• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Won

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,428
I find this all very fascinating as someone who already quit the game for good not too long ago, because of the weekly quest set up and the rather negative patterns it created for me. A true fly on the wall moment. Sometimes I just want to watch these meetings that lead to such nonsense.
 
Oct 25, 2017
12,622
Amazing, Blizzard could probably set your house on fire, and you would be thankful for the free heat.
There is no way of spinning this as a non issue.

Is it that unreasonable for you to read my other post before flamebaiting me? I literally said I expect them to tone down the changes, amongst other things. This ain't some high traffic thread, you have no excuse.
 
Oct 25, 2017
27,973
hearthstone.blizzard.com

Update on Weekly Quests

We’re reducing some of the updated requirements on Weekly Quests.

Pretty much what some of you expected, increased XP is staying but quest requirements are coming down to what they think is more manageable after hearing lots of feedback

I wonder what numbers they settle at - even 10 wins would be a lot IMO
 

KillstealWolf

One Winged Slayer
Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
16,125
hearthstone.blizzard.com

Update on Weekly Quests

We’re reducing some of the updated requirements on Weekly Quests.

Pretty much what some of you expected, increased XP is staying but quest requirements are coming down to what they think is more manageable after hearing lots of feedback

I wonder what numbers they settle at - even 10 wins would be a lot IMO

How often do we see a company push something to an extreme, the community complains, and then as an "Apology" they roll it back to a lower, but still worse than what it was previously number? Way too often. 10 would still be too much I feel, even 8 is still a joke. Especially if they aren't changing the XP bonuses. I'd prefer a full rollback to what it was before to be honest. The number of Miniatures mission in particular is still way to high for how often and how many miniatures you can even fit into your deck, and that was before they super upped all these requirements.
 

Fer

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
1,023
I don't think it's a non issue. OG ran the numbers and concluded everybody loses from the changes.


View: https://x.com/HSTopDecks/status/1780647203423342678

[...]A dedicated player gets 8 or 9 packs more over the course of the expansion – and is still actually experiencing a net loss when you take into account the changes from March – but that is a difference of a few percent only.

Try as I might, I just cannot find the upsides of this change. Not for the players, and not for Blizzard either. In fact, considering the effects of the changes made in March, Blizzard could have just made this change to increase the rewards without changing the requirements at all. That would have been a worthwhile celebration for Hearthstone's 10th anniversary, and in the grand scheme of things, it would not have cost Blizzard much of anything. If they want to turn this into a PR win, they still have the option to revert the requirements change and leave the improved rewards in the game.
 
Oct 27, 2017
5,972
Las Vegas
hearthstone.blizzard.com

Update on Weekly Quests

We’re reducing some of the updated requirements on Weekly Quests.

Pretty much what some of you expected, increased XP is staying but quest requirements are coming down to what they think is more manageable after hearing lots of feedback

I wonder what numbers they settle at - even 10 wins would be a lot IMO

I mean who didn't see this coming? I know Blizzard has been getting dunked on for years but god that company is just an embarrassment at this point. Kind of sad when driving more engagement is just making weeklies more difficult/time consuming instead of making the game more enjoyable.

I already wasn't playing much to begin with so this just makes it easier to drop it completely.
 
Oct 25, 2017
27,973
I mean who didn't see this coming? I know Blizzard has been getting dunked on for years but god that company is just an embarrassment at this point. Kind of sad when driving more engagement is just making weeklies more difficult/time consuming instead of making the game more enjoyable.

I already wasn't playing much to begin with so this just makes it easier to drop it completely.

Even though I was knocking out wins in the brawl today, it felt like work since if I didn't need 15 wins, I'd have only played once or twice
 

Boopers

Member
Nov 1, 2020
1,255
Vermont usa
hearthstone.blizzard.com

Update on Weekly Quests

We’re reducing some of the updated requirements on Weekly Quests.

