Odinn

Hearthstone - Should Arena Cost/Rewards Be Changed?

8 posts in this topic

11372-hearthstone-should-arena-costrewar

 

At BlizzCon 2014, I confirmed with Ben Brode after the Hearthstone Fireside Chat on November 7 that the reward for completing an Arena run would convert from classic card packs to Goblins vs. Gnomes card packs. Is it time to re-evaluate that decision?

 

 

An ongoing topic of conversation since the announcement of GvG, the issue has recently resurfaced over on the Hearthstone subreddit and elsewhere. A lot of people are calling for an option to select their reward - whether using the default shop selection, or a separate selection within the Arena interface - and there is certainly an argument to be made for that.

 

Having said that, simplicity of interface/setup is very core to the Hearthstone experience. Adding more options or complicating the UI is the opposite of what the Hearthstone team wants - more so now, as they work through the UI development of the internal alpha for a smartphone interface. It's unlikely that more complex options like this would ever emerge.

 

What are the options? Effectively, there are three choices:

 

1. Continue to reward the most recent expansion's card packs as the primary Arena reward;

2. Provide some kind of mechanism for Arena pack reward selection; OR

3. Remove packs as an Arena reward, and adjust the cost/other rewards to match.

 

arena_reward_confusion.png

An example of the reward screen from an Arena run, pre-GvG.

 

I'm going to speak briefly to the third option, because I think it's the one that bears out the best in the long run.

 

Hearthstone may have been highly experimental in terms of a game and genre, by Blizzard's standards, but almost all creative mediums share a common thematic problem - they aren't necessarily designed for a long-term audience or additional content down the road (expansions, DLC, sequels, etc.). When Hearthstone was released, there were obviously discussions already brewing about content additions, but wholesale design decisions - like how Arena works, or what its rewards are - were long since made, and likely haven't been revisited in a really fundamental way since.

 

As much as having a card pack waiting at the end of an Arena seems like a great idea, and certainly made it more attractive in the earliest stages of Hearthstone's life cycle, card packs have lost their luster for many players. For those who still need cards, needing different things from the various card sets and expansions can make the reward structure frustrating (and, while it's not hugely exacerbated with only two, what happens when there are three card sets? Four? Ten?).

 

One solution, simply put, would be to lower the cost of an Arena run to 50 gold and remove the guaranteed card pack as a reward. This does a few things:

 

- It's a long-term solution. You don't have to worry about the reward structure changing every time an expansion is released.

 

- It makes Arena slightly more accessible to players. On a strict technicality, the barrier to entry is actually the same, since the 'cost' of an Arena run is 50 gold as-is; it's merely the removal of the included 100g cost for a card pack that would change.

 

- The incentive to play doesn't actually change. Card pack cost is still the same, and the risk:reward ratio for succeeding in Arena enough to go net gold positive is unchanged. Arena remains the best way to generate gold, play with cards not in your collection, and learn many of the game's fundamentals.

 

hearthstonearena-r471x.jpg

Ah, but one problem - the real money cost.

 

So what would the microtransaction solution look like? This is the one place where the current structure favours Blizzard, as getting people to purchase Arena runs to develop their card collection is better than not. Eliminating the microtransaction for Arena outright would work, but it's doubtful that Blizzard would want that.

 

One possibility would be that the $1.99 charge would cover multiple (2-3) Arena entrances. Alternately, Blizzard could implement the ability for players to simply purchase in-game gold at a similar rate ($1.99 = 150g), which would allow players to use it for Arena runs, or to top up their gold to purchase other content (card packs, Adventure mode wings, etc.).

 

What are your thoughts? Would you like to see Blizzard retrofit the cost and rewards of the Hearthstone Arena mode to reflect the way the game is growing? Would you do something like the above, or something totally different? Let us know what you think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, i really like this idea. I've always thought that if i make 50 money or more (Whats the currency called again?) then I've made profit on that arena run. I also think 50 money will make it a lot more accessible to newer players. If they added in a super complex gui it wouldn't be hearthstone, but this would be a good long term solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Odinn, I agree completely that the current arena model is flawed and that giving the latest packs is not optimal for many players. However I wish you would have explored option 2 in a bit more detail. The option 3 that you mention, has a few serious drawbacks. 

 

First off, while the overall cost to reward ratio remains the same this idea is far more punishing to weaker/less experienced players. The truth is, a large % of players never go positive in arenas and about half of all arenas end with 3 wins or less (which usually rewards less than the cost of admission). For a newer player doing arenas, he spends 150 gold, wins a game or 2, and gets a pack + 30 odd gold. Sure he "lost" 20 gold, but in the process he's added cards, and as a ratio he lost about 13% of the original 150 gold value. 

