This "math" and "the chance of X happening is too low" thing is still going on?
It doesn't matter if getting X card and getting Tess killed by it is 10% or 1% or 0,5% or if you can choose not to play her if you need her and something risks killing her or will happen in 0,2% of games (of millions of games out there).
Because before this nerf the number for any of these circumstances, as low as it they might be, was simply 0%. It NEVER happened under any circumstance.
Game developers said she was supposed to work like pre-nerf Yogg (will keep casting even if she dies). You then don't nerf her exactly like Yogg (stop casting when dies) and call it a bug fix and gameplay improvement.
All the rhetoric, numbers crunched (that might be wrong) and semantics fall flat in the face of actual facts.
yeah i have to agree, the fact that everybody is sure is that before the changes the chance of stopping Tess effects were 0% and now it isnt; and that the devs said Prenerf Yogg.
Just these 2 alone grant the terminology of nerf. Refund? its up to Blizzard but sure as hell they dont want an upset community. Just look at what happened to EA at the launch of the last Battlefront 2 and the whole Vader being locked debacle. They had to cave in as they should, cause games are a property of the companies but they are made to the players, and thus the good old "The customer is always right" is a motto that the companies live by.
There is no doubt in my mind that Tess will see changes or just be refunded of full dust. The team has already said that they are looking into it as they should. We are the ones keeping this game alive- paying customers and f2p customers.
This "math" and "the chance of X happening is too low" thing is still going on?
It doesn't matter if getting X card and getting Tess killed by it is 10% or 1% or 0,5% or if you can choose not to play her if you need her and something risks killing her or will happen in 0,2% of games (of millions of games out there).
Because before this nerf the number for any of these circumstances, as low as it they might be, was simply 0%. It NEVER happened under any circumstance.
Game developers said she was supposed to work like pre-nerf Yogg (will keep casting even if she dies). You then don't nerf her exactly like Yogg (stop casting when dies) and call it a bug fix and gameplay improvement.
All the rhetoric, numbers crunched (that might be wrong) and semantics fall flat in the face of actual facts.
Facts (numbers) do not fall flat in the face of opinions (that facts don't matter). Is this different than the way Tess was announced to work on release? Yes. Is this a change on par with the Yogg nerf? No, Yogg no longer functioned in the same way (don't make me explain this again....I'm sick of repeating myself).
If nothing matters then we should get a dust refund for any and all game changes, even buffs, because they're no longer the card we crafted (even if the change is incredibly minor). Where is your outrage for the Hunter DK? Why weren't you up in arms about free dust when they included new beasts?
edit: Since I am not above admitting my mistakes, yes each individual pull has the same chance to get an anti-Tess card. I don't know statistics well enough but the chance over multiple pulls is larger.
What? that comparison is bonkers, i expected more from someone capable of crunching those stats you did before. they have nothing in relation to DK Hunter and you know it too.
We disagree on what the line is for a change being worth a dust refund. I'm trying to find out where his is. The smaller and less impactful a change, the more of a grey area it is, the closer it gets to the line of what is or isn't a nerf.
I don't even know to what end we're debating anymore, tbh. I'm never going to agree with you that this is worth a dust refund, you're never going to agree with me that it isn't an impactful nerf.
Aren't you both kind of right in this situation? Kaladin's technically "more right" if you're talking about exact statistics. But going by Horkinger's logic, the chance is supposedly larger over time. But under Horkinger's logic, you can't complain if you never get one of these "kill Tess" cards. Similarly, you can't complain if you do indeed get a "kill Tess" card every single time.
By the nature of statistics, every single event is completely mutually exclusive. Yes, there are a few times you will get a card that will straight up kill her. But the percentage of that happening is sooo low. As Kaladin has shown.
Of course we are both right. "His" chance is however not the one to use for the whole game.
He states the chance of a single event (one coin toss) which is always the same for a single event.
I state that a bunch of single events changes the overall chance (chance to get one or more tails out of a 100 coin tosses increases). It follows that since you get more than one card from your opponents class, the probability increases that you actually get a card that could kill tess.
We disagree on what the line is for a change being worth a dust refund. I'm trying to find out where his is. The smaller and less impactful a change, the more of a grey area it is, the closer it gets to the line of what is or isn't a nerf.
I don't even know to what end we're debating anymore, tbh. I'm never going to agree with you that this is worth a dust refund, you're never going to agree with me that it isn't an impactful nerf.
So far most of us here are not calling people names and etc, so I don't see the problem in continuing the debate :)
For me there is simple no grey area. Blizzard's policy warrants a dust refund for nerfed cards. The impact, whether a card gets the Warsong Commander treatment or not, a 1 mana cost or 1 attack nerf, is irrelevant. A nerf is a nerf. Specially with precedents and specially in how they tried to cover it up under "gameplay improvements", of all things.
Yogg: Kept casting spells even after dieing. Nerfed Yogg: Stops casting spells after dieing. Dust refund.
Tess: Keeps casting spells even after dieing. Nerfed Tess: Stops casting spells if she dies. No dust refund.
