devtrackers.gg → Dan_Felder
Dan_Felder

Dan_Felder



29 Nov

An ex-Hearthstone player's perspective on LoR and Rotation.

Comment

Originally posted by UNOvven

Heres what I dont get. If you want to have 2 seperate formats with seperate power anyway. And you dont mind releasing powerful combos into one of the format because the other, lower power format exists ... why dont you make the lower power format secondary? Keep "Eternal" as it is, the main gamemode with permanent ranked and tournament focus, and make the rotating format a secondary one, which gets less attention because it needs less attention, with still permanent ranked (because thats a minimum), but less competitive support. That sounds like it would solve every concern you bring up, while also not running into the many pitfalls of rotation that cause it to bleed players.

why dont you make the lower power format secondary?

Very reasonable question. The main reason is because eternal is aimed at being a place to preserve the greatest hits and standard is a place to make room for cool new stuff. If the new stuff has to compete with the old stuff, that's the very problem we're trying to solve with rotation. We have to either powercreep the new or heavily nerf the old to make the new cards able to compete. This results in disrupting the old decks instead of preserving them and making synergy breaks happen more often because the new cards are ecalating in power level.

Yugioh's metagame over the years is an example of what happens. The game has changed to massive complexity and power spikes as players summon huge boards on turn 1 to try and lock their opponent out of destroying everything and insta-killing them on their own first turn.

We can also look at Modern Horizons sets for an example: many players...

Read more

An ex-Hearthstone player's perspective on LoR and Rotation.

Comment

Originally posted by Koovin

I like your logic. I never thought of it that way. If you really enjoy a certain playstyle (like Azirelia in your example), it would be less of a loss if you knew you could play it as you remembered it in a different format. Playing a gutted rendition of it in standard would just feel bad (cue the "look how they massacred my boy" screenshot).

Thanks. I often like jumping around eternal formats in other games I've played for exactly this reason.

Severe nerfs can also break patterns you remember, such as heavily disrupting the mana curve. The Malygos example is actually great here, because significantly nerfing Malygos' spell damage would make the combo decks that people used to play with him non-functional. They'd no longer deal enough damage to kill the opponent. Heavily nerfing him so he was no longer competitively relevant in standard would mean massacring the decks his fans enjoyed.

An ex-Hearthstone player's perspective on LoR and Rotation.

Comment

Originally posted by WondrousWorldWeaver

Great, so Vlad players get to enjoy their card in a mode that only has competitive support now and then, and that has a bunch of broken combos that the team will only adjust ever so often, meaning Vlad has to be massively overtuned to ever be "good" as if this is a base requirement, for the sake of another mode entirely where Vlad wouldn't make a dent.

Just support self harm strategies in Noxus. Not like aggro can easily abuse them.

Just support self harm strategies in Noxus. Not like aggro can easily abuse them.

That's the problem. Supporting them in Noxus would mean either wildly overtuning Vladmir to work in ways that are weird for its region identity (which you mentioned being frustrating). It causes issues when we support self-harm strategies in Noxus.

Vladmir is a very awkward fit for Noxus and probably wouldn't be designed this way with the benefit of hindsight. Rotating and buffing to a more permissive eternal environment lets us solve the region identity issues by moving Vlad to a place where he can be stronger without causing the same problems. We're also considering new takes on Vlad (as mentioned in the first article) because of this for the future.

An ex-Hearthstone player's perspective on LoR and Rotation.

Comment

Originally posted by CrossXhunteR

I love the 2nd paragraph, as this seems to be something that goes over people's heads during the rotation discussion. Certain cards/interactions/playstyles can be so overwhelmingly toxic or crowd the design space enough that the only way they could continue to exist in the future of a non-rotating card list is by nerfing them into basically being unplayable, which might as well be the same effect as rotating. Like sure, you could play this completely gutted, unviable deck at that point in your standard game, but why would you. Using your examples of power levels you've been using throughout the thread here, say a marginal tier 3 ladder deck had a 3/10 power level. Certain cards that can't continue to exist as for a healthy game going forward would need to be kneecapped down to being a 1/10. For the people saying "Don't rotate, just nerf as needed", I don't think such heavy handed nerfs that would be required to achieve what is needed would be received favorably either.

Obvi...

Read more

Great summary.

An ex-Hearthstone player's perspective on LoR and Rotation.

Comment

Originally posted by SleepyPoemsin2020

"To me this seems better for Malygos fans than creating a significantly nerfed version for standard."