 

Under your proposed system, said player pays 50 gold and gets a return of 30 gold. Again, he's "lost" 20 gold, yet he gained no packs. Instead of losing 13% of his original gold, he's lost 40%. A player doing multiple runs could wind up with less gold than he started with, and no cards to show for his trouble. 

 

By the same token, this rewards stronger players exponentially more too. If I get a reward of a pack + 200 gold, i've effectively doubled my 150 gold entrance fee. On your proposed system, if I get a 200 gold i've actually increased my entrance fee by 4x. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Menlyn hit on most of the points I was going to make; your proposal, while interesting, has some significant disadvantages, particularly when you are just getting started in the game  I'd add that removing the guaranteed card pack (even while lowering the cost of the arena correspondingly) would also seem to make the Arena much less appealing to those players who just want to build up their card collection and have little interest in simply playing Arena.  The assurance of getting a card pack for their endeavor can entice people who otherwise never set foot in the Arena to give it a go.

 

Personally, I think that the best way to fix this issue would be via a method of card selection, aka method 2 of the three you mentioned.  Providing a 'Pack Token' or something similar that could be traded in at the store for a pack of the player's choosing seems like a pretty workable solution.  It allows player more control over their rewards while effectively leaving the cost and underlying reward structure of the Arena untouched.  That said, it does mean adding another 'currency' to the game, which could complicate the UI (not that I think it would be terribly complex, but still) and might be troublesome to program into the game.

 

If that doesn't do the job, there's at least one other method which you don't seem to touch on that could be used to handle these issues: Keep a guaranteed pack of cards each run, but randomize the type of pack*.   The complaints aren't so much that Arena costs too much or shouldn't be giving out a pack of cards with each game, it's that Arena is *only* giving out GvG packs, with only GvG cards.  If that weren't the case, I think there'd be a lot less complaining about the Arena reward system.  (There'd still be some, I'm sure, but that should handle many of the issues.)

 

*Or randomize the cards contained within the pack; getting a special 'Arena Pack' with random cards from the Classic and GvG sets (and any future sets) would be pretty neat.   To make sure it's not a complete waste to those who have all the cards in the existing sets, here could be a guarantee that each pack will have at least one (or maybe two) card(s) from the latest set, along with the current 'at least one Rare or above' promise, but otherwise, just a random assortment of cards from all available sets.  But that's just my thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with Menlyn about the drawbacks he mentioned. Using his same example, a newer player doing arenas now spends 150 gold, let's say he wins a game or 2, and in the end gets a pack + 30 odd gold: summing up, he spent 120 gold and got a pack.

Under the system proposed by Odinn, said player can pay 100 gold in the shop to get a card pack, and pay 50 gold for an Arena run, from which he gets the said 30 gold: summing up, he spent 120 gold and got a pack, which is exactly the same as in the previous case. Moreover, in this situation the said player could also have played an Arena run if he had less than 150 gold, and was also free to choose from which expansion the pack would be!

Maybe I can agree with Menlyn if we are speaking about the "feelings" some new players may have about it, but if we are talking about what is rationally better for newer and older players, the new option is better for both: gold is counted in numbers, percentages can be misleading..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having Arena be a standalone game component where you could learn strategy and card mechanics, while simultaneously still having the ability to go 'gold positive' by winning, changes nothing about the Arena ecosystem. Removing the card pack reward and the cost thereof from the Arena would change nothing about how or why Arena is played.

 

In reality, having the ability to choose a card pack reward would probably be the optimal solution, but I put this concept forward as an alternative because, as mentioned, I don't foresee a way in which Blizzard could add a simple, intuitive way to make that selection to the existing interface. In many of the other Blizzard games - WoW or StarCraft, for sake of argument - complex UI modification (for playing, spectating, or otherwise) isn't uncommon, and there are tons of non-obvious elements that make up the game's interface functionality. Hearthstone, particularly to retain its draw as a mobile game, has different challenges in that regard.

 

(There's also a whole separate conversation to be had about whether it matters if, for example, Blizzard eventually retires the original Expert cards into the base 'free' core cards that you get when you first start playing, obviating the concern about breadth of card pack options altogether.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the idea of making Arena entries more affordable at 50 gold. i'm at a point right now as a player where i've kind of hit my ceiling on Ranked play (10ish) and need more dust to craft more epic & legendary cards, which is best attained through Arena runs. Plus, the versatility of Arena, the surprises & the ability to tinker and play with cards that a player doesn't have make it a lot more fun for me than Constructed Play. I honestly think that the rewarded card pack should just give players a combination of GvG and Classic cards! A lot of newer players to Hearthstone don't have a continuous flow of classic cards (some of which are really useful) unless they spend the dust to craft them or buy classic packs (which isn't a great idea in the current meta). I think that would solve a lot of the potential UI issues as well!