The chances of Tess dieing being 0,1% or 99% doesn't matter. It was 0% before under any circumstance.
Also, we're not discussing the powerlevels of Tess and Yogg. Yogg cast spells from all classes. Tess can only from your opponent's class, and you need to cast it yourself first. We're not discussing the power level. We're discussing the fact that both kept casting even after dieing, it doesn't matter how many spells Yogg casts overall compared to Tess. Yogg was nerfed to stop casting after dieing and that warranted a dust refund. Tess was nerfed to stop casting after dieing and it did not. That's it.
Also, the "this is a very minor" or "fringe" argument just isn't... logical, considering you crunched a lot of numbers (assuming they're right) to get what could kill Tess.
So, a 6% chance to get a spell that potentially could kill Tess, then you could setup the board to make it like 1% and in the instances that'll happen, it'll be, say, 0,5% of games.
Great, but then what's the number that for you would be worthy of a refund? 5% of games? 10% 15%? If all the classes had a 20% chance of a spell that could kill, would that still be too low? A card needs to be really popular or meta defining like Yogg?
What % would be the ideal? More importantly, what would be the criteria or setting up these %s? And who would do it? What if they set it to 20% of games, and then you have a nerfed card with 19,5% in the stats?
If such a criteria existed to determine what would be a "minor" nerf not worthy of a refund and what would, it would be extremely confusing, and frankly, very subjective.
Those crunched numbers may give an aura of "data collected", but when you say that for you the nerf isn't big enough for a refund, it's simple a subjective opinion, not an objective one. Coupled with previous posts with things like "I don't want F2P getting free dust" just seemed like you didn't agree with this being a nerf more because of a personal stance on other issues that had nothing to do with Tess ( I know you don't like that people just slam the "I hate F2P" on you, but this time, in this thread, you did made a post very loudly about it for everyone to see it, so...), even if you kinda of regretted it later.
This is why I don't agree with you.
And honestly, instead of dust refunds me and many others really prefer the changes reverted instead.
My other question is why didn't Shudderwock get the same treatment of Tess? I just watched my opponent silence his Shudderwock over and over but it didn't stop Shudderwock. If they are going to perform these bug fixes at least be consistent in the choices and apply them uniformly.
Point out where I said I hate f2ps.
edit: also, a subjective line of when to refund dust is consistent with how they've done it in the past. can you put a hard number on "this isn't fun to play against" or "this creates too swingy of games" or "this deck has too high of a winrate"?
edit: If this is the post you're talking about
Quote from Kaladin »
I stick by my argument. This change is extremely minor, not a nerf, and not worthy of giving out 1600 dust to f2ps.
you're taking that completely out of context and twisting it around. I was getting frustrated and expressing what felt like a community knee-jerk reaction, and assumed that most of the people asking for a dust refund were f2p players. I have nothing against anyone no matter what their financial commitment or lack thereof. I'm sorry if you took it this way.
Point out where I said I hate f2ps.
edit: also, a subjective line of when to refund dust is consistent with how they've done it in the past. can you put a hard number on "this isn't fun to play against" or "this creates too swingy of games" or "this deck has too high of a winrate"?
edit: If this is the post you're talking about
Quote from Kaladin »
I stick by my argument. This change is extremely minor, not a nerf, and not worthy of giving out 1600 dust to f2ps.
you're taking that completely out of context and twisting it around. I was getting frustrated and expressing what felt like a community knee-jerk reaction, and assumed that most of the people asking for a dust refund were f2p players. I have nothing against anyone no matter what their financial commitment or lack thereof. I'm sorry if you took it this way.
this seems the general status quo of the Tess debate. those that have lots of dust gold money for packs dont care and are in favour of NO dust refund; on the opposite those that are f2p and have Tess card are logically gripping every little fiber of argument to reclaim the 1600 dust.
I for one fall on this latter option and for me im very litteral on things, if this is a nerf by a 0,9999% to Tess power then it equals to dust refund according to Blizzard tradition in HS
So while on principle I believe the card should be given a full refund, I am glad it was not. Why? Because Tess is a cool card that I wish were played more. And if it had a full dust refund it would just get dusted on the spot. Which means less fun cards.
Point out where I said I hate f2ps.
edit: also, a subjective line of when to refund dust is consistent with how they've done it in the past. can you put a hard number on "this isn't fun to play against" or "this creates too swingy of games" or "this deck has too high of a winrate"?
edit: If this is the post you're talking about
Quote from Kaladin »
I stick by my argument. This change is extremely minor, not a nerf, and not worthy of giving out 1600 dust to f2ps.
you're taking that completely out of context and twisting it around. I was getting frustrated and expressing what felt like a community knee-jerk reaction, and assumed that most of the people asking for a dust refund were f2p players. I have nothing against anyone no matter what their financial commitment or lack thereof. I'm sorry if you took it this way.
I didn't say you hated F2Ps, I said that comment back then made it look like your stance on the issue was more influenced by that than anything else and people slammed you for it.
Just to be clear: I don't agree with them slamming you.
