Welcome back team!
Can you feel it? The leaves are changing color, there is the chill in the air, and all across the world a collection of the world greatest heroes and villains are doing battle! That's right friends, Overwatch is finally here. Yesterday over 200 streams and 200,000 viewers took to Twitch to show off one of the most anticipated games of the year. While I want to take this time to complain that I am an outsider watching what seems to be the rest of the internet enjoying Overwatch, I instead want to talk about what this game's release could mean for future Blizzcon's going forward.
We have come a long way from the days when Blizzcon featured only the Starcraft and World of Warcraft championships. ESports had taken a back seat to game and expansion announcements despite MLG being front and center. World of Warcraft was in it's prime and Starcraft 2 was the new shiny, but by the end of the event it still kind of felt like an afterthought.
Fast forward to 2015 and the landscape has changed drastically. Hearthstone has exceeded Blizzards wildest expectations and become a esports standard. There is a league or tournament running nearly every weekend. People like Reynad and Amaz have turned the game into a lucrative business resulting in professional teams that have expanded from Hearthstone and into other games as well. Heroes of the Storm went from a extremely rough Blizzcon preview, through not one but two name changes, and is close to finding it's place among the two other two other big name MOBAs. I say close because there is still work to be done. The ranking and matchmaking system needs work in order to allow players to use ranked play as a means to prepare for tournament play. Part of the issue is the player base isn't big enough to find even matches for all players quickly and Blizzard's response to that was to implement a system that will match you with anyone once enough time has passed. This doesn't work for professional players because there is a diminishing return on skill gained playing games well below the tournament level. If Blizzard takes care of things on their end then the players will come, and that will solve the other issues. Once that happens I believe Heroes of the Storm will find itself competing with League of Legends and DOTA 2. Then there is Overwatch. If it finds the success that many people are predicting it will as a competitive esport, we will live in a world where there are 4 (or 5 if you think WoW arena still counts) major esports under the Blizzard umbrella.
Last week Activision Blizzard announced an esports division that will serve as the third leg of the company. They are putting their money where their mouth is by hiring former CEO of ESPN Steve Bernstein and former MLG President Mike Sepso. If this doesn't prove that Blizzard is marching forward full speed into esports I don't know what does. This is exciting because the more support for Blizzard esports the more pressure on them to balance their games and provide changes like the one to matchmaking in Heroes. Players will strive to be in the now bigger spotlight, and the casters and production crews will be held to a higher standard as well. In that sense everyone comes out a winner. However, with that kind of power and presence behind the competitive gaming side of things gives it it's own spotlight and that is why I think we will see changes coming to Blizzcon in the future.
Last year following Blizzcon, ticket holders were sent a survey regarding the esports portion of the event and whether or not they would purchase a ticket solely for the esports side of things or one only for the show floor. They also asked whether or not any of the competitions took away from your capability to see any panels. My initial thought while filling out this survey was that they were considering selling tickets separately or in a combo pack of sorts so that more people could see the parts that interested them. Every year Blizzcon tickets sell out almost immediately then there is a mad shuffle to try and get tickets assigned to everyone in your group. One has to assume that some number of ticket holders are going strictly for panels while others are going strictly for esports events. If that is the case it seems likely that if they two were sold separately then some number of people would have access to panel tickets that in the past would have gone to people only going to watch Starcraft 2.
There are a few ways Blizzard could split the two sides of Blizzcon and honestly I'm not sure which would work best. They could simply run things as they do now and split admission into two halves, and attendees who want both tickets would have to manage their time as they always have. But Blizzard could also extend Blizzcon to a 3 or 4 day event. ESports semi-finals and finals could take place on Thursday and Friday then the announcements and panels would be held on Saturday and Sunday. People who want the entire experience would have a packed 4 days and people who only want one or the other have the usual 2 day experience we have now. I understand there are a lot of issues with this way, and I don't think this is the way they should go, but I think it's worth a discussion. This would mean two more nights away from work and family and two more nights of travel expenses. In addition to that, I think the demo areas during the panel section would see a huge increase in wait times. Right now the people in the Starcraft or Hearthstone arena are not in line waiting to play Overwatch or Legion, but in this version of Blizzcon those arenas are closed and all those people are now slowing things down in demo lines and taking seats in panels. These are huge problems that would need addressing but it's still an option.
Another more risky option would be to separate the two halves entirely. The esports championships could be one half of the year and Blizzcon proper could be another. This would make the competitions have the feel of the DOTA 2 International or the fighting game championships at EVO where all eyes are on that event while it's going on. I'm torn on this idea because as someone who hasn't been able to make it to Blizzcon yet I would hate to think I wouldn't be able to see the Hearthstone World Championship decided while I was there. But at the same time, I like the idea of Blizzcon proper being Blizzard's forum to say "here's what were up to in the games and worlds you love." while the esports event is their chance to say "here are all the awesome things you guys are doing with our games.". Again, I don't think this is something they will do, but I think the writing is on the wall that something is going to be changing eventually.