Pretty much what some of you expected, increased XP is staying but quest requirements are coming down to what they think is more manageable after hearing lots of feedback

I wonder what numbers they settle at - even 10 wins would be a lot IMO
Oh good, I'm glad they're mostly reverting it. 15 wins in one week is a lot, especially when trying to get all the other quests done at the same time.

Honestly, I'd be okay with 10 ranked games played - not won.
 

Won

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,428
Again fascinating. You can basically hear the guy in the suit babbling on in his presentation to the higher ups, showing fancy lines about "engagement!" "Increasing player spending without inrcreasing development cost!". Just corporate rot.
 
Oct 27, 2017
5,972
Las Vegas
Again fascinating. You can basically hear the guy in the suit babbling on in his presentation to the higher ups, showing fancy lines about "engagement!" "Increasing player spending without inrcreasing development cost!". Just corporate rot.

Not only that but the fact that they did the whole "let's go overboard so when people get upset we can tone it down to what we intended the whole time and they'll accept it" thing.

I mean you literally have people on Twitter in the replies thanking them for listening lol. Amazing that something so transparent still works so well.
 

Wiibomb

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
4,713
A hot fix is being rolled out now to fix the quest problem, they are reducing the requirements of most of the quests. The Ranked wins went from 15 to 10

us.forums.blizzard.com

29.2.1 Patch Notes

Patch 29.2.1 is a server-side hotfix rolling out now with the following game updates and bug fixes. Weekly Quest Update The Weekly Quest requirements are now as follows: Use your Hero Power 30 times (instead of 40) Play Battlecry cards 75 times (instead of 100) Play Miniaturize or Mini cards...
 

Tommy Showbiz

Member
Jul 20, 2022
1,875
Finishing BPs in Hearthstone takes a fucking eternity, so there's some merit to potentially adding bigger XP bonuses but fuck me did they go about it in the worst way possible.
 

KillstealWolf

One Winged Slayer
Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
16,125
A hot fix is being rolled out now to fix the quest problem, they are reducing the requirements of most of the quests. The Ranked wins went from 15 to 10

us.forums.blizzard.com

29.2.1 Patch Notes

Patch 29.2.1 is a server-side hotfix rolling out now with the following game updates and bug fixes. Weekly Quest Update The Weekly Quest requirements are now as follows: Use your Hero Power 30 times (instead of 40) Play Battlecry cards 75 times (instead of 100) Play Miniaturize or Mini cards...

Yeah that's the face to the door strategy, Oh joy, I love quests that are twice as long as they were previously now giving 20% more EXP from before. But hey, it's not three times as long so I guess we celebrate this?

I can't imagine how long it takes to play 10 full battlegrounds games, let alone win 10 of them.

Yeah, no dice. This still sucks.
 

RoninChaos

Member
Oct 26, 2017
8,342
Kind of expected outcome. I still think it was a non-issue at the numbers before, but I certainly don't mind them being lower so it's a win.
I'm sorry but it absolutely is an issue and you are HILARIOUSLY wrong here in a way I don't think you've really considered.

These changes may not be a non-issue for you be objectively those changes are bad for EVERYONE. The player and blizzard. Those changes DRASTICALLY alter the way the game is engaged with and how it's played. It incentivizes players who are super engaged to feel rewarded while making every other group have to work waaaaay harder for basic rewards in a game that wants you to constantly be buying into its monetary model. This effectively shuts the door in the face of a huge chunk of people because it means most of them won't be able to complete their battle passes under this modified quest system. Even with the changes they're got fixing.

That means those players who were engaged before AND were buying aren't going to be engaged or buying again because blizzard has effectively show them the wall they're going to hit with quests they simply will not be able to complete. So when they hit that wall because of time or skill, they will reducd buying into the monetary model or cease purchasing all together. All of that leads to revenue loss and player churn which is the one thing you absolutely do not want in a f2p game that is so highly monetized in the way Hearthstone is.