The problem with this conclusion is that this is subjective. I quite disagree with this point - I'd rather see a card I'm a fan of reworked or nerfed as opposed to removed to a mode I have no interest in playing, in this case eternal, as that is essentially the same as just deleting the card.

But I accept I'm probably in the minority here...and for the sake or LoR hopefully so!

It's definitely subjective, and it matters on a card by card basis. I believe Malygos made more sense to rotate than significantly nerf (I didn't make the decision btw, I just agree with it) because by significantly nerfing him to solve the standard problems it no longer felt like Malygos.

It'd be like nerfing Black Lotus to be playable in standard MTG, it'd no longer feel like Black Lotus. Better to keep that in Vintage and make a new card.

Malygos was the big OTK dragon. Players using him would build up a hand of 0 cost spells that dealt tiny amounts of damage (like Moonfire, which cost 0 and dealt 1) then unleash them in a flurry the turn they played Malygos (+5 spell damage meant Moonfire now dealt 6!).

If he was nerfed from +5 spell damage to +2, or maybe +3 and 10 mana, then all the decks built around him would stop working; because they relied on his big spell damage to deliver crushing combo-kills. Nerfing him significantly would likely make him irr...

Read more

An ex-Hearthstone player's perspective on LoR and Rotation.

Comment

Originally posted by ASmallEmu

Hi Dan, thanks so much for all the work you’ve done answering these comments, which I know can be a mixed bag of positivity and negativity.

I am all for trying to preserve unique decks that may or may not have unhealthy play patterns for Standard. I just hope that the dev team realizes that decks like Azir Irelia or Targon’s Peak deserve a place of their own in Eternal, away from a definitely more competitive-focused Standard. I think awkward cards that have had to be all but killed have generally been cards that are so unique that they can’t be reasonably balanced. Maybe the balance levers are just not there. These are the sorts of cards I would like to see nerfed or reworked in Standard to retain competitive integrity, but preserved in Eternal for everyone to enjoy.

Lengthy postscript ramble:

I especially think many landmarks without countdowns on them like Veiled Temple or Targon’s Peak end up being this way. If they’re too good they end up being very fr...

Read more

Eternal is definitely a place where stuff can be crazier than Standard, and I think it's better when two formats feel meaningfully different; so people that prefer different metagames can focus on their favorites. Can't comment on those cards specifically but the general style of "fun, exciting, unique engines that maybe are too swingy for the main competitive format" sounds like a good place for eternal to me. There's a lot of ways to approach it though, that's just one.

An ex-Hearthstone player's perspective on LoR and Rotation.

Comment

Originally posted by WHOLESOME-DUNG-EATER

Would it be better to meganerf Irelia and her support cards until the deck isn't competitively viable, but keep it technically possible to play it on a standard ranked ladder?

yes, absolutely this, for dedicated irelia players her current position of being "playable in ranked but on the weak side" is ABSOLUTELY preferable to "literally unplayable in standard ranked but maybe stronger in an unsupported format".

most of my favorite champions are in B and C tier and i will still be gutted the day i can't lose with terrible homebrews in ranked anymore.

was the idea of leaving champions intact and 'balancing through rotation' by hitting their support packages ever considered? would irelia be such a scary champion to design around if greenglade duo + sparring student weren't in standard?

i know there are lots of discussions happening behind the scenes but i've been surprised to see zero public consideration of this idea, which ...

Read more

yes, absolutely this, for dedicated irelia players her current position of being "playable in ranked but on the weak side" is ABSOLUTELY preferable to "literally unplayable in standard ranked but maybe stronger in an unsupported format".

Just to be clear, her current position hasn't been mega-nerfed. She's just been nerfed, but is still a potential consideration in the format. She is still sharply restricting design space for token decks.

She would have to be nerfed way, way more to make her truly irrelevant in the competitive metagame. That's the point of mega-nerfing, to make something so weak it might as well not exist when it comes to competitive balance; so that the card is no longer restricting design space.

An ex-Hearthstone player's perspective on LoR and Rotation.

Comment

Originally posted by Person454

Thanks for taking the time to do all these responses. A lot of this makes sense, but I'm struggling to see how it applies to one part: Vlad.

Vladimir has never, to my knowledge, been a strong card. Forget 9/10, forget 5/10, he's been around a 3/10 max in all the time I've seen him. So where does he fit in to rotation, so much that he's one of the first to be rotated?

