blizzard Ben Brode Leaves Blizzard

[Rhondis 148]

4 hours ago, WedgeAntilles said:

I admit I am curious - some of you write that it is sad, shoking, bad or something similiar that he leaves.
Are you serious? Or do you just think you have to write something like that?

For Hearthstone his leave means exactly one thing: Absolutly nothing.

In our world a single person is in 99,99% totally irrelevant and replacable. The bigger the company the more irrelevant a single person becomes.

Maybe he was a familiar face with Hearthstone - so what? He will be just replaced by another face. And this one will be replaced in a few years by yet another one.

Hearthstone development will continue precicly as before (if that is good or bad can everybody judge by himself).

 

His leave is as irrelevant as if a bag of rice falls over somewhere in China.

Actually, Ben Brode helped create Hearthstone to what it is today. To say that he is irrelevant just because he is leaving is pretty harsh. I am sure that Hearthstone will do fine, but because of Ben, it is still alive and kicking as much as ever before. Otherwise, I am not so sure that Hearthstone would be as big as it is today. 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, ShadowerDerek said:

No, it's definitely not irrelevant at all. Hearthstone losing Ben Brode is like Apple losing Steve Jobs, Manchester United losing Sir Alex Fergerson, Arsenal losing Wenger: they lose their souls and identities. They'll be completely different, whether good or not. It's like entering a different era. 

Will Arsenal be worse off next year for not having Wenger any longer?
No.
Is Apple making less money without Steve Jobs?
No.

Some with Ben Brode: Will Hearthstone sell less packs without him?
No.
Will Blizzard stop making new Expansions?
No.

Absolutly no difference for 99,9% of all Hearthstone players.
99,9% have never heard of him before.
How can his leaving matter if  next to no one knew he existed?

Most people love the illusion how important they are. How everything will change without them.
Shoking news: That's just a lie to feel better.

Yes, there have been people in history that DID matter. Julius Caesar e.g.

Rest assured, Hearthstone will continue exactly the same, without him or with him.

 

Actually, Ben Brode helped create Hearthstone to what it is today. To say that he is irrelevant just because he is leaving is pretty harsh. I am sure that Hearthstone will do fine, but because of Ben, it is still alive and kicking as much as ever before. Otherwise, I am not so sure that Hearthstone would be as big as it is today. 

Actually you just proove my point.
It doesn't matter what he did in the past.
Sure, if he was the one with the whole concept of Hearthstone he was important. A few years ago.
Being as huge as Hearthstone is nowadays he just doesn't matter any more.

And that is what I said. I did not say he never mattered.
I said his leaving now doesn't matter and won't be felt by anyone. (Well, 0,01% of the players may miss his videos. Personally I never saw a single one of it. Like 99,99% of all Hearthstone players.)

 

[ShadowerDerek 69]

4 hours ago, WedgeAntilles said:

Absolutely no difference for 99,9% of all Hearthstone players.
99,9% have never heard of him before.
How can his leaving matter if  next to no one knew he existed?

This is flat out wrong and made baselessly. His leaving doesn't matter to you, does NOT means that it doesn't matter to everyone. You can't assume that you're the majority. 

Personally, Ben Brode is the only reason that I'd ever watch anything related to Hearthstone. Now that he's gone,  goodbye Hearthstone.

[Caldyrvan 377]

I get the feeling you are talking about two different things, feelings and facts.

I think it does matter feeling wise for more than we think, but for the game how it will be designed it does not matter.

Well, ofc there is an interaction between those as the devs already acknowledged by nerfing something because it wasn't fun.

There will be people who play or watch (or both) the game and will do less now or stop because of Ben but that will be indeed a minority. The majority enjoys to play/watch the game and will continue to do so or return soon.

If Ben would have been the world shacking center he would have started a show focused on him long time ago maybe as a "free to watch" concept with micro pay to watch for special events :D

His impact on the game (today) is unknown and will be in the future. Who knows maybe he had nothing to do with the creation process of The Witchwood, just for show on the promotion videos. I doubt that's the case but if, what would it change? ;)

Edited April 22, 2018 by Caldyrvan

[Guest]

6 hours ago, ShadowerDerek said:

This is flat out wrong and made baselessly. His leaving doesn't matter to you, does NOT means that it doesn't matter to everyone. You can't assume that you're the majority. 