I cannot stress how stupid this decision was, and then rolling it back half way only confirms that blizzard's only intentions here were to bump up engagement metrics through artificial means. This decision is literally the worst decision that could be made for the health of the game, the player base, and the prospects of a continuing healthy environment for the game's future based on its current revenue model. There were numerous ways blizzard could have made this decision and they choose the absolute worst one for players and for their business. They didn't have to do this at ALL so it speaks volumes that they did it, and did to so horribly.
 

Fer

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
1,023
the numbers look more manageable after the adjustment, but still I hope Reddit keeps burning.
I still don't agree with the changes.
 
Oct 25, 2017
12,622
Those changes DRASTICALLY alter the way the game is engaged with and how it's played.

Eh, they increased the amount of time you needed to invest at the bare minimum to keep getting free stuff. They didn't reduce the minimum amount of free stuff, just amount you could get with the minimum amount of effort. I've probably got about a 50-60% battle pass clearance rate at this point, so people should stop blindly assuming that my position on the matter is wholly dictated by experience on the matter because it's annoying.
 

sibarraz

Prophet of Regret - One Winged Slayer
Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
18,137
I was barely playing this game to get my 5 wins done and move on, it was a good game to waste some time, but at this point Im not sure if is a sound idea to scare away "casual" players like myself who played a lot back then and now doesnt feel like commiting that much time since I feel the base game has some glaring issues, but also dont want to leave what I have built on the years

Even if Im more F2P than before I also spent money on battle passes (ccg and battlegrounds) so isnt like Im not giving money to blizzard.

I could spent much more like before, but they removed regional pricing and also I find the current bundles terrible for what they offer, the diamond cards are way overpriced.

Overall, is like blizzard really wants me to drop the game for good, at least now im not bothering booting the game and moved on into pokemon tcg live and snap.

The thing that I find worse is that all of this happend in the game 10th anniversary, instead of trying to bring more players by giving away more stuff and holding events that rewarded players WHILE ALSO DRIVING UP ENGAGEMENT they went full greed on it. Like the best rewards are the one you got for putting twitch in the background
 

RoninChaos

Member
Oct 26, 2017
8,342
Eh, they increased the amount of time you needed to invest at the bare minimum to keep getting free stuff. They didn't reduce the minimum amount of free stuff, just amount you could get with the minimum amount of effort. I've probably got about a 50-60% battle pass clearance rate at this point, so people should stop blindly assuming that my position on the matter is wholly dictated by experience on the matter because it's annoying.
You're not doing much to dispel the notion, I'm afraid.

If someone buys the battle pass, they're earning rewards they paid for. So this idea that "they increased the amount of time you needed to invest at the bare minimum to keep getting free stuff." is bullshit. You are objectively wrong if you're only looking at it that way.

Altering the way users can earn those rewards, specifically users who have paid for a battle pass, stops/breaks the ability for those players to complete the battle pass they paid for, while also drastically increasing the time needed to get anything accomplished in the game.

If you're only a F2P player and haven't put money into the game, then blizzard making it harder to complete quests may not make a difference because you aren't engaged in the same way that a player that is paying for a battle pass is engaged. But this negatively impacts people who are paying money into the game because the battle passes expire and the rewards within the passes expire if you don't achieve the levels required, which blizzard just made exponentially more difficult to obtain.

These changes also negatively impact F2P players because those players who were engaged to get the "free stuff" as you described it, will have to put in double or triple the amount of time for only a 20-30% gain in rewards. Eventually that massive increase in time for such little return will cause those players to play less or leave entirely.

It's not difficult to see why these changes are bad overall and it's unclear what blizzard's goal really was here. If it was to stop f2p players from being able to get as much "free stuff" then they could have limited that in 3000 different ways. Instead blizzard made these broad changes that are going to fuck everyone and hurt the health of the game. There is no spinning this, even if it doesn't bug you. This is a HORRIBLE decision.
 
Oct 25, 2017
12,622
You're not doing much to dispel the notion, I'm afraid.

If someone buys the battle pass, they're earning rewards they paid for. So this idea that "they increased the amount of time you needed to invest at the bare minimum to keep getting free stuff." is bullshit. You are objectively wrong if you're only looking at it that way.

