Vor wenigen Tagen hat Blizzard Nerfs für fünf Karten angekündigt, darunter auch die Feurige Kriegsaxt, deren Kosten von 2 auf 3 Mana erhöht werden. Die Formulierung dieser Änderung sorgte allerdings in der Community, u.a. auf Reddit, für einige Unruhe.
Konkret heißt es darin:
Die andere Option für Feurige Kriegsaxt war, ihren Angriff auf 2 zu verringern. Allerdings fanden wir, dass diese Änderung nicht intuitiv genug wäre. Durch die Veränderung der Manakosten einer Karte wird das Spielerlebnis meistens nur geringfügig beeinträchtigt. Schließlich seht ihr die neuen Manakosten, sobald ihr die Karte auf der Hand habt.
Diese Erklärung führte u.a. zu der Interpretation, man gehe bei Blizzard davon aus, dass die Spieler durcheinander kommen würden, wenn man zu viel an einer Karte ändere. Da die Manazahl aber groß und prominent platziert sei, sei die Wahrscheinlichkeit hier höher, dass man die Anpassung verstehe.
Via GamesBeat hat sich Ben Brode nun zu dieser Interpretation geäußert und u.a. betont, man denke absolut nicht, dass die Spieler dumm seien. Vielmehr denke man, dass die Spieler in der Lage seien, sich an tausende Kartentexte alleine durch das Sehen einer Grafik zu erinnern.
Sehe man z.B. ein Bild von Arkanitschnitter, wüsste man, dass es sich um eine 5/2-Waffe handele. Ändere man die zu Grunde liegende Spielmechanik ohne die Kartengrafik zu ändern, würden Spieler nicht jedes mal aufs Neue die Kartentexte lesen und somit nicht merken, dass eines der Wörter auf der Karte geändert worden sei.
„Niemand prüft Arkanitschnitter bei jedem Ausspielen nochmal, um sicherzugehen, dass es sich nach wie vor um eine 5/2-Waffe handelt. Das ist Quatsch. Daher ist es weniger beeinträchtigend, die Manakosten zu ändern, als Angriff, Leben oder den Kartentext. Die Karte ist wortwörtlich nicht mehr spielbar oder hervorgehoben, sodass für Spieler, die sich an die Karte erinnern, offentlichtlich wird, dass eine Änderung vorgenommen wurde“, so Ben Brode.
I always love to read discussion about Hearthstone, and there’s been a lot of healthy back and forth about the pros and cons of this particular change and the timing of it.
However, some of what I read in the community response seems to be a core misunderstanding that we are nerfing cards because we think players are confused by them (and therefore we think players are stupid). I want to be super-clear — these cards are being nerfed for power level reasons, or because we are curating the set of evergreen cards to help Standard feel fresh and more fun with our yearly standard rotation. The language about certain changes being more disruptive than others was related to why we decided to make one change over another, once we’d already decided to make a change.
We absolutely don’t think players are stupid.
I, like a lot of players, have memorized every Hearthstone card. If I show you a picture of Arcanite Reaper, I bet you don’t have to read the card to know that it’s a 5/2 weapon. Art becomes a shortcut to game mechanics. When we change the underlying game mechanics without changing the art, players who don’t read their cards every time they play a game won’t notice that one of the words on the cards has changed.
I want to make this clear — we don’t think players are too stupid to read their cards. We think players have the capacity to memorize thousands of cards‘ text and recognize them by art alone. Nobody double-checks Arcanite Reaper to make sure it’s still a 5/2 weapon each time they cast it. That’s nuts. That’s why it’s less disruptive to change mana cost than Attack, Health, or card text. The card is literally not castable or highlighted green any more, and that makes it obvious that a change has been made to players who have every card memorized.
— Quelle: GamesBeat —
Zudem ist Ben Brode auf Reddit auf mehrere Anmerkungen und Fragen seitens Spielern eingegangen. Die entsprechenden Beiträge findet ihr gesammelt hier:
I think he’s effectively saying „all other things equal, it’s preferential to change mana costs rather than anything else“. If there are two changes proposed to a card that have near-identical consequences on gameplay, change the mana cost.
Why was Warsong Commander’s nerf defended by saying her mana cost was intimately tied to the ’soul of the card‘? Blizzard; consistently inconsistent.
I’m going to be pulling my hair out when I (having memorized all of the cards) try to play my 2 mana 3/2 Fiery War Axe on turn 2. Certainly my 2 mana 3/2 Fiery War Axe will be playable on turn 2 after the next patch, that’s how the card is. If they change anything about it, how will I know? I will only ever remember a 2 mana 3/2 Fiery War Axe when I look at the art.
„Huh, why didn’t this work? Oh this card changed. I now know this for the rest of my hearthstone career“. Thats how that goes.
Ben Brode, you are wrong about this fiasco. Let me be VERY clear about this:
- We understand that the reason you nerfed FWA was for power level reasons
- We understand that players recognize cards by their art and don’t re-read the card every time to make sure the card hasn’t changed.
- We understand that changing the cost of FWA is less disruptive because people are forced to recognize that the card is not castable on 2 mana
The reason people are mad is: Given all of the three things above, you and your team STILL should have nerfed FWA differently. You completely killed the card. If you had changed the text on FWA (can only attack minions, for example) and made the card MORE complicated and MORE disruptive, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER.
It is more important that you keep cards playable than to keep cards simple.
You and your team’s design philosophy is patently WRONG when you choose to nerf cards by method A over method B, for the reason that it is less disruptive to change a card’s mana cost.
I still don’t get this. He is still basically saying that he still believes that people do not read or check cards as they play them, If anything it is a very small portion of players that would genuinely make a mistake like when Arcane Golem was merged there was no doubt a few who were shocked that it didn’t have Charge.
But this if anything would be a one and done scenario where they see the mistake and change the deck right after. Most players hate losing and losing to a mistake of not knowing a card is something that most players will correct before their next game.
I’m on the camp of the nerfs are fine and that the explanation was fine. But this statement to me doesn’t say anything other than what has been said before
Isn’t the whole point of the screen that pops up explaining nerfs in game meant to cover all this? People are obviously going to read this so I don’t think this is good reasoning.
I haven’t been very vocal on this whole nerfing fiasco since I’m giving Team 5 the benefit of the doubt and waiting to cast judgement after the nerfs have actually taken place.
However, they’re definitely failing to realize something. Even if a player who’s been playing a long time forgets that a core card has been changed in a certain way and makes a fatal mistake, they will learn from their mistake. Team 5 is emphasizing usability and user experience so much to the point where they think players will quit the game over mistakes like this. Even the stupidest most unaware player wouldn’t make this mistake more than 5 times before learning the new card.
Maybe there is another more advanced psychological reason that I’m missing that justifies this kind of nerfing behavior, which I would be interested in hearing about.
Edit: Re-reading my post made me realize how many hyperboles I used. Hopefully that doesn’t come across as condescending, I just wanted an explanation and Ben Brode was kind enough to clarify.
Stop saying it, you missed my point.
Changing it is fine.
Basing what TYPE of change to make off of what confuses players is moronic