This is kind of unrelated but i also think you should be able to pick which chapter of an expansion you want to buy. You shouldn't be forced to buy all the chapters just to get to the ones that give you the rewards that you really want! Obviously, it's not possible before all of the chapter have been released, but i think a few month after the complete expansion is out you should be able to pick and chose which chapters you want! I had this issue with Naxx, because I really wanted to get undertaker and Kelthuzad but had to play through the entire expansion just to get to them!

Edited by KevinGarnett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello people,

I think that the simplest way to permit to choose which card pack award by ending an arena session, without the need to modifiy the GUI in any way, would be simply to make add combo box in options. In "miscellaneous" or "preferences" sections, an option named "preferred card packs" or "arena desired reward", would do the job.

 

simple, fast, and no GUI modify needed.

 

bye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Zadina
      Dean "Iksar" Ayala was active on Reddit yesterday commenting on the purpose and the design philosophy behind the Basic and Classic sets as well as the reasoning behind nerfs on cards from these sets.
      The Lead Balance Designer explained that the Basic and Classic sets' purpose is to introduce players to the game's mechanics and the fantasies behind each class. Since these sets are always around, powerful cards in them can be frustrating and cause negativity. For example, Wild Growth and Nourish were under the scope for a nerf for a long time. That doesn't mean all Basic and Classic cards have to be weak; some of them, like Fireball, Al'Akir the Windlord, Frothing Berserker and Tirion Fordring, are powerful, they show off class fantasy well enough and are safe from any changes (for now!).
      Card nerfs aren't meant to just solve short-term problems. For example, the Fiery War Axe nerf made it possible for other Warrior weapons to see play. It's true that nerfing cards from the Classic and Basic cards makes players feel obligated to invest their gold or real money on newly released sets. The team has tried to offset this with more seasonal events, as well as the reworked new player experience, which all give packs to players.
      IksarHS
      Ideally the basic and classic set show off the kinds of mechanics each class is about without having too many cards that show up in all possible class archetypes. Basic is important to us because it serves as a set of cards players can use to learn about the game before they choose whether or not to make an investment of their time or money. Classic is important to us because it serves as the secondary jump-off point where you learn the baseline for what each of the individual classes is about along with some of our core mechanics like Battlecry or Deathrattle. From a gameplay perspective, having these sets around forever usually only leads to negativity when the cards are so powerful they show up in every deck in every expansion, making the strategies players use feel more stale than they would otherwise. We've been trying to change some of these power outliers over time, but only when making that change might also be positive for the live game environment. Wild Growth and Nourish were good examples of cards we had thought about changing for some time, so when we arrived in a meta where Druid had been very powerful and popular for a long time, it felt like a good time for those changes. We'd like to continue making these types of changes, as we believe the game will be in a better position to meet the player expectation that the game is new and fresh from expansion to expansion.
      We nerf basic/classic cards that are too powerful instead of rotating them when they hit on class fantasy but at too high of a power level. Ramping mana is a strong identifier for what Druid should be about, so it made more sense to us to have some of the simplest forms of mana ramp exist in the base set to teach players what Druids can be about. It also makes more sense to have those cards be medium power level because if we identify mana ramp as an identity for Druids, it would be nice to be able to make some mana ramp cards from time to time without having to create cards even more powerful than two of the (arguably) most powerful cards in the game. Of course, this doesn't mean all basic and classic cards have to be weak. Generally the cards we target for change are ones that exist in every archetype. Cards like Al'Akir, Frothing, Fireball, or Tirion are probably safe. They are powerful and do an awesome job at selling the class fantasy for the class they represent. They also have some weaknesses and you can imagine an archetype within their class that might not play them. This is a pretty good place to be in. (source)

      I probably should have included this in the first post. It's true that reducing the amount of auto-include cards in the base set makes cards from expansions more important if the goal is to be able to create every powerful deck. This is something that's more healthy to solve with things like gold injection events like fire festival, increasing the gold on the average quest, or having a new player experience that awards 20+ packs. We keep a close eye on the the kind of investment it takes (time or currency) to obtain a deck archetype that is fun and powerful. The end goal is to make that a painless experience and there is more than one way to go about that. Having a wide variety of forever cards that are so high power level they are included in most decks is one way to go about it, I just don't think it's the right one.  (source)