Altering the way users can earn those rewards, specifically users who have paid for a battle pass, stops/breaks the ability for those players to complete the battle pass they paid for, while also drastically increasing the time needed to get anything accomplished in the game.

If you're only a F2P player and haven't put money into the game, then blizzard making it harder to complete quests may not make a difference because you aren't engaged in the same way that a player that is paying for a battle pass is engaged. But this negatively impacts people who are paying money into the game because the battle passes expire and the rewards within the passes expire if you don't achieve the levels required, which blizzard just made exponentially more difficult to obtain.

These changes also negatively impact F2P players because those players who were engaged to get the "free stuff" as you described it, will have to put in double or triple the amount of time for only a 20-30% gain in rewards. Eventually that massive increase in time for such little return will cause those players to play less or leave entirely.

It's not difficult to see why these changes are bad overall and it's unclear what blizzard's goal really was here. If it was to stop f2p players from being able to get as much "free stuff" then they could have limited that in 3000 different ways. Instead blizzard made these broad changes that are going to fuck everyone and hurt the health of the game. There is no spinning this, even if it doesn't bug you. This is a HORRIBLE decision.

First off, it's clear they wanted to increase user engagement. It's funny you claimed I didn't consider something in the last post, while posting a word soup of obvious considerations and then say you don't even understand what the goal was. They clearly wanted to nudge players who only do the bare minimum into playing more by increasing rewards to players who play more than the bare minimum. They also obviously made mistakes, thus I said I expected them to change most of the quests and they did do that.

You're also just strawmanning this making up imaginary arguments to argue against, from the start by ignoring the post that actually explained my POV. It's weird you'll write an entire novel of how I am wrong based on a short post without bothering to actually learn what my position is.

It's clear you just want to argue for the sake of arguing. I'm not going to entertain you any longer. They already have set their changes to come in place and we're getting more. This has been a pointlessly antagonistic exchange from the start.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,827
Straight up it was a fucking stupid decision. Expecting people to play 3 times as much for such a pathetic ass increase in xp is just.......fucking nonsense. Increasing it to 7 wins would've made so much more sense. 10 is still entirely too fucking much, ESPECIALLY for BG's.

For standard, if you have a 50% winrate, that was 30 goddamn games. That's insane. And 20 is still too much. I think expecting casual players to play almost 3 games per day is kinda unreasonable. Playing 2 games is way more realistic. And BG's games take so long that I'd say leaving it at 5 wins would probably be the right move, but 7 would still be a good number.

Ehhh....whatever. They fucked up and hopefully people keep pushing back on this horseshit.

I'm glad I had finished my quests before this shit had rolled out.
 
Oct 25, 2017
27,973
Straight up it was a fucking stupid decision. Expecting people to play 3 times as much for such a pathetic ass increase in xp is just.......fucking nonsense. Increasing it to 7 wins would've made so much more sense. 10 is still entirely too fucking much, ESPECIALLY for BG's.

For standard, if you have a 50% winrate, that was 30 goddamn games. That's insane. And 20 is still too much. I think expecting casual players to play almost 3 games per day is kinda unreasonable. Playing 2 games is way more realistic. And BG's games take so long that I'd say leaving it at 5 wins would probably be the right move, but 7 would still be a good number.

Ehhh....whatever. They fucked up and hopefully people keep pushing back on this horseshit.

I'm glad I had finished my quests before this shit had rolled out.

It really depends on what the brawl is

I bet they want more people paying to play arena too
 
Oct 25, 2017
12,622
I didn't even do BGs to clear 5. Those matches are just not time efficient if you're just trying to knock out the quest. Tavern brawls are almost always short, but also easy to win.
 

KillstealWolf

One Winged Slayer
Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
16,125
Didn't help that Duels, one of the faster ways to do win side mode quests, got removed in the patch as well.
 
Oct 25, 2017
27,973
Weird, BattleNet desktop keeps trying to update HS but fails and says something is broken, I tried to scan and repair, and uninstall, reinstall and it's still happening on this computer


Anyone else having issues?

