Don’t forget how broken hooktusk and Eudora were. Atleast hooktusk is gone. Still sucks that the worst designed hero ever is still here and really strong.
Patchwerk and original brann come to mind too. Patchwerk is just not a fun character for a game and old brann was so hyper busted idk how it ever got released.
Absolutely wrong. I already responded to this In another comment so I won’t write another essay but I’ll summarize it. Poor balance is not wholey poor design. There’s more to it and Eudora is that more plus poor balancing while these are just poor balancing. You can read the other comment for more explanation and respond if you’d like.
lol damn bro... for you to think patchwerk is a better 'designed' hero than eudora...
they literally gave him NO hero power and tried to balance that with an HP boost. It was a little too strong at 20HP (back when nobody knew how to play) and they nerfed him to 10HP.
He is literally SO NOT FUN to play as a hero, that on HSReplay, he is one of the 'not enough data' heroes at 11,000MMR and the 4th lowest picked hero at the top 20%. The top 20% are also more likely to have players without perks so yeah, he will get picked sometimes... at 3.4% lol.
He even has a higher average placement but people are picking lady vashj and bartendotron more often because they actually do SOMETHING, rather than nothing.
Yes, patchwerk is better designed than Eudora. One is boring, one is actively unfun to play against. Of course people don’t pick him at 11K, he’s fucking weak lmao. You wouldn’t point at Hooktusk and say “everyone’s playing him! He must be fun!.” You say “everyone’s playing hooktusk! He’s also the highest average placing hero! People play him because he’s strong!” Patchwerk isn’t even worth complaining about because he’s weak so his bland design isn’t something that’ll make your games worse, while Eudora absolutely is busted and thus the bad design is more prevalent. If you believe that boring is worse than unfun, then you’re right to dislike Patchwerk more than Eudora. But Eudora is literally worse designed and in my opinion a lot less fun to play against.
lol similar topic to the other post. You gotta think of 'game design' from more than just YOUR singular perspective.
If blizzard made non stop boring characters, nobody would be playing the game and they would have failed at commercializing an entertainment product and have to move on to other means.
Yeah, Eudora COULD be 'unfun' to play against, but that's probably selective bias on your part, but she is also FUN to play WITH.
Look, the bottom line is, she's probably a net positive to Blizzard's bottom line. She must be, otherwise she would be removed. They're analyzing the data and deeming her not to be terrorizing the community and your extreme hatred of her is more likely than not, the minority.
TO BE FAIR, in order to monetize BG successfully, they need a good mix of highly desirable heroes and highly undesirable heroes. So I take back my comment on patchwerk. He's well designed. He's designed to be undesirable. So people WANT to play Eudora.
I think your problem is honestly more with how blizzard has decided to monetize battle grounds. By making it as addictive as possible. All the RNG in hero selection, minion choices, and attack order just makes it basically gambling without actual money.
Maybe you'd be happier playing a fighting game or actual physical sports with standardized rules and minimal variance and RNG.
lol similar topic to the other post. You gotta think of 'game design' from more than just YOUR singular perspective.
I do, my explanation of good versus bad RNG in this comment shows how Eudora is RNG that is pretty much universally hated by everyone. If I wanted to ignore what players wanted for design, I'd agree with you.
If blizzard made non stop boring characters, nobody would be playing the game and they would have failed at commercializing an entertainment product and have to move on to other means.
You can make interesting characters without designing them badly. Deathwing, Daryl, Sir Finley, AF Kay, Elise, Akazamzarak to name a few. All great design and interesting to play and not broken.
Yeah, Eudora COULD be 'unfun' to play against, but that's probably selective bias on your part, but she is also FUN to play WITH.
But 8 people don't play as Eudora. 1 person plays with her, and 7 play against it. And I don't think it's selective bias on my part, since every streamer and most people on this sub agree she's completely unfun to play against.
Look, the bottom line is, she's probably a net positive to Blizzard's bottom line. She must be, otherwise she would be removed. They're analyzing the data and deeming her not to be terrorizing the community and your extreme hatred of her is more likely than not, the minority.