Let me know what you think Blizzard might do with this new esports sister company, and let me know what effect, if any, you think it will have on Blizzcon.
Thanks as always for reading! Until next time,
Chris
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
Thursday, October 22, 2015
Predictions based on the Blizzcon schedule
Welcome back friends!
Before I get started on the topic at hand, I just wanted to say thank you to all the readers who checked out last weeks post. It was by far my most read post and I got a lot of great feedback on Reddit and Twitter. It really got me excited about writing and keeping things going so once again, thank you!
It's just over two weeks until Blizzcon at the time I'm writing this. The official schedule is out so it's time to diligently analyze every aspect for any secrets it may hold! I will be referring to the official Blizzcon site version. Feel free to pull that up and compare so I can save time listing individual times and stages.
Hearthstone:
There are only two Hearthstone panels this year and it seems a majority of the focus will on the World Championships just like last year. This falls in line with what we should expect so closely following a true expansion release. I do expect to see a new Adventure announced at the opening ceremony, and detailed at the Friday panel. Very clever by the way Blizzard "come warm yourself by the fire and hear a tale of adventures yet to come". I see what you did there. If I were a betting man I would put my money on Karazhan being our next Adventure. Some people have used The Grand Tournament as evidence of Icecrown Citadel being next, but when they announced TGT they framed it as what the denizens of Northrend were doing after the events of WotLK. Team 5 has been very lenient with the time frames and pacing of content releases so I don't think on expansion points to the next. However, the Blizzcon 2015 card back does have a very "Sindragosa's Fall" look to it if you ask me. I think the eventual addition of Death Knights, however distant it may be, is the biggest argument for them holding off on ICC. I could be wrong though.
World of Warcraft:
This year there is a 90 minute panel on the world of Legion immediately following the opening ceremony. This, along with the lack of a mysterious open slot in the schedule, rules out any big unknown release and cements Legion as the big ticket item for this year. Friday we will get a deeper look at the zones of the Broken Isles and the dungeons and raids therein. Metzen will likely be there as well giving information on the various story threads teased at Gamescom. After that there is a cinematics panel. This is a nice secondary panel considering how awesome the in-game cinematics were throughout Warlords. If we don't get the Legion opening cinematic at the opening ceremony then I would expect to see it here. Saturday we have the usual panel detailing the changes to in-game systems and the new features of the expansion. I think this panel will be when we find out more about the changes in store for talent specs as well as more insight into Artifact weapons for other classes. Follow that up with the good ole Q&A and that's a wrap on the World of Warcraft coverage. This year seems as though it will be very similar to last year. We'll get a lot of information but nothing that isn't already a known quantity.
Diablo:
Finally we get to the biggest disappointment on the schedule. I have gone on record more than once predicting a Diablo 3 expansion first at Gamescom, and then again at Blizzcon after Legion stole the show in Germany. Unfortunately, here we are on the eve of Blizzcon and we find a single panel on the entire schedule. Rather than discuss a newly revealed Act 6 and new playable class, it will instead feature "New Content and Features for Reaper of Souls". Don't get me wrong, I love the work the Diablo team has put into Reaper of Souls. It is in a fantastic place compared to where it began and they continue to release quality updates at no new cost to players. But that doesn't take away from the disappointment of no second expansion. New legendary and set items can only do so much to keep the game fresh. I love the newness of a season rollover but I find myself wearing out as things progress and the time to gear ratio continues to grow. Maybe Diablo is to a point where they are happy to cater to the more hardcore crown who grind 500+ paragon every season and who enjoy a season long grind. I find myself just on the outside of that group. I get to Paragon 400 or so but then lose interest once I have seen what the new items have to offer. I enjoy that part of the game but I want more from Diablo than that. New lore, a new class, new areas and tile sets to keep things interesting. I want to know what threat the Nephalem ultimately pose to the Sanctuary. I want to know where Itherael went. I want to know what happens when Diablo is eventually resurrected in the Burning Hells. I want to know what's going on in other parts of the world. And apparently some people want to know what happened to Leah's soul, but I honestly never grew attached to her character. I could go on forever about what a new expansion could mean for Diablo, but for now all we can do is see what new things Blizzard is working on for Reaper and hold on to some hope for Gamescom next year.
I think Blizzcon should be a blast as always, but I think this year will be a bit on the tame side.
TL;DR for predictions:
Hearthstone Adventure. Guessing Karazhan but could be Icecrown based on the card back.
Zul'jin, Cho'gall, and Zamuro (WC3 Blademaster) and a map or two for Heroes.
Story bits and hype builders for Legacy of the Void.
Green Robot Ninja, one other Hero, and a new map or two for Overwatch. More Story!
Legion details across the board. Opening cinematic?
Diablo disappointment. jk jk
Thanks as always for reading and welcome back to those checking back in after last weeks post. I hope to keep you coming back. Until next time,
Chris
Before I get started on the topic at hand, I just wanted to say thank you to all the readers who checked out last weeks post. It was by far my most read post and I got a lot of great feedback on Reddit and Twitter. It really got me excited about writing and keeping things going so once again, thank you!
