatnot. Also, gives free players the chance to interact with adventure cards they didn't have the chance to play against, and it presents a good variety as far as decks are concerned. I love the concept behind this. Lastly, it gives them a lot of design room, for 2 reasons: 1) No need to release expansions in a 3 month cycle and whatnot - as long as you keep releasing content such as this, playerbase will be satisfied. Obviously I expect yearly expansions and whatnot, but I dont think 2 or 3 per years is a wise choice; 2) Brawl opens up room to play with new heroes without disrupting the games balance. It would be very hard to introduce a new class (Deathknight, for example), however you can still play with one in Tavern Brawl. Win win scenario, I feel. Lastly, it was firking expensive but I couldnt help it, bought the Hunter and Mage new heroes. They are awesome looking, and the entrance animation is sweet.
I was hoping brawl would be deck building constraints ( like no spells or no cards below 3 mana, etc).
I think it will have the constraints eventually. They will change the rules every week, maybe next week you can only have Murlock champs, or maybe with the restrictions you put above. We will just have to wait for it.