Edit - restarting the computer fixed it
 

RoninChaos

Member
Oct 26, 2017
8,342
First off, it's clear they wanted to increase user engagement. It's funny you claimed I didn't consider something in the last post, while posting a word soup of obvious considerations and then say you don't even understand what the goal was. They clearly wanted to nudge players who only do the bare minimum into playing more by increasing rewards to players who play more than the bare minimum. They also obviously made mistakes, thus I said I expected them to change most of the quests and they did do that.

You're also just strawmanning this making up imaginary arguments to argue against, from the start by ignoring the post that actually explained my POV. It's weird you'll write an entire novel of how I am wrong based on a short post without bothering to actually learn what my position is.

It's clear you just want to argue for the sake of arguing. I'm not going to entertain you any longer. They already have set their changes to come in place and we're getting more. This has been a pointlessly antagonistic exchange from the start.
Okay bud. Keep it moving.
You guys see the patch notes from 2020 where they lowered the quests to 5 wins from 7 because it was staking so long for people to hit those 7 wins. lol
 
Oct 27, 2017
5,972
Las Vegas
Okay bud. Keep it moving.
You guys see the patch notes from 2020 where they lowered the quests to 5 wins from 7 because it was staking so long for people to hit those 7 wins. lol

Heh...

7qefrrjrisvc1.jpeg
 

BashNasty

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,904
Jesus, this thread got unpleasant.

Been loving the battleground duos mode, it really shakes up the format and requires a lot more engagement and tactical thinking with your partner to do well.
 

Wiibomb

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
4,713
Jesus, this thread got unpleasant.

Been loving the battleground duos mode, it really shakes up the format and requires a lot more engagement and tactical thinking with your partner to do well.
Are you able to play it well even without external coms? Because the main problem I have is that sometimes feels like playing alone with minimal insteraction with your partner.

Also that mobile has a gamebreaking bug where there are no coms at all
 

BashNasty

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,904
Are you able to play it well even without external coms? Because the main problem I have is that sometimes feels like playing alone with minimal insteraction with your partner.

Also that mobile has a gamebreaking bug where there are no coms at all

I'll admit, I've done all my duos playing with my brother over a mic. Without communication, it doesn't seem like it would be all that fun.
 

Arjen

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
2,035
Curious to see what the balance changes will bring to standard. Normally I would just knock out the weekly's, but with the new system I'm not going to bother, it takes to much time and I dispise the current meta, so I'm not putting in any time.
Really enjoying the new batlegrounds season so far.
 

Wiibomb

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
4,713
so, this was posted yesterday, Aleco from the final design team spoke about the state of standard right now and how they are worried because rotation didn't affect much if anything at all the power level of the overall game, so they are making big changes tomorrow, they are going to change about 30 cards to try to lower the power level overall and make the OTK style play less prominent

us.forums.blizzard.com

Dev Insights—Upcoming Card Adjustments

The following is being posted on behalf of Aleco Pors, Final Design Lead. Hey everyone! We’ve got a really big balance patch planned for later this week, with changes to around 30 cards, including buffs and nerfs—and a few Wild changes. Since this patch has different goals from most other...
 
Oct 25, 2017
12,622
I'm not that big into standard atm because of the issue they're describing. I generally like the idea of dropping the power level, as they did several times last year, but last year they weren't that wide of nerfs as they could have been. Maybe this year this degree of changes all at once could make a nice dent.

Introducing such powerful cards in the first set was a mistake, I think. And frankly I never liked the idea of certain cards being so pushed, like Zarimi in particular. The more changes imo the better.
 

Beardlini

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,673
One of the biggest reasons I don't play constructed hearthstone anymore is the insane power creep. Cards are flat out about twice as good as they use to be. I understand power creep is inevitable, even from just having more options, but man I'd kill for something closer to power levels of 8 years ago versus now.
 