It's just over two weeks until Blizzcon at the time I'm writing this. The official schedule is out so it's time to diligently analyze every aspect for any secrets it may hold! I will be referring to the official Blizzcon site version. Feel free to pull that up and compare so I can save time listing individual times and stages.
Hearthstone:
There are only two Hearthstone panels this year and it seems a majority of the focus will on the World Championships just like last year. This falls in line with what we should expect so closely following a true expansion release. I do expect to see a new Adventure announced at the opening ceremony, and detailed at the Friday panel. Very clever by the way Blizzard "come warm yourself by the fire and hear a tale of adventures yet to come". I see what you did there. If I were a betting man I would put my money on Karazhan being our next Adventure. Some people have used The Grand Tournament as evidence of Icecrown Citadel being next, but when they announced TGT they framed it as what the denizens of Northrend were doing after the events of WotLK. Team 5 has been very lenient with the time frames and pacing of content releases so I don't think on expansion points to the next. However, the Blizzcon 2015 card back does have a very "Sindragosa's Fall" look to it if you ask me. I think the eventual addition of Death Knights, however distant it may be, is the biggest argument for them holding off on ICC. I could be wrong though.
Heroes of the Storm:
Heroes is a tough game to really hype up at a single event. Sure, we will get a video at the opening ceremony detailing the next few heroes and/or battlegrounds, but because the game is based around constant smaller updates there isn't much they can do to knock peoples socks off. They could announce an unranked draft mode or a new in-game event, but they have on record in saying that those things won't be coming this year. The only feature I can think of that they would announce is a true in game draft mode with bans. The tournament scene, including Blizzard run events, has used a two ban system and it is absurd that people need to use an outside client to run the draft for these events. Blizzard knows this and I think they are doing everything they can to bring a true draft system into the game. We should also find out when Season 1 will finally start. We have been in "preseason" for far too long. Grandmaster League as well as some kind of reward system should accompany the start of any official season because people need to know what they are striving for besides a higher rank. As far as new heroes go, we don't have much to go on. There is a Hero Deep Dive panel on Friday that promises a closer look at all the new heroes coming our way. If I had to throw out some guesses I would say Zul'jin, Cho'gall, and Zamuro the Blademaster based solely on work in progress stuff from forever ago. They are developing heroes so far in advance at this point that we have no way to know if another hero just happened to become release ready before the ones we have already seen screenshots of. Finally, there is a Battlegrounds panel on Saturday afternoon. I'm interested to see if Blizzard will return to more neutral maps like the first 7 or continue to branch out into their traditional universes. I don't know which I would prefer since I don't really like Battlefield of Eternity or Infernal Shrines very much. The idea of an Alterac Valley style map does peak my interests, but I really like the original maps and their takes on traditional fantasy. Either way I am excited to see what Heroes has coming.
Starcraft:
With Legacy of the Void set to release immediately following Blizzcon, I don't expect many surprises. Story bits will be kept secret, WCS is going on during the event, and the new units won't be changed this close to release. I think this years Starcraft coverage will have two sides. First, they will take the opportunity to give the trilogy the celebration it deserves heading into its final chapter. Then they will assure people that they will continue to balance and support the game for years to come. It should be common knowledge at this point that Blizzard values the most diehard of their fans. There are still periodic updates to Diablo 2 people should not be worried about losing support for Starcraft 2. I am very curious what the future of the Starcraft universe will bring. Real-time strategy games are pretty much nonexistent outside of SC2, and a SC3 would be years away at this point. I have some tin-foil hat theories about a potential new game in the Koprulu Sector but I will save that for another post. Either way I am excited for the story of this series to come full circle despite my RTS ineptitude.
Overwatch:
We already know that the Overwatch Beta will begin on October 27th. There was some worry that Blizzard would have it start immediately following Blizzcon, but I think that would have taken too much of the attention away from Legacy of the Void. Overwatch will still steal a good amount of the Thunder however as everyone and their brother heads to Twitch to see the lucky few fight for some payloads. The Blizzcon slate for Overwatch is a slightly more sparse than I thought it would be. Friday's "What's New" panel will no doubt feature new maps and heroes (presumably Green Robot Ninja will make his debut finally), but that doesn't offer anything more than what we got at PAX East months ago. I am very excited for the World of Overwatch panel on Saturday. Lore isn't something everyone cares about but I can't wait to dive into another Blizzard world. The stream from Blizzard HQ last week looked really polished and seemed to have a good baseline version of the game in place. While I don't like how limited the initial beta phase is going to be, I love that it will be launching with in-game voice chat as well as a spectator mode. Despite how little there seems to be on the schedule, the good news is pretty much everything we learn about Overwatch at this point is exciting new information.