      The main point I think is important to get across here is that we don't ever change basic and classic cards just to solve short-term problems. Warrior was fairly powerful at the time we changed FWA which I think makes the change more palatable. If we truly thought that Warrior was better served in the long-term by have FWA as a (2) mana card, then we certainly would have tried to change expansion level cards rather than something in the classic set. Cards like Sul'thraze, Supercollider, Woodcutter's Axe, and Bloodrazer have all had a little more room to breathe and make Warrior feel different expansion to expansion as a result of the FWA change, which was part of the goal. (source)
    • By Zadina
      Many players - initially from Korea, but then from all regions - have received a survey about Hearthstone and the latest expansions. One of the questions of the survey asks players how likely they would be to to play the card game within the next 30 days, if there were no Blizzard sponsored tournaments.
      The question has made a lot of people nervous, given that Heroes of the Storm esports were recently axed and the game will go in maintenance mode in the near future. The climate is already heavy with the latest WoW expansion not being received that greatly and all the rumours about Activision meddling into Blizzard. The recent news about two Activision Blizzards CFOs leaving the company and Bungie (the developer of Destiny 2) jumping ship from Activision only managed to spark the rumours that things aren't going that well for Blizzard. Hearthstone also saw its game director and public face, Ben Brode, leave this year - along with other notable Hearthstone devs.
      Significant changed to the structure of the Hearthstone Championship Tour were announced less than two months ago, so Hearthstone esports have a future for 2019 at least. Of course, the conspiracy lovers immediately pointed out that HotS devs promised that HGC would continue in 2019, only to announce its cancellation less than a month afterwards.

      The full survey was shared on Reddit by u/HelixFossil89.
      It is important to put this matter into perspective without panicking. First of all, this was a single question in a 35-question survey about the game in general and Rastakhan's Rumble in particular. The conductors of the survey obviously want to get the general opinion of their playerbase on major issues. Just because they asked this particular question, it doesn't necessarily mean they are considering axing Hearthstone esports.
      Second, there is no indication that Hearthstone isn't doing well. Sure, it may have lost some players but it probably still is Blizzard's second best earner. Its competition has definitely not managed to thwart it and the latest balance changes - while they weren't exactly successful in creating a healthy meta - were received with excitement and positivity by most of the community.
      On the other hand, Blizzard has spent quite a lot of money on the Hearthstone professional scene and perhaps there is a limit of how much they can keep throwing at it. There is also the matter that even though Hearthstone has been successful as an esport, it has managed that without being taken totally seriously - even by its own players. The 2019 plans also seem a bit vague-ish, although it should be noted that the January qualifiers are well underway.
    • By Zadina
      This brand new Tavern Brawl challenges you to build a deck with cards from 2 Wild expansions and 2 Standard ones.
      Specifically, you will need to construct a deck using only cards from Goblins vs Gnomes, The Grand Tournament, The Witchwood and The Boomsday Project. We remind you that this month is dedicated to Wild mode with a new Wild Bundle and thematic Tavern Brawls being available.
      Newer players or players that don't have a lot of Wild cards in their collection can pick a Class and a single card and the game will autofill a deck for them with cards they don't have!
      If you don't have cards from GvG and TGT, but still want to make your own deck, Baku the Mooneater and/or Genn Greymane are your best bets. Odd Rogue and Odd Paladin are performing well and Even Shaman is also a decent choice.
      If you have all the cards needed, then it's a great opportunity to show off your Mech power. Mech Hunter and Mech Paladin are absolute beasts, with the Mechs from GvG and The Boomsday Project synergising perfectly.
      This is a very interesting Tavern Brawl, since it creates a whole new meta on its own and it satisfies the players who are asking for yearly/monthly rotations with a specific amount of random sets from all of Hearthstone's history. Sometimes, Tavern Brawls foreshadow future games modes so perhaps this is a small hint on something different being worked on!
    • By Starym
      Here comes another update, once again focusing on Arena balance as classes get the appearance rates of cards tweaked so everyone has a comparable win rate. We're seeing Hunters, Rogues and Warriors getting their rates nerfed, while Druids, Mages, Paladins, Shamans and Warlocks get theirs buffed. This is coming after the more comprehensive update last month that saw some bigger Arena changes, including the removal of Mind Control Tech.