Sure thing. Vlad's problems are diving into a whole other wrinkle in all this, the tension of power related to region identity goals for standard vs more fluid region identity in eternal. Vlad's mechanical identity is awkward for our current vision for his region in standard and making him strong would cause problems within standard for that reason. Rotating him means we could buff him without causing problems to standard's region identity divisions.

Basically, Vlad isn't being rotated because he's too powerful. He's being rotated because making him strong would mess with region identity in his current design. We're interested in finding a new version for him (as discussed in part 1 of the article).

An ex-Hearthstone player's perspective on LoR and Rotation.

Comment

Originally posted by nonbinary_finery

Thanks for taking the time to write out so many detailed responses. I have a concern that I'm hoping you can address or comment on.

I don't have a background in virtual card games. LoR is my first. The relevant games I've played for this discussion are Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon.

Your description of relegating powerful cards to a separate format ("Hall of Fame" in Hearthstone and Ubers, etc. in Pokemon) concerns me because when I first heard the term "rotation," I thought that's what we were getting. Some champions would be rotated out, but they would come back in the next rotation.

However, from your descriptions, that seems unlikely. Instead, my understanding is we will get something more akin to the banlist from Yu-Gi-Oh. Cards will be deemed too powerful for the competitive mode and banished to Unlimited (or Eternal, in our case), presumably forever, rather than be temporarily removed from the metagame. Twisted Fate seems the first "confirmed" case of "too go...

Read more

It's worth noting that things do change tiers in Poke'mon too, and that there are many examples of competitive formats in Poke'mon happening focusing on different tiers!

I... May have been watching a lot of poke'mon competitive lately. It's so relaxing to do while I work on designs.

So far I've been focusing on the reasons that we can benefit from having two formats instead of one, which is largely about the differences in power level. However, we can absolutely rotate and unrotate things - and we will when we think that'll be the most fun.

I can't tell you exactly what the frequency of un-rotating will be though, because we'll be paying attention to what works best once we're live. It's a valuable tool in the toolbox but we're still planning to buff/nerf/rework alongside it as we always have; and we'll want to pay attention to what works best when it's live. I know I'll also be paying attention to how things go when eternal ranked mode is live vs when it is...

Read more

An ex-Hearthstone player's perspective on LoR and Rotation.

Comment

Originally posted by Efrayl

I played a game where you can choose cards between any region (except their nemesis region) and it had similar region count as LoR. At that time it was normal but the devs said they wanted to introduce region lock, so you only you pick two regions. (same as Lor today). The playerbase, myself, included were not happy with it. Devs said it would open the meta to new decks, but players argued that reducing card count will only limit deckbuilding options not increased them.They went forward with the change and...they were right.

Suddenly there were many more decks and cards played that didn't get light of day because other better cards existed.It's similar like with the Rotation, reducing the card pool may open up room for new decks and playstyles. Aggro is ever present, but through rotation, it may be harder to build a viable deck with remaining 1 and 2 cost cards.

The two biggest problems I have with rotation is that it's annual (it should be much more frequent) whic...

Read more

This is a fantastic example. What game was this? I've seen similar things in many games but the nemesis region component makes me think I don't know this one.

An ex-Hearthstone player's perspective on LoR and Rotation.

Comment

Originally posted by Mafros99

This is not much of a design question but still one that I think is worth asking:

One of the biggest differences to other card games (and one of its biggest strenghts imo) is how much more character-driven LoR is. Every spoiler season is so hyped (BTW f**k YEAH KAYLE'S COMING) and the lore and art direction are so praised precisely because both you guys and we players see champions (and even many followers) as fully-fledged characters rather than merely tools in a deck. But all that becomes a big pain point when it comes to Rotation and at least the last time I checked there still wasn't a clear solution for that. Have you guys discussed more on how not to make these champs -and their players- feel left out?

Yes, this was a top point of feedback in the responses. We have a lot of tools at our disposal. Some people wrote that they'd love to see new versions of champions, such as version of Pyke that wasn't tied to Lurk and could be played in more decks. Some people said they wanted to visit their favorite champions in competitive occasionally, but didn't need to play with them all the time. Some people said they cared the most about the playstyle and mechanics, that the champion itself wasn't as big a deal. Some people said they were hyped to see new champions and original champions even more than one specific one.

This leaker says we'll have another exclusive champion in the next expansion

Comment

Originally posted by b3nz0r

It's Dan Felder from Riot. That's the new champ.

I designed my own card actually to introduce myself when I was hired. I create cards on strike and level up once I've created 5 cards. :)

An ex-Hearthstone player's perspective on LoR and Rotation.