World of Warcraft:
This year there is a 90 minute panel on the world of Legion immediately following the opening ceremony. This, along with the lack of a mysterious open slot in the schedule, rules out any big unknown release and cements Legion as the big ticket item for this year. Friday we will get a deeper look at the zones of the Broken Isles and the dungeons and raids therein. Metzen will likely be there as well giving information on the various story threads teased at Gamescom. After that there is a cinematics panel. This is a nice secondary panel considering how awesome the in-game cinematics were throughout Warlords. If we don't get the Legion opening cinematic at the opening ceremony then I would expect to see it here. Saturday we have the usual panel detailing the changes to in-game systems and the new features of the expansion. I think this panel will be when we find out more about the changes in store for talent specs as well as more insight into Artifact weapons for other classes. Follow that up with the good ole Q&A and that's a wrap on the World of Warcraft coverage. This year seems as though it will be very similar to last year. We'll get a lot of information but nothing that isn't already a known quantity.
Diablo:
Finally we get to the biggest disappointment on the schedule. I have gone on record more than once predicting a Diablo 3 expansion first at Gamescom, and then again at Blizzcon after Legion stole the show in Germany. Unfortunately, here we are on the eve of Blizzcon and we find a single panel on the entire schedule. Rather than discuss a newly revealed Act 6 and new playable class, it will instead feature "New Content and Features for Reaper of Souls". Don't get me wrong, I love the work the Diablo team has put into Reaper of Souls. It is in a fantastic place compared to where it began and they continue to release quality updates at no new cost to players. But that doesn't take away from the disappointment of no second expansion. New legendary and set items can only do so much to keep the game fresh. I love the newness of a season rollover but I find myself wearing out as things progress and the time to gear ratio continues to grow. Maybe Diablo is to a point where they are happy to cater to the more hardcore crown who grind 500+ paragon every season and who enjoy a season long grind. I find myself just on the outside of that group. I get to Paragon 400 or so but then lose interest once I have seen what the new items have to offer. I enjoy that part of the game but I want more from Diablo than that. New lore, a new class, new areas and tile sets to keep things interesting. I want to know what threat the Nephalem ultimately pose to the Sanctuary. I want to know where Itherael went. I want to know what happens when Diablo is eventually resurrected in the Burning Hells. I want to know what's going on in other parts of the world. And apparently some people want to know what happened to Leah's soul, but I honestly never grew attached to her character. I could go on forever about what a new expansion could mean for Diablo, but for now all we can do is see what new things Blizzard is working on for Reaper and hold on to some hope for Gamescom next year.
I think Blizzcon should be a blast as always, but I think this year will be a bit on the tame side.
TL;DR for predictions:
Hearthstone Adventure. Guessing Karazhan but could be Icecrown based on the card back.
Zul'jin, Cho'gall, and Zamuro (WC3 Blademaster) and a map or two for Heroes.
Story bits and hype builders for Legacy of the Void.
Green Robot Ninja, one other Hero, and a new map or two for Overwatch. More Story!
Legion details across the board. Opening cinematic?
Diablo disappointment. jk jk
Thanks as always for reading and welcome back to those checking back in after last weeks post. I hope to keep you coming back. Until next time,
Chris
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Hearthstone's Catch-up Mechanic
Greetings Travelers!
Today I want to talk about something that has been in the back of my mind since the announcement of The Grand Tournament. How long is it until Hearthstone becomes inaccessible to new players? I talked a bit about the issue when discussing power creep and Blizzard's possible solutions, but I didn't go into the other side of the discussion. No matter how strong cards are in terms of power creep, the sheer number of cards can be a daunting barrier to entry. On one hand, making newer cards more powerful invalidates the money or time players spent earning the older cards that may become obsolete. But on top of that the number of cards in total can make it feel impossible for new players or players looking to step into more competitive play to acquire the cards necessary to do so. The question on how does Team 5 handle this issue has come up on The Angry Chicken, The Instance, Well Met, Reddit, Blizzard's official forums, and countless other places. The more I think about possible solutions the more I come back to a single idea I really like, but I'll get to that.
People have often suggested a rotating format similar to how Magic the Gathering handles new sets. The most popular and most played format includes only the last 2 years of sets, and the older cards are playable only in casual modes and secondary formats. I hate this idea for a number of reasons. First, Hearthstone's is a game with no secondary market. In Magic you have the option to sell off cards before they rotate out of playability in order to recoup the money spent getting them to play with in the first place. In Hearthstone our only option is to disenchant cards in exchange for a percentage of the dust required to craft a new card of the same rarity. This emphasizes the feeling that the cards you spent time or money to add to your collection have become worthless in comparison to what you don't have. In addition to that, rotating formats have a tendency to push some players away as decks that they have grown to love and play well are taken away from them. Imagine spending 2 years playing Midrange Druid or Handlock. You refine your play for months, learn your mulligans, learn how to tweak the deck for different match ups, and that is YOUR deck. Then suddenly you find out that next month Force of Nature or Molten Giant will no longer be allowed in Ranked Play. Pro players or players repeatedly making pushes to Legend have no trouble changing decks in order to optimally climb the ladder, but a majority of players don't have the skill required to do so or the willingness to commit the amount of money needed to do so.