Personally, Ben Brode is the only reason that I'd ever watch anything related to Hearthstone. Now that he's gone,  goodbye Hearthstone.

It is called statistic.
Take a look at the player base, take into account how many players watch the streams.
You will realize, that more then 99% off all players never watched a single stream, vid or something like that.
(Which is of course not a Hearthstone related issue. In every game most players just play the game. But are not interested in highly competetive gaming, strategy guides, boards (like icy-vein), community, blogs, vids. At most they take a look at a guide which items / cards, which weapons are best...)
All this community stuff doesn't matter for the vast majority.
I don't claim that is good, or that it is bad. It just is a simple fact.
All those players don't care about someone who helps making the game, because they don't know he exists. For them it is like having a new cleaning-staff.
And since the creation process in the game itself isn't altered in any way by one person leaving it leads to the mathematically and statistically proofen fact, that one person just doesn't matter.

I am only speaking for the majority of cause. I never claimed I was taking for every single indivudial.
It is called "pattern prediction".
You can never predict what one individual will do. But you can predict what a group of 1000 persons can do.
Sure, each one of the 1000 is himself an individual. But that doesn't change the fact that 1000 ARE predictable and no longer an individual.

And that is exactly what I said, no more, no less.

q.e.d.

If you don't believe me there exists enough literature about statistics which takes a look at the phenomene pattern prediction.
Most is quite heavy stuff and quite boring to read (if you are not deep into things like that).

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, Caldyrvan said:

I get the feeling you are talking about two different things, feelings and facts.

Yes. I am taking a look at the whole playerbase and at the development itself.
Obviously there are some who liked him very much and who will miss him.
But those are just an insignificant small number compared to the whole playerbase.

For the individual his leaving can have impact. I never denied that.
For Hearthstone itself, for the playerbase is has not.

[strategylord 4]

Is there any chance that this might be April's fool? 

[ShadowerDerek 69]

2 hours ago, WedgeAntilles said:

It is called statistic.
Take a look at the player base, take into account how many players watch the streams.
You will realize, that more then 99% off all players never watched a single stream, vid or something like that.
(Which is of course not a Hearthstone related issue. In every game most players just play the game. But are not interested in highly competetive gaming, strategy guides, boards (like icy-vein), community, blogs, vids. At most they take a look at a guide which items / cards, which weapons are best...)
All this community stuff doesn't matter for the vast majority.
I don't claim that is good, or that it is bad. It just is a simple fact.
All those players don't care about someone who helps making the game, because they don't know he exists. For them it is like having a new cleaning-staff.
And since the creation process in the game itself isn't altered in any way by one person leaving it leads to the mathematically and statistically proofen fact, that one person just doesn't matter.

I am only speaking for the majority of cause. I never claimed I was taking for every single indivudial.
It is called "pattern prediction".

This may be right for other games, but not Hearthstone.

Hearthstone is such a big, well-known game that the devs has been gaining a lot of attentions. Even Team 5 themselves has been actively engaging with the community, particularly Ben Brode. He IS the face of Team 5, he represents the Hearthstone devs. If you don't understand what I mean, just go watch some Hearthstone memes on Youtube.

The fact that Blizzard, or Ben Brode himself, posts a blue post about his departure means that the community DOES care about it. The fact that you claim to speak for the 'majority' just based on what you 'think' shows that you fail to throughly understand the game's current state. And the fact that you call others 'they have to write something like that' and their opinions 'a lie to feel better' are flat out unnecessary, arrogant and disrespectful. Someone else in this thread have already said about it, and this is the reason I even start this conversation. 

Edited April 22, 2018 by ShadowerDerek

[positiv2 952]

I can't really say that I will miss him that much. As said multiple times throughout the thread, he was just the most known person of Team 5, rather than the most important one. Most of the time he felt like he was there just to sell packs and to fool people into thinking that unpopular changes were made for the players' own good. I still want to wish him good luck, though.