Comment

Originally posted by anialater45

Absolutely. I was a game player long before I was also a game designer. I remember how frustrating it is to feel like obvious mistakes are being made when you love the game and want it to succeed, and that your feedback is being ignored even when it's asked for. It's deeply weird to be on the other end of it, and it never really gets less weird.

Exactly, for a lot of us here that's basically how it is right now. Very frustrating seeing you ask for feedback, and after 2 months we get another small article basically re-iterating what the plan is and it seems our feedback wasn't really taken at all. I wish that wasn't the case, I wish we got a longer article that could go into more detail about the survey and what feedback was given and such.

It's also hard because many players want very different things.

And I get that, it must be incredibly hard trying to find a solution given people don't want the same t...

Read more

It's getting late and I want to make sure I can respond to some others too, so I just want to hit one part here: the assumption that Eternal is being set up to be abandoned. People in the community told me many times that Path of Champions was dead and never going to get anything more the moment we announced we were refocusing on pvp. So far we've more than doubled the number of new champions, run several path events, added procedural weekly adventures, new world adventures, and we aren't done yet.

Seeing the positive responses to each has encouraged us to do more whenever we find the time. And Path of Champions started because the original Lab of Legends got a lot of attention from players too. It was a small thing that grew big because players liked it.

If players play something and care about it, we notice.

An ex-Hearthstone player's perspective on LoR and Rotation.

Comment

Originally posted by Skarpien

Thanks for the response. I think much of my thoughts of rotations are clouded by how wild in HS has been handled, while at the same time I cannot completly ignore the history of HS's wild format and how closely they follow LoR's current trajectory.

Many people, myself included, identify closely with certain champs due to gameplay or other misc reasons. To draw parallels to HS, it would be less like rotating out an archtype like Guardian Druid and more like rotating out an entire class. If rotations truly need to be done for champs, I think a compromise that helps alleviate the absence of character could be done in the way of a double attack Senna type card replacing the character: a non-champion follower that held some of the essence of the champ card itself. Skins could also be held over as well.

As a side note, much of the newer champs are unfortunately unremarkable in their design. I would much prefer champs like Illaoi or even Norra to Vayne and Kayn, which more...

Read more

Thanks. I'm glad people care so much about LoR, I know the concerns come from a good place.

I think the point about some archetypes feeling as meaningful as rotating out a whole hearthstone class is a great point. It's easy to think of archetypes as fragments of classes, but because they're often based around champions they have a deeper identity than Hearthstone's archetypes do.

This is actually one reason I bring up Azir/Irelia so much. A lot of people love that deck (even though many others don't love playing against it) but it's problematic for restricting design space. If we need to free up room, how do we preserve the deck for players that love it? Would it be better to meganerf Irelia and her support cards until the deck isn't competitively viable, but keep it technically possible to play it on a standard ranked ladder? Or would it be better to keep the cards very similar but move it out of the standard format? Or better to redesign irelia so she no longer ...

Read more

An ex-Hearthstone player's perspective on LoR and Rotation.

Comment

Originally posted by Calderare

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

My pleasure. I know everyone here cares about the game and wants the best for it. We do too. I'm on vacation right now so I have extra time. :)

An ex-Hearthstone player's perspective on LoR and Rotation.

Comment

Originally posted by Waterstealer

so what i'm hearing is that you'd rather have a "fun" design pose a threat to design sustainability than have a balanced design. good to know.

Um, no. Malygos posed a threat to design sustainability in standard's lower power level - not wild's higher power level.

Any LoR cards that pose a threat to sustainability in all formats will need to be nerfed or reworked. We can and will still nerf, buff, and rework cards.

When I can preserve decks players enjoy I try to, even if it'd be easier for me to just nerf or rework them until they aren't something I need to worry about. :)

An ex-Hearthstone player's perspective on LoR and Rotation.

Comment

Originally posted by Waterstealer

the more i read this the more i think "why not just nerf myalgos"? it seems to me like he poses a threat to design sustainability.

is this why you guys are so loath to actually fix ezreal or do something about matron? are there some hard-line stances you feel forced to take because nerfing the problem card, while the easiest solution, just doesn't sit right with you guys?

the more i read this the more i think "why not just nerf myalgos"? it seems to me like he poses a threat to design sustainability.