Rotation comes up not only because it gives new players fewer sets of cards to focus on when buying in. And on top of that it helps some of the new cards see play that are competing with older cards that are strictly more powerful. I think this is the wrong way to look at it. We don't want TGT to release and have 75+ cards instantly slotted into new and existing decks. If that happens then that means power creep has become a real issue. I prefer to think of it in terms of cards like Mysterious Challenger. Say what you will about Secret Pally, but Mysterious Challenger alone made cards that previously saw little to no play and brought them to the forefront. Redemption and Repentance we're virtually never player while cards like Avenge and Blessing of Kings had only recently found a home in an Aggro Pally that was kind of a flavor of the month deck. Cards that make players take a second look at cards they had previously passed over are truly influential and those are the cards we should be looking for rather than cards that simply slot into a deck over an existing card. Feign Death looks mediocre now but every time a new minion with Deathrattle is printed it may be worth taking a look at. All it takes is that one Pirate card to create a viable Rogue deck to take advantage of it. A couple of cards that give you an advantage for having Overload all of a sudden makes everyone look at Shaman decks with new eyes. The goal of new sets shouldn't only be to introduce new cards and themes, but to also effect existing cards in new and interesting ways.
In my opinion the issue isn't giving new players fewer sets to buy in to. The issue is how difficult it can be to get one viable deck you are happy with. Whenever new players email into a podcast asking how to get started, the answer is almost always play area to earn gold and dust. The arena grind can be so tedious and frustrating and I have talked to multiple players who have been turned off of the game for that reason. I think Hearthstone needs an affordable and quick way to get players into playing on the ladder without feeling like they can't compete. I think there is a way to accomplish this while also giving players access to a good base of competitive cards to start a collection without dumping $100+ into packs. I think Hearthstone needs to offer pre-constructed decks, and I have a couple of them made up as an example.
I believe both of these decks accomplish multiple goals for new and existing players. They offer a viable starting off point for players looking to begin climbing the ladder. Both have the exact same breakdown of rarities; 7 basic cards to fill out the core of the deck, 14 commons, 5 rares, 3 epics, and 1 legendary. And they both have the same breakdown of expansions; 15 classic cards, 4 GvG cards, and 4 TGT cards. This gives players more cards from the largest set that still contains the core of most decks, while also adding a few useful cards from other sets. I purposely left out cards from the Adventures because I think those cards are easily singled out and purchasable if players decide they they want Loatheb or Emperor Thaurissan as opposed to buying enough packs to craft a particular legendary. Both decks come with a core of class cards like Savannah Highmane and Ancient of Lore and a neutral Legendary that can go into other decks they may hope to build later. I think if Blizzard were to roll out a couple of reconstructed decks at $15-$20 as an east access route to semi-competitive play, people would jump at the option. The incentive to buy more still exists as well. If a player has a few big wins with Force of Nature they will look to get enough dust to craft the second one. Or they may decide that Mad Scientist would be great in their Hunter deck after looking through the Crafting mode and decide to purchase that wing of Naxxramas.
Blizzard is clearly making a ridiculous amount of money off of Hearthstone so they may not need to do this, but I think it would be a tremendous show of good faith on their part to let current and potential players know that accessibility is important to them. Hearthstone doesn't have the advantage of Heroes of the Storm and it's free to play hero rotation. Also, people don't mind paying for a game that they know they will get enjoyment out of but I worry that if people can't find the fun quickly enough to be enticed to spend money because they are repeatedly getting crushed by paid players then they may be pushed away prematurely. It is important that players be given a means to be successful to a degree while they learn the game and invest themselves in it and build their own collections. As a result Blizzard wins because they have more players enjoying the experience from early on, and we the players win because the community continues to grow and more players are innovating.
Let me know what you think about the idea. Do the decks need to change? Is there another avenue Blizzard could take? I'd love to hear feedback on this.
Thanks as always for reading. Until next time,
Chris
Today I want to talk about something that has been in the back of my mind since the announcement of The Grand Tournament. How long is it until Hearthstone becomes inaccessible to new players? I talked a bit about the issue when discussing power creep and Blizzard's possible solutions, but I didn't go into the other side of the discussion. No matter how strong cards are in terms of power creep, the sheer number of cards can be a daunting barrier to entry. On one hand, making newer cards more powerful invalidates the money or time players spent earning the older cards that may become obsolete. But on top of that the number of cards in total can make it feel impossible for new players or players looking to step into more competitive play to acquire the cards necessary to do so. The question on how does Team 5 handle this issue has come up on The Angry Chicken, The Instance, Well Met, Reddit, Blizzard's official forums, and countless other places. The more I think about possible solutions the more I come back to a single idea I really like, but I'll get to that.