      We're also getting changes to Rumble Run in this update, featuring better synergy for your shrine with new cards picked, boss deck adjustments and the ability to re-pick the shrine you lost with. Check out the full details below:
      January 10 (source)
      This Hearthstone update mixes Rumble Run up for a refreshing new change, while also bringing in some updates to Arena buckets together with the cessation of December 2018’s dust refund. Read on for details!
      Arena Updates
      Following our Arena update last December, we have adjusted the appearance rate of each individual card available in Arena to ensure the overall win-rate of each class remains as close as possible to our ideal of 50%.
      Hunter, Rogue, and Warrior have had the average quality of their Arena picks lowered. Druid, Mage, Paladin, Priest, Shaman, and Warlock have had the average quality of their Arena picks raised. December Update
      The dust refunds that were available following our last update in December 2018 are no longer available as of this post.
      Rumble Run Changes
      Champions, rumblers, and trolls of all sizes! We’ve watched you spend a month punching faces in the Rumble Run, and we think there’s room for some changes based on how things have gone. Here’s what’s new with the Rumble Run.
      Weighted Card Rewards We’ve increased the possibility of synergistic cards for your shrine appearing more often. One of our primary goals with this mode was to showcase the nine troll champions and have you really get to know them. We wanted you to “live the dream” of fighting in the Gurubashi Arena, and to do so, we had to make sure that each Run had its own strong theme. Adjusting the card bucket offerings for decks and re-adding bonus buckets will help strengthen that experience.
      Boss Deck Adjustments One of our design goals with the Rumble Run was to provide huge, overpowered combat. Balancing at such a high power level is a challenge. When it works, it works great. You get epic, monumental combat against overwhelming odds. But when it doesn’t work, it feels random and swingy – like when the AI pulls an overwhelming combo. And since no one likes being repeatedly hit in the face with a club, we’ve pruned some of the power from the boss decks so that your Runs will play out more moderately. We have a lot of data about which bosses have the biggest body counts, and we’ve used that to target the worst offenders. Rumble Runs are now a little easier, but more importantly, they’ll feel a little more fair.
      Shrine Selection Changes In early builds of the Rumble Run, we allowed players to pick a class and shrine before playing. What we found was that playtesters immediately picked their favorite class, gravitated to a certain shrine, and played that shrine repeatedly.
      We had wanted to encourage players to try different shrines, especially to experiment with stuff they normally wouldn’t, so we put the current random shrine drafting in place. While that helped achieve our initial goal, it removed that feeling of mastery – the ability to choose a shrine and play with it until you feel you’ve mastered it or exhausted its possibilities.
      So we want to bring that back. With this update, whenever you lose, you can expect to always be offered the shrine you just lost with. The shrine that the boss used to beat you in your last run will also be offered, per the status quo.
      Some Final Rumble Ruminations
      We always prefer to experiment, try extreme ideas, and get feedback rather than play it safe. In true troll fashion, we went big with the Rumble Run and tried some different ideas to give this expansion a unique feel and to capture the thrill of stepping into an arena against known opponents for some superpowered brutality. It’s wallop or be walloped in there, for better or for worse.
      One of the things we experimented with—and heard great feedback on—was about the earlier pack rewards for the Rumble Run. Previous Hearthstone missions awarded packs via quests for completing content. For The Boomsday Project, we gave packs out without a quest to celebrate the launch of the expansion’s missions. This time around, we front-loaded the rewards and gave players three extra packs on launch day instead of during the Rumble Run. We felt that packs might be more interesting to people during the initial weeks of the expansion.
      As many of you have pointed out, this decision just made the missions feel especially un-rewarding. It’s always more gratifying to earn packs by competing a quest, rather than just being given them. To this end, we’re adding the new quest described above, and going forward, we’ll keep this feedback in mind for the launch of new single-player content.
      We had a ton of fun making mode and really appreciate the time that many of you took to write out thoughtful feedback. Everything we learn helps make future content better.
      And now, it’s back to the Rumble Run!
    • By Zadina
      This January is dedicated to the Wild format: apart from the Wild Open qualifiers taking place this month, you can now get a card Bundle with packs from previous expansions that are not usually available.
      The Wild Bundle contains 10 packs from each of the following expansions, that have rotated out of Standard: Goblins vs Gnomes, The Grand Tournament, Whispers of the Old Gods and Mean Streets of Gadgetzan. The Bundle costs 25 Euros or 25 USD.
      If you are interested in the Wild format - or perhaps you even want to complete in it, the Wild Open qualifiers will be taking place this January.
      Lastly, most Tavern Brawls are in Wild and this will continue being the case throughout this month.