He does, and you can absolutely nerf Malygos. The question is which is better for players - and whether you want to let Muhammad Ali go to the Heavyweight division or break his arm to even the odds against the lower weightclass fighters. :)

Malygos decks were pretty fun for a lot of players and an iconic part of the game. I'm glad they still exist in a higher power format. I like being able to change formats and experience different metagames myself. Vintage is like my desert when I play MTG for example, I wouldn't want to grind it every day but I love being able to play with black lotus sometimes as a treat.

The nice thing about rotation is that cards don't have to exist in the same format as other cards forever. Malygos opened up some really cool design space for cheap spell damage effects being good!...

Read more

An ex-Hearthstone player's perspective on LoR and Rotation.

Comment

Originally posted by anialater45

There are big advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. We've talked about them back and forth internally for a lot of meetings, and I've often flipped opinions on this. I don't think I could begin to lay out all the thinking on this one question outside of a whole dev blog.

Can we get that dev blog then? What are the advantages and disadvantages? Why have you flipped so much on it? If it's in a lot of meetings and is a heavily discussed topic I think it would be very neat to get to see why you decided to go against full time ranked.

Some formats are more fun when people don't feel pressured to try-hard them

I don't get this statement. What does having a ranked queue year round have to do with people being pressured to try hard. It's got normals right? Like its going to have a normal queue only, what's pressuring about adding a ranked queue so we can continue to enjoy the game as we have? Till you ...

Read more

Can we get that dev blog then?

It's possible, but I feel like talk is cheap. We need to prove it. Once rotation is live we'll know for sure whether it's working and where it can be improved. We can keep making posts about why we think rotation is good for the game despite the understandable anxiety of many players, but if we're wrong then none of that matters and if we're right then the proof will be in the gameplay.

It's also worth noting that almost no decision in game design is unanimous. The fact I flipped opinions on a ranked ladder multiple times isn't uncommon, I often change my mind on design questions based on new and compelling arguments or various other factors. We can't discuss all factors all the time anyway, because some stuff isn't announced yet.

For example, we knew about new gauntlets for months - and that they'd also be introducing variety formats to contrast with whatever the ranked ladder was. But we couldn't ...

Read more

An ex-Hearthstone player's perspective on LoR and Rotation.

Comment

Originally posted by anialater45

I get that it probably feels like that, and I admit that seeing comments like this is pretty discouraging. It makes me feel like all the time we spent pouring over feedback and talking with fans is wasted, if people assume that we aren't doing it anyway.

Sorry that it's discouraging, but don't you think it's also really discouraging for us? We submit all this feedback on what we think will or won't work with it and we get a reply article that just says "We listened, but think we're right anyway. The issues you brought up aren't enough of a concern." I get you think it's a decision that will be good for the game, but you have to acknowledge how that looks to everyone against it right? I appreciate that you all care and cared enough to ask, but responding with what you did is a major let down to all of us who feel this is a negative change, for the various reasons.

I'm seriously asking, if you poured over everything, what did you take from ...

Read more

Sorry that it's discouraging, but don't you think it's also really discouraging for us?

Absolutely. I was a game player long before I was also a game designer. I remember how frustrating it is to feel like obvious mistakes are being made when you love the game and want it to succeed, and that your feedback is being ignored even when it's asked for. It's deeply weird to be on the other end of it, and it never really gets less weird.

The issue with rotation is that it's a solution to tactical design problems that the community often never sees. You can't see all the cards we cut over the months because of problems like the ones I'm referring to. You have to be in the room to know about them.

It's also hard because many players want very different things. Some players would rather have a larger format where massive buffs and nerfs happen all the time to all the cards. It keeps things fresh and continually interesting.

Other pl...

Read more

An ex-Hearthstone player's perspective on LoR and Rotation.

Comment

Originally posted by anialater45

I could be wrong and I could be missing big things

Why does Eternals not get ranked year-round? That on top of rotating champions is a huge deal for a lot of people?

I'm very torn on that myself. There are big advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. We've talked about them back and forth internally for a lot of meetings, and I've often flipped opinions on this. I don't think I could begin to lay out all the thinking on this one question outside of a whole dev blog.

The simplest answer is that we want to build the best competitive metagame in the world. We think that focusing on standard as the premiere competitive format most of the time will let us do that.

This answer isn't sufficient on its own, and there are a LOT more factors involved in the discussion. It's possible we may eventually move to both having ranked ladders in the future based on how players end up engaging with both modes, but I think it makes sense to start by focusing on standard and see how things go. Some formats are more fun when people don't feel pressured to try-hard them (Commander in MTG is one example).

It's also worth noting that ran...

Read more