People have often suggested a rotating format similar to how Magic the Gathering handles new sets. The most popular and most played format includes only the last 2 years of sets, and the older cards are playable only in casual modes and secondary formats. I hate this idea for a number of reasons. First, Hearthstone's is a game with no secondary market. In Magic you have the option to sell off cards before they rotate out of playability in order to recoup the money spent getting them to play with in the first place. In Hearthstone our only option is to disenchant cards in exchange for a percentage of the dust required to craft a new card of the same rarity. This emphasizes the feeling that the cards you spent time or money to add to your collection have become worthless in comparison to what you don't have. In addition to that, rotating formats have a tendency to push some players away as decks that they have grown to love and play well are taken away from them. Imagine spending 2 years playing Midrange Druid or Handlock. You refine your play for months, learn your mulligans, learn how to tweak the deck for different match ups, and that is YOUR deck. Then suddenly you find out that next month Force of Nature or Molten Giant will no longer be allowed in Ranked Play. Pro players or players repeatedly making pushes to Legend have no trouble changing decks in order to optimally climb the ladder, but a majority of players don't have the skill required to do so or the willingness to commit the amount of money needed to do so.
Rotation comes up not only because it gives new players fewer sets of cards to focus on when buying in. And on top of that it helps some of the new cards see play that are competing with older cards that are strictly more powerful. I think this is the wrong way to look at it. We don't want TGT to release and have 75+ cards instantly slotted into new and existing decks. If that happens then that means power creep has become a real issue. I prefer to think of it in terms of cards like Mysterious Challenger. Say what you will about Secret Pally, but Mysterious Challenger alone made cards that previously saw little to no play and brought them to the forefront. Redemption and Repentance we're virtually never player while cards like Avenge and Blessing of Kings had only recently found a home in an Aggro Pally that was kind of a flavor of the month deck. Cards that make players take a second look at cards they had previously passed over are truly influential and those are the cards we should be looking for rather than cards that simply slot into a deck over an existing card. Feign Death looks mediocre now but every time a new minion with Deathrattle is printed it may be worth taking a look at. All it takes is that one Pirate card to create a viable Rogue deck to take advantage of it. A couple of cards that give you an advantage for having Overload all of a sudden makes everyone look at Shaman decks with new eyes. The goal of new sets shouldn't only be to introduce new cards and themes, but to also effect existing cards in new and interesting ways.
In my opinion the issue isn't giving new players fewer sets to buy in to. The issue is how difficult it can be to get one viable deck you are happy with. Whenever new players email into a podcast asking how to get started, the answer is almost always play area to earn gold and dust. The arena grind can be so tedious and frustrating and I have talked to multiple players who have been turned off of the game for that reason. I think Hearthstone needs an affordable and quick way to get players into playing on the ladder without feeling like they can't compete. I think there is a way to accomplish this while also giving players access to a good base of competitive cards to start a collection without dumping $100+ into packs. I think Hearthstone needs to offer pre-constructed decks, and I have a couple of them made up as an example.
I believe both of these decks accomplish multiple goals for new and existing players. They offer a viable starting off point for players looking to begin climbing the ladder. Both have the exact same breakdown of rarities; 7 basic cards to fill out the core of the deck, 14 commons, 5 rares, 3 epics, and 1 legendary. And they both have the same breakdown of expansions; 15 classic cards, 4 GvG cards, and 4 TGT cards. This gives players more cards from the largest set that still contains the core of most decks, while also adding a few useful cards from other sets. I purposely left out cards from the Adventures because I think those cards are easily singled out and purchasable if players decide they they want Loatheb or Emperor Thaurissan as opposed to buying enough packs to craft a particular legendary. Both decks come with a core of class cards like Savannah Highmane and Ancient of Lore and a neutral Legendary that can go into other decks they may hope to build later. I think if Blizzard were to roll out a couple of reconstructed decks at $15-$20 as an east access route to semi-competitive play, people would jump at the option. The incentive to buy more still exists as well. If a player has a few big wins with Force of Nature they will look to get enough dust to craft the second one. Or they may decide that Mad Scientist would be great in their Hunter deck after looking through the Crafting mode and decide to purchase that wing of Naxxramas.
Blizzard is clearly making a ridiculous amount of money off of Hearthstone so they may not need to do this, but I think it would be a tremendous show of good faith on their part to let current and potential players know that accessibility is important to them. Hearthstone doesn't have the advantage of Heroes of the Storm and it's free to play hero rotation. Also, people don't mind paying for a game that they know they will get enjoyment out of but I worry that if people can't find the fun quickly enough to be enticed to spend money because they are repeatedly getting crushed by paid players then they may be pushed away prematurely. It is important that players be given a means to be successful to a degree while they learn the game and invest themselves in it and build their own collections. As a result Blizzard wins because they have more players enjoying the experience from early on, and we the players win because the community continues to grow and more players are innovating.
Let me know what you think about the idea. Do the decks need to change? Is there another avenue Blizzard could take? I'd love to hear feedback on this.
Thanks as always for reading. Until next time,
Chris
Thursday, October 8, 2015
The secret to Warcraft's in-game story
Greetings Friends!