2 hours ago, ShadowerDerek said:

Hearthstone is such a big, well-known game that the devs has been gaining a lot of attentions. Even Team 5 themselves has been actively engaging with the community, particularly Ben Brode. He IS the face of Team 5, he represents the Hearthstone devs. If you don't understand what I mean, just go watch some Hearthstone memes on Youtube.

That does not mean in any way that the majority of people even heard about them. Majority of Hearthstone players simply aren't engaged in the community, they don't care about Team 5, they don't watch Ben Brode YTPs and whatnot; they simply play the game and try to ladder up, get good results in arena, and so on, but outside of the game, they don't care about it. Even people who are part of the active community often do not care about the devs. They just know that they exist, and that's it. If he simply departed without posting this, or without letting the community know about it, not many people would really notice.

2 hours ago, ShadowerDerek said:

The fact that you claim to speak for the 'majority' just based on what you 'think' shows that you fail to throughly understand the game's current state. And the fact that you call others 'they have to write something like that' and their opinions 'a lie to feel better' are flat out unnecessary, arrogant and disrespectful. Someone else in this thread have already said about it, and this is the reason I even start this conversation. 

The thing is, however, that the majority simply does not speak. As a person that cares about the community and has friends that play Hearthstone, I can safely tell you that there are people that do not even know that the game is made by Blizzard.

Anyway, aren't you doing the same? Saying that the majority does care, that it is the others that got everything wrong?

[ShadowerDerek 69]

15 minutes ago, positiv2 said:

Anyway, aren't you doing the same? Saying that the majority does care, that it is the others that got everything wrong?

I've never, ever said that I represent the majority. The world doesn't only have black and white.

As you said, most people does not speak. That means, you cannot assume their knowledge and opinions. You cannot assume that you can represent them.

My points of views are based on what I've seen on this thread and other places. And I've never said that I'm absolutely correct on everything. Anyone can always disagree with me, but if they can't provide real and persuasive evidence, then I won't change my standing.

Edited April 22, 2018 by ShadowerDerek

[positiv2 952]

17 minutes ago, ShadowerDerek said:

I've never, ever said that I represent the majority. The world doesn't only have black and white.

But neither did anyone else, yet that is what you said. You did claim that the community does care, and that Ben Brode leaving is similar to Apple losing Steve Jobs, however.

[ShadowerDerek 69]

18 minutes ago, positiv2 said:

But neither did anyone else, yet that is what you said. You did claim that the community does care, and that Ben Brode leaving is similar to Apple losing Steve Jobs, however.

Someone actually said that 'I'm speaking for for the majority of cause.' Please read the thread carefully. I've never said anything close to this.

Also, by community I mean those who've express their opinions. I do not include those who haven't said anything because I don't know what they're thinking, and I won't make any assumptions. 

And those metaphors, it's just my feeling about this situation. I've never force anyone to agree with me, or assume that most people agree with me.

I've also never said that others' feelings and opinions are 'irrelevent'. I respect others' opinions and arguments, but if I see something that's appearently inconsistant to the reality, I'll point them out. Whether you agree or not is your own choice, and I respect that.

Edited April 22, 2018 by ShadowerDerek

[Caldyrvan 377]

Stop it with the claim, you are confusing me :D

Spoiler

 

Edited April 22, 2018 by Caldyrvan

[positiv2 952]

4 hours ago, ShadowerDerek said:

Someone actually said that 'I'm speaking for for the majority of cause.' Please read the thread carefully. I've never said anything close to this.

There is a difference between speaking for the majority, and representing the majority. Although close, they are not the same.

4 hours ago, ShadowerDerek said:

Also, by community I mean those who've express their opinions. I do not include those who haven't said anything because I don't know what they're thinking, and I won't make any assumptions. 

My guess is that most of the people who did not express their opinion is that because they don't have one. They may not know that Brode left, or did not even know that he existed in the first place. I base this on experience with a small statistic group (in this case my friends who play the game) though, so who knows. As for the impact of him leaving, only time will tell.