Oct 25, 2017
12,622
One of the biggest reasons I don't play constructed hearthstone anymore is the insane power creep. Cards are flat out about twice as good as they use to be. I understand power creep is inevitable, even from just having more options, but man I'd kill for something closer to power levels of 8 years ago versus now.

While there is undoubtedly power creep, it's not the issue here. I think it's a lot more nuanced than that. The power level is higher but it's more or less by design and not because they keep trying to one-up previous cards.

I'll put it this way... the power level of the meta is whatever they want it to be. Cards rotate out, they do nerfs, they do buffs, they print new cards, they even print new core cards, remove core cards, add old cards to core. They have all these tools to manipulate the power level of cards, they've chosen the game to be higher power than it was originally and I think that's a good choice.

I think some people have rose colored glasses on when they say they want a power level closer to classic. The game was way less exciting, a lot more linear and just curve out style gameplay. I don't think anyone really wants a return there. Every time one of these decks is strong it gets the most complaints because it's dominant at lower ranks and it gets nerfed.

8 years ago was means streets. I think we want something closer to scholo and darkmoon faire for a 4 set meta and then a 6 set meta would look something like united in stormwind and titans.
 

Beardlini

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,673
While there is undoubtedly power creep, it's not the issue here. I think it's a lot more nuanced than that. The power level is higher but it's more or less by design and not because they keep trying to one-up previous cards.

I'll put it this way... the power level of the meta is whatever they want it to be. Cards rotate out, they do nerfs, they do buffs, they print new cards, they even print new core cards, remove core cards, add old cards to core. They have all these tools to manipulate the power level of cards, they've chosen the game to be higher power than it was originally and I think that's a good choice.

I think some people have rose colored glasses on when they say they want a power level closer to classic. The game was way less exciting, a lot more linear and just curve out style gameplay. I don't think anyone really wants a return there. 8 years ago was means streets. I think we want something closer to scholo and darkmoon faire for a 4 set meta and then a 6 set meta would look something like united in stormwind and titans.

Some people may be blinded by nostalgia, but, I know what I like in card games lol. Been playing them most of my life. I just genuinely preferred how the game functioned back then. I prefer card advantage and not endless shuffling cards into your deck and fatigue being a real possibility etc.

Exciting means different things to different people.

I will say, I do appreciate that they did finally start to get really creative with effects. Effects were more boring back then. I think you can have exciting effects with a lower power level, though.
 
Last edited:

KillstealWolf

One Winged Slayer
Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
16,125
Controversial as it seems, but I always like it when discover cards are strong in the meta, often because you have to on the fly decide which of the three cards presented to you provide you the most value or answer to what your opponent is doing. And you tend to see a lot of different cards from normal because of it, getting to see a lot of weird interactions. It made Year of the Dragon one of my favourites with all the lackeys and what they could generate, though I still feel the Draconic Lackey might have been one step too far. I do know a lot of people weren't keen on the lackeys just because they had no idea what they were going up against and it felt like a guessing game at that point,which I can understand that perspective as well.

Conversely, I think Quests are my least favourite cards just because it makes every deck very linear and fixed, you know exactly what each deck is aiming to do every turn, its a just a race to see who can pull of their quest first and get the reward. Unsurprisingly you can guess that I hated Stormwind the most because of this because Questlines were way too overturned. Didn't help that you had stuff like Sorcerer's Gambit where the play was don't play a minion so they can't pull off their frost spell and advance their quest. Not a fun time all around.

At the moment... I feel like there isn't really a good midgame deck to play at the moment, either you get overrun by the insane burst aggro of the likes of Token Hunter or Zarimi Priest. Or get rolled by the control decks until they draw their win cons like Sif or Wheel of Death. I feel like both ends of those need to be looked into in this case.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,827
Aleco's post does have me concerned, and I was going to go on a giant rant about the game, but I'll just sit back and wait for whatever they end up doing. Hopefully they don't make the game boring as fuck. While Threads of Despair and nature shaman are a problem that needs to be addressed, I largely think the game is alright. People just seem to dislike win conditions.