The leveling experience in Warlords of Draenor was fantastic. It stood as one of the high points in a series of disappointing aspect of a much anticipated expansion. There was a pretty smooth path from zone to zone and story to story, but when we finished up the quest lines in Nagrand we were left with a "what now?" feeling. We were given various one-liners from different NPCs to hint at what was going on in Highmaul and Blackrock Foundry but nothing to continue the story that was so rich on the way to 100. Pandaria had it's issues just like every other expansion, but there was no shortage of early max level content. We had daily quests and rep grinds that while excessive and seemingly mandatory, still gave us insight into the world and the characters we would be interacting with for two years. We found out all about Taran Zhu and why he was so grumpy. We found out about Klaxxi society that ended with a nice little payoff a year later in Siege of Orgrimmar. The Isle of Thunder continued the story through the second raid tier but in a different way. As the island unlocked we found out more about the Mogu and the Thunder King. More about the Zandalari and their reasoning for awakening him. The one thing that very subtly intertwined with all of these story points together is the one thing I think could have saved the story in Warlords of Draenor. We needed scenarios!
Scenarios served two very useful purposes in my opinion. First, they were a nice time sink for DPS players while waiting in queue for dungeons or LFR. When you had an hour long queue to join the newest wing for LFR it didn't feel as bad when you could get into a scenario in 5 minutes, have a dungeon waiting when you finished it, and then got your invite to a LFR shortly after that. Secondly, we got story dialogue throughout some of these scenarios that did a good job to round out the story experience and to give some insight into what was going on behind the scenes. Blizzard has touted for ages that the main character in the World of Warcraft is the world itself, and the reason Warcradr has been successful for so long is the minutia of the world and the characters within. Scenarios are a fantastic vehicle to deliver those little details. For example, the Lorewalkers prefaced the Blood in the Snow scenario with information on what was going on amongst the Council of the Three Hammers and the distrust toward the Moira. Then throughout the scenario the dialogue not only portrays the strengthening of Varian and Moira's relationship within the Alliance but also shows us some of what the Zandalari are doing. Likewise, the Dagger in the Dark scenario has us accompany a reluctant Vol'jin on a mission from Garrosh Hellscream. In a 10 minute instance with virtually no wait time, we find out what interest Garrosh has in ancient Mogu magics and also what his true intentions were in sending Vol'jin specifically into those caves. In addition to all that, the progression through the Isle of Thunder was broken up by scenarios that allowed us to play through our infiltration of the island rather than us just showing up one day and finding out that the inner walls had been breached.
Imagine if scenarios had been carried over into Warlords of Draenor! We could have found out more about how Ner'zhul summoned the Dark Star into Shadowmoon Valley. We could have seen why the Ogres chose to ally themselves with Grommash and the Iron Horde and why Kargath seem so buddy buddy with his former captors in Highmaul. What was Kilrogg doing between launch when he disappeared from Tanaan and the cutscene where he drinks the Demon Blood. I just wish we had something outside of the Garrison campaign quests to let us know what was going on out in the world after we hit max level. Even something as small as scenarios could have helped give some importance to the Warlords that were supposed to be such a huge selling point of going to Draenor in the first place. In a previous post I outlined a version of a patch release schedule that would have staggered Tanaan Jungle's opening. I think a version similar to Isle of Thunder where at first we invade in an effort to breach Grom's defenses after we force him to fall back after our victory in Blackrock Foundry. Then over time we work our way further into Tanaan and Grommash continues to lose strength to the point where Gul'dan feels like he can make his move to take over. Each section of Tanaan could have had it's own scenario to give context to it rather than have it serve as only an apexis crystal area. Make it a big cohesive experience Blizzard! A great leveling experience followed by scenarios and dungeons not only feeding us gear but also information on whats happening around the world. And let that lead into immersive raids like you have shown you can do over the last 2 expansions.
Going forward I would love to see scenarios make a comeback in Legion. Let dungeons and raids show us the big picture, but let quests and scenarios show us the little things that truly bring the world to life. The Val'kyr dungeons can show us the gist of their society and history while the scenarios and quests show us what Slyvanas' interest is in it. Give us more insight into her agreement with the Val'kyr and their motives in offering it in the first place. In Suramar we can find out how the Nightfallen Elves have remained hidden from us for so long. Give us a first hand look at Azshara's commands to Tidemistress Athissa were and let us speculate on what her ultimate goals are. Show us what led to Xavius joining with the Burning Legion after serving the Old Gods in their effort to corrupt the Emerald Dream. We deserve a look at the details and to know why these characters and places should matter to us. I think scenarios do that in a way that quest cannot and that provide enough secondary benefits to make them worthwhile to most players.
Let me know if you disagree. Perhaps the reason we didn't get scenarios in Warlords was that Blizzard saw that the participation numbers didn't warrant the effort to include them. I'd love to hear what others think would be a suitable vessel for early end game immersion.