4 hours ago, ShadowerDerek said:

I've also never said that others' feelings and opinions are 'irrelevent'. I respect others' opinions and arguments, but if I see something that's appearently inconsistant to the reality, I'll point them out. Whether you agree or not is your own choice, and I respect that.

Yes, this is very important. I hope that it is clear that me disagreeing with you (or anyone) is nothing personal, and that it is important to see each other's point of view and try to converge.

[Ancalagon 35]

Forgive me, I don't want to come off as being rude, but why are we seeing a Hearthstone news thread in the WoW section of Icy Veins?...

[SithLordOfSnark 78]

2 hours ago, Ancalagon said:

Forgive me, I don't want to come off as being rude, but why are we seeing a Hearthstone news thread in the WoW section of Icy Veins?...

If you click on every single game, you'll see this article. He didn't just leave Hearthstone, he left Blizzard.

[ShadowerDerek 69]

9 hours ago, positiv2 said:

There is a difference between speaking for the majority, and representing the majority. Although close, they are not the same.

Well, to me it's just the same. It's what most politicians do. :P

9 hours ago, positiv2 said:

My guess is that most of the people who did not express their opinion is that because they don't have one. They may not know that Brode left, or did not even know that he existed in the first place. I base this on experience with a small statistic group (in this case my friends who play the game) though, so who knows. As for the impact of him leaving, only time will tell.

I did told one of my friend that Hearstone's Game Designer resigned (he doesn't know Ben Brode), and he simply replied 'Uh-oh.' I think he does smell some trouble about this game. So yeah, him leaving might actually matter to those who don't know him, may be not in short term though.

[Todd 7]

On 4/20/2018 at 4:15 PM, EDL666 said:

What do you mean? This is likely one of the most exciting and varied meta ever! So many different deck archetypes... Budget legend has never been as affordable... I'm serious, what do you mean?

I have to agree with this. I feel that the game is in the best state that it's ever been in now. The Dungeon Run is my favorite thing they've ever put in the game, and the new Monster Hunt looks like an even better version. 

[ShadowerDerek 69]

1 hour ago, Todd said:

I have to agree with this. I feel that the game is in the best state that it's ever been in now. The Dungeon Run is my favorite thing they've ever put in the game, and the new Monster Hunt looks like an even better version. 

Casual wise, yes the game is pretty good. Competitive wise, this game is literally dying. Hearthstone tournaments are just game shows of luck right now. There's little skill involved, whosever luck is better just win.

Member when every pro player (and caster) has to spend his whole turn to count lethal with Patron Warrior? Member when Oil Rogue, Freeze Mage and Patron Warrior (post Warsong nerf) are the decks that win the World Championship? I member. 

FeelsBadMan

[Todd 7]

3 minutes ago, ShadowerDerek said:

Casual wise, yes the game is pretty good. Competitive wise, this game is literally dying. Hearthstone tournaments are just game shows of luck right now. There's little skill involved, whosever luck is better just win.

Member when every pro player (and caster) has to spend his whole turn to count lethal with Patron Warrior? Member when Oil Rogue, Freeze Mage and Patron Warrior (post Warsong nerf) are the decks that win the World Championship? I member. 

FeelsBadMan

I can understand that point of view. I've always been a casual player so I am definitely looking at it that way. I feel like the majority of the player base is casual. I've never gotten past level 18 in ranked and I only play enough games to get the cardback each month. I've never watched a single tournament or stream of the game, I've never spent any money on the game and I couldn't name a single professional player if you paid me, honestly.  

[SteveFrost 97]

I've never bothered playing Hearth of the Stone(= HotS, see what I did there?), for digital TCGs I found Infinity Wars and loved it, but from what I get, this guy was an important part of it and generally someone with passion and care for his work. Quite a few big names leaving Blizz recently and that's surely food for thought.

On 21/4/2018 at 3:23 PM, WedgeAntilles said:

I admit I am curious - some of you write that it is sad, shoking, bad or something similiar that he leaves.
Are you serious? Or do you just think you have to write something like that?

For Hearthstone his leave means exactly one thing: Absolutly nothing.

In our world a single person is in 99,99% totally irrelevant and replacable. The bigger the company the more irrelevant a single person becomes.