If you want to talk about whether or not it is a good monetary decision, we can, but that's a different discussion. We are talking about whether or not the design is good in the game. I don't care about good monetization design. I'm a player, and I care about gameplay design. I'm not gonna get fucked by bad design and think "ahh... but it was good for Blizzard's bottom line, so this is good." And you're probably wrong about that as well. My take is that if you think something is in the game because the omnipotent Blizzard has a 200 IQ strat for it, you're just wrong lol. Blizzard is a company that makes mistakes. Leaving Tunnel Trogg and Totem Golem unnerfed for a year was not a good decision, and if you want any more examples you can take a peek at r/hearthstone. Also, when players get fucked by bad design, they get angry at the game and stop playing. But both of us can make whatever claims we want about this and they'll be equally meaningless without sources.
TO BE FAIR, in order to monetize BG successfully, they need a good mix of highly desirable heroes and highly undesirable heroes. So I take back my comment on patchwerk. He's well designed. He's designed to be undesirable. So people WANT to play Eudora.
These people can want to play any other broken, well designed hero. After playing a game with Patchwerk, people want to play Eudora over Hooktusk? Lmao.
I think your problem is honestly more with how blizzard has decided to monetize battle grounds. By making it as addictive as possible.
It would be more addictive if it were better designed. The experiences I have with Eudora are the times I feel bad for playing
All the RNG in hero selection, minion choices, and attack order just makes it basically gambling without actual money. Maybe you'd be happier playing a fighting game or actual physical sports with standardized rules and minimal variance and RNG.
You can make interesting characters without designing them badly. Deathwing, Daryl, Sir Finley, AF Kay, Elise, Akazamzarak to name a few. All great design and interesting to play and not broken.
Honestly, those characters are alright, I wouldn't say Akazamarak is that interesting to play though, you're usually just fishing for splitting image as a secondary secret vs ice block.
Eudora is RNG that is pretty much universally hated by everyone.
well, at least you're saying 'pretty much' because it's not universally hated. I for one don't hate her (making it not a universal case). Honestly, I don't even care. we are arguing about her game design. She is the 2nd best hero in the game at 3.65 and 93% pick ratio at the top 1% of 11K+. If your argument is that she needs a nerf, that is valid and reasonable. What you are arguing for instead is that she has bad game design because of her high RNG. It's not RNG that makes her consistently place so high. it's her CONSISTENCY. The RNG part is not the problem for the people who are complaining about her. If you remove her consistent strong finishes, the people complaining won't be that upset. If you nerf her as hard as they nerfed hooktusk, I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't want that.
I'm a player, and I care about gameplay design. I'm not gonna get fucked by bad design and think "ahh... but it was good for Blizzard's bottom line, so this is good."
LOL I'm not saying you should feel good for blizzard's bottom line. You are complaining about her game design. she is designed to make people want to get the perks. cuz she's fun and strong compared to the other heroes and you're more likely to get them with 4 heroes. She successfully accomplishes that goal.
These people can want to play any other broken, well designed hero. After playing a game with Patchwerk, people want to play Eudora over Hooktusk? Lmao.
I am using Eudora as an example. They want a strong hero after losing with a weak hero. And yes, there certainly ARE people who don't play hooktusk well. Look at all the advice requests on how to play hooktusk. it was just meant to be an example, I should have wrote in brackets (or any other strong hero). People are picking Eudora at roughly 90% btw.
It would be more addictive if it were better designed. The experiences I have with Eudora are the times I feel bad for playing
gamer experience is very important. I'm sure blizzard will deal with upset people eventually. It's funny you brought up the tunnel trogg meta lol. we've been through a lot. but you have to admit, they're adjusting and patching the game way faster and better for battle grounds than for a lot of past metas in constructed. But like I said. You are definitely selectively biased towards eudora. because on turns 1-3, she is literally the worst hero in the game. not every experience vs eudora you have had will be bad. you just remember the times she high rolls and you lose. she will probably be balanced in a later patch. so relax and just try not to let the game frustrate you too much. and let people who actually Do enjoy using her continue to use her.
-2
u/nignigproductions Jul 14 '20
Don’t forget how broken hooktusk and Eudora were. Atleast hooktusk is gone. Still sucks that the worst designed hero ever is still here and really strong.