As always thanks for reading and until next time,
Chris
The leveling experience in Warlords of Draenor was fantastic. It stood as one of the high points in a series of disappointing aspect of a much anticipated expansion. There was a pretty smooth path from zone to zone and story to story, but when we finished up the quest lines in Nagrand we were left with a "what now?" feeling. We were given various one-liners from different NPCs to hint at what was going on in Highmaul and Blackrock Foundry but nothing to continue the story that was so rich on the way to 100. Pandaria had it's issues just like every other expansion, but there was no shortage of early max level content. We had daily quests and rep grinds that while excessive and seemingly mandatory, still gave us insight into the world and the characters we would be interacting with for two years. We found out all about Taran Zhu and why he was so grumpy. We found out about Klaxxi society that ended with a nice little payoff a year later in Siege of Orgrimmar. The Isle of Thunder continued the story through the second raid tier but in a different way. As the island unlocked we found out more about the Mogu and the Thunder King. More about the Zandalari and their reasoning for awakening him. The one thing that very subtly intertwined with all of these story points together is the one thing I think could have saved the story in Warlords of Draenor. We needed scenarios!
Scenarios served two very useful purposes in my opinion. First, they were a nice time sink for DPS players while waiting in queue for dungeons or LFR. When you had an hour long queue to join the newest wing for LFR it didn't feel as bad when you could get into a scenario in 5 minutes, have a dungeon waiting when you finished it, and then got your invite to a LFR shortly after that. Secondly, we got story dialogue throughout some of these scenarios that did a good job to round out the story experience and to give some insight into what was going on behind the scenes. Blizzard has touted for ages that the main character in the World of Warcraft is the world itself, and the reason Warcradr has been successful for so long is the minutia of the world and the characters within. Scenarios are a fantastic vehicle to deliver those little details. For example, the Lorewalkers prefaced the Blood in the Snow scenario with information on what was going on amongst the Council of the Three Hammers and the distrust toward the Moira. Then throughout the scenario the dialogue not only portrays the strengthening of Varian and Moira's relationship within the Alliance but also shows us some of what the Zandalari are doing. Likewise, the Dagger in the Dark scenario has us accompany a reluctant Vol'jin on a mission from Garrosh Hellscream. In a 10 minute instance with virtually no wait time, we find out what interest Garrosh has in ancient Mogu magics and also what his true intentions were in sending Vol'jin specifically into those caves. In addition to all that, the progression through the Isle of Thunder was broken up by scenarios that allowed us to play through our infiltration of the island rather than us just showing up one day and finding out that the inner walls had been breached.
Imagine if scenarios had been carried over into Warlords of Draenor! We could have found out more about how Ner'zhul summoned the Dark Star into Shadowmoon Valley. We could have seen why the Ogres chose to ally themselves with Grommash and the Iron Horde and why Kargath seem so buddy buddy with his former captors in Highmaul. What was Kilrogg doing between launch when he disappeared from Tanaan and the cutscene where he drinks the Demon Blood. I just wish we had something outside of the Garrison campaign quests to let us know what was going on out in the world after we hit max level. Even something as small as scenarios could have helped give some importance to the Warlords that were supposed to be such a huge selling point of going to Draenor in the first place. In a previous post I outlined a version of a patch release schedule that would have staggered Tanaan Jungle's opening. I think a version similar to Isle of Thunder where at first we invade in an effort to breach Grom's defenses after we force him to fall back after our victory in Blackrock Foundry. Then over time we work our way further into Tanaan and Grommash continues to lose strength to the point where Gul'dan feels like he can make his move to take over. Each section of Tanaan could have had it's own scenario to give context to it rather than have it serve as only an apexis crystal area. Make it a big cohesive experience Blizzard! A great leveling experience followed by scenarios and dungeons not only feeding us gear but also information on whats happening around the world. And let that lead into immersive raids like you have shown you can do over the last 2 expansions.
Going forward I would love to see scenarios make a comeback in Legion. Let dungeons and raids show us the big picture, but let quests and scenarios show us the little things that truly bring the world to life. The Val'kyr dungeons can show us the gist of their society and history while the scenarios and quests show us what Slyvanas' interest is in it. Give us more insight into her agreement with the Val'kyr and their motives in offering it in the first place. In Suramar we can find out how the Nightfallen Elves have remained hidden from us for so long. Give us a first hand look at Azshara's commands to Tidemistress Athissa were and let us speculate on what her ultimate goals are. Show us what led to Xavius joining with the Burning Legion after serving the Old Gods in their effort to corrupt the Emerald Dream. We deserve a look at the details and to know why these characters and places should matter to us. I think scenarios do that in a way that quest cannot and that provide enough secondary benefits to make them worthwhile to most players.
Let me know if you disagree. Perhaps the reason we didn't get scenarios in Warlords was that Blizzard saw that the participation numbers didn't warrant the effort to include them. I'd love to hear what others think would be a suitable vessel for early end game immersion.
As always thanks for reading and until next time,
Chris
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)