Maybe he was a familiar face with Hearthstone - so what? He will be just replaced by another face. And this one will be replaced in a few years by yet another one.

Hearthstone development will continue precicly as before (if that is good or bad can everybody judge by himself).

 

His leave is as irrelevant as if a bag of rice falls over somewhere in China.

Not meaning to bash or be offensive, but that's something really slimy,awful,unwarranted and false thing to say.

Each and every human being is unique and unrepeatable, one of a kind. Each one is more than 99,99% identical with everyone else in DNA (and the difference is found in the non-functional DNA), yet you can tell them apart just from their face and its characteristics- the differences expand way beyond that of course. Even monozygotic twins (entirely identical in DNA) develop completely different personalities. From an immoral standpoint maybe you're right, for example, for a materialist, avaricious boss of a multinational corporation, everyone can be replaced since he/she just views all as nothing more than "working hands". Otherwise, not really.

I won't go as far to say that a butterfly flapping its wings in Australia can cause another hurricane Katrina in the US (chaos theory, which I consider utter, absolute and sheer trash) but I believe you've seen this movie or one of its countless adaptations. Really spot on how a single person can affect the others around him.

Edited April 23, 2018 by SteveFrost

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, SteveFrost said:

Not meaning to bash or be offensive, but that's something really slimy,awful,unwarranted and false thing to say.

 

You mix genetics with impact.
Yes, genetically spoken everyone is unique. Or take fingerprints, retina...
Doesn't mean you matter in the big picture.

Which is quite a good thing if you think about it. Most individuals in history are still well known because of cruelty, despotism or anything like that. Attila, Dschingis Khan, Hitler...
Famous kings are still remembered (more often for waging wars then for anything else)- but we live in a democracy. Sure, there are still presidents well known, but most of them are closer to our times and that's why they are not forgotten yet. And time is past that an individual can shape history as it has been done before. (Again: That is quite good!)

And then there are some famous inventors - Edison, Ford...
But nowadays most inventions are done by a huge group. 
Newton and Archimedes discovered breathtaking new things. They will never be forgotten.
But today? Yes, physics still expand the knowledge. But a single individual? Not that much anymore. Nearly every "breakthrough" is a group of scientist. (Just take a look at the Nobleprice). And the fields of invention are highly specific. Next to know one understands it.
The field of science has become too huge and complex for an individual to be as important as a few hundred years ago.

 

An individual doesn't matter to the world.

But why should that be bad? Why should your life have impact on millions and billions of beings? Chances are WAY higher that such an impact would be bad or even terrible instead of good.

That does NOT mean your life has no meaning at all. Of course it has meaning:

To your wife, your husband, your friends, your familiy, your lover, your kids, your colleagues in work, your comrads in a sport team...

That is what matters. The 10 people that know you best matter. Not the bilions of other beings on the planet. 
Those are as irrelevant to you as you are to them.
And that is a damn good thing!

[EDL666 18]

On 4/21/2018 at 5:45 AM, positiv2 said:

The game has been going downhill since MSG (some may also say that LoE started it with Reno Jackson, Tunnel Trogg, so on). The pirate synergy, jades, and RNG introduced in Mean Streets of Gadgetzan were the beginning of the end. Followed by quests, a very unfun mechanic to play against, in Journey to Un'goro, Death Knight Heroes in Knights of the Frozen Throne, which basically ruined late game, and later in Kobolds and Catacombs reaching levels of RNG surpassing those of GvG. The Witchwood expansion brought Shudderwock, aggro decks are resurrected with such a power that the LoE-era aggro shamans are laughable. The full impact of the latest expansion is to be seen yet, though.

Meta is diverse because we are one week into the expansion, which happens with every expansion's launch. Wait for three more weeks and you will see that the meta will stabilise, as it always does.

Budget legend is cheaper than it was the last expansion or two, but it is still a long way from being the most affordable so far. In the early days of Hearthstone up to about 2 expansions in, reaching legend with 0-dust decks was actually feasible. After that, there were even metas where decks with less than 1k dust had the best chance of reaching legend (face hunters, zoolocks, mech mages, tempo mages, so on). Even with changes like not being able to fall down from 15, 10 and 5, budget decks (which aren't that cheap compared to old-time full-budget decks) aren't nearly as efficient at reaching legend as they used to be. This is, of course, caused to some extent by removal of adventures, which used to allow players to prepare for each expansion launch, as you could obtain every single card in about 2 months when there were 5 wings, and about month and a half in 4-wing era.

I have to disagree with you a lot about what Quests and Death Knights do now, they aren't unfun at all IMO, they make sure that the game will end soon-ish rather than way too long to care at all like very old control matches did and THAT is not fun at all. Therefore I think late game was much improved, not ruined. I like having decisions to make and I like the game to stay short. The best way I see this is by having cards like Shudderwock and/or card generation that make you think about how you need to play your turns to maximize your chance to win. People say that RNG is bad, I mostly disagree, depending on what kind of RNG, as I think that having a stable meta with every single game being the same is the most boring thing you can get.

As for the budget legend thing, I think you're only calculating dust and that this is a mistake. The game is much more generous now than it was and you gain a lot more for your time invested than you did back then, accelerating how fast you can obtain the dust to craft said budget decks.

I'm talking about my experience and it might be very different for someone else. I'm just 100% F2P not really grinding ladder, I'm just looking at my ability to actually obtain dust and how much dust decks require to get to legend.

We obviously have different opinions about what makes the game fun. I love Arena, I like most Brawls, and Ranked is playable most days when it isn't Midrange Shaman everywhere.

[EDL666 18]

20 hours ago, ShadowerDerek said:

Casual wise, yes the game is pretty good. Competitive wise, this game is literally dying. Hearthstone tournaments are just game shows of luck right now. There's little skill involved, whosever luck is better just win.

Member when every pro player (and caster) has to spend his whole turn to count lethal with Patron Warrior? Member when Oil Rogue, Freeze Mage and Patron Warrior (post Warsong nerf) are the decks that win the World Championship? I member. 

FeelsBadMan

Yeah I remember, that was very one-dimensional, zero variety, brainless copypasta deck lineups and very boring. Now we have a lot of skill(that you don't see in the streams, at least it's more subtle how it comes into play). I think that there was way more luck before when everyone HAD the same lineup because it was all hanging in what order you drew the cards and you had absolutely no control on that. Now, since the meta is much more diverse, you need to think about what to ban, how to build your decks according to what deckS you think you should be able to win against most of the time and a lot more deck/hand tracking is required. Which I think translates to more skill. But you are allowed to disagree.

[ShadowerDerek 69]

1 hour ago, EDL666 said:

Yeah I remember, that was very one-dimensional, zero variety, brainless copypasta deck lineups and very boring. Now we have a lot of skill(that you don't see in the streams, at least it's more subtle how it comes into play). I think that there was way more luck before when everyone HAD the same lineup because it was all hanging in what order you drew the cards and you had absolutely no control on that. Now, since the meta is much more diverse, you need to think about what to ban, how to build your decks according to what deckS you think you should be able to win against most of the time and a lot more deck/hand tracking is required. Which I think translates to more skill. But you are allowed to disagree.

I think you misunderstand what I mean 'skill' in Hearthstone.

Playing cards on curve isn't skill. Creating decks with on-curve cards isn't skill. Understanding how to properly play your decks, especially hard decks, is skill. Calculating the risk you can take and play to win with your odds is skill.

The decks I mentioned, Patron Warrior, Freeze Mage and Oil Rogue, aren't decks that everyone can play to legend. These are the classic examples of 'specialist decks' that even if its overall win rate is not that good, a skilled player can still achieve really good results with it. I encountered many 'drooling noobs' that use all of his Fireball and Frostbolt to clear my board when playing Freeze Mage, and mess up their combos when playing Oil Rogue and Patron Warrior. 

If you still don't understand what I mean, you might want to watch Hearthstone World Championship 2015.

Man, people nowadays don't know what Combo decks are, because Blizzard had been actively killing them.

Edited April 24, 2018 by ShadowerDerek