I still want my dust because this is not the same Yogg or Tess in which I grinded countless hours for. Its like ordering a steak medium and receiving it rare. I’m both instances, you did not get what you paid for.
Great change. The reasons for a limit of 30 spells makes sense to me and they increase Shudders cap also, makes it clear. Thanks, Blizzard.
I still want my dust because this is not the same Yogg or Tess in which I grinded countless hours for. Its like ordering a steak medium and receiving it rare.
They refund on Nerfs with a greater impact on balance purposes. Tess would be a minor nerf, Blizzard knows it, that's why ppl don't get a refund, that's makes sense. And we should be happy that our scream reached them and they change Tess that she works like pre-Yogg with the cap of 30. Like all the others (also Shudderwock -> buff).
I firmly believe the only reason they reverted it is because Blizzard staff said she would work like pre-nerf Yogg when she was released.
Revert Tess makes more sense then dust simply cause she was never broken to begin with unlike Yogg so nerfing a trash tier card would be stupid. This way no dust for me but i will be able to keep a great looking card that makes casual matches fun as hell
tl;dr (regarding Tess) no refund but she will be reverted back to pre-Yogg status.
Well, we will not get any dust in the end, but at least Blizzard did not get away with it. F...k yeah, we still won in a certain way, and that is enough for me. :) :) :)
Revert Tess makes more sense then dust simply cause she was never broken to begin with unlike Yogg so nerfing a trash tier card would be stupid. This way no dust for me but i will be able to keep a great looking card that makes casual matches fun as hell
I agree with this. Tess's condition is so much more expensive to meet than Yogg or Shudderwock. She deserves to get a bit of a boost.
yeah i have to agree, the fact that everybody is sure is that before the changes the chance of stopping Tess effects were 0% and now it isnt; and that the devs said Prenerf Yogg.
Just these 2 alone grant the terminology of nerf. Refund? its up to Blizzard but sure as hell they dont want an upset community. Just look at what happened to EA at the launch of the last Battlefront 2 and the whole Vader being locked debacle. They had to cave in as they should, cause games are a property of the companies but they are made to the players, and thus the good old "The customer is always right" is a motto that the companies live by.
There is no doubt in my mind that Tess will see changes or just be refunded of full dust. The team has already said that they are looking into it as they should. We are the ones keeping this game alive- paying customers and f2p customers.
What? that comparison is bonkers, i expected more from someone capable of crunching those stats you did before. they have nothing in relation to DK Hunter and you know it too.
We disagree on what the line is for a change being worth a dust refund. I'm trying to find out where his is. The smaller and less impactful a change, the more of a grey area it is, the closer it gets to the line of what is or isn't a nerf.
I don't even know to what end we're debating anymore, tbh. I'm never going to agree with you that this is worth a dust refund, you're never going to agree with me that it isn't an impactful nerf.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
Of course we are both right. "His" chance is however not the one to use for the whole game.
He states the chance of a single event (one coin toss) which is always the same for a single event.
I state that a bunch of single events changes the overall chance (chance to get one or more tails out of a 100 coin tosses increases). It follows that since you get more than one card from your opponents class, the probability increases that you actually get a card that could kill tess.
Edit: mobile clerical errors
So far most of us here are not calling people names and etc, so I don't see the problem in continuing the debate :)
For me there is simple no grey area. Blizzard's policy warrants a dust refund for nerfed cards. The impact, whether a card gets the Warsong Commander treatment or not, a 1 mana cost or 1 attack nerf, is irrelevant. A nerf is a nerf. Specially with precedents and specially in how they tried to cover it up under "gameplay improvements", of all things.
Yogg: Kept casting spells even after dieing. Nerfed Yogg: Stops casting spells after dieing. Dust refund.
Tess: Keeps casting spells even after dieing. Nerfed Tess: Stops casting spells if she dies. No dust refund.
The chances of Tess dieing being 0,1% or 99% doesn't matter. It was 0% before under any circumstance.
Also, we're not discussing the powerlevels of Tess and Yogg. Yogg cast spells from all classes. Tess can only from your opponent's class, and you need to cast it yourself first. We're not discussing the power level. We're discussing the fact that both kept casting even after dieing, it doesn't matter how many spells Yogg casts overall compared to Tess. Yogg was nerfed to stop casting after dieing and that warranted a dust refund. Tess was nerfed to stop casting after dieing and it did not. That's it.
Also, the "this is a very minor" or "fringe" argument just isn't... logical, considering you crunched a lot of numbers (assuming they're right) to get what could kill Tess.
So, a 6% chance to get a spell that potentially could kill Tess, then you could setup the board to make it like 1% and in the instances that'll happen, it'll be, say, 0,5% of games.
Great, but then what's the number that for you would be worthy of a refund? 5% of games? 10% 15%? If all the classes had a 20% chance of a spell that could kill, would that still be too low? A card needs to be really popular or meta defining like Yogg?
What % would be the ideal? More importantly, what would be the criteria or setting up these %s? And who would do it? What if they set it to 20% of games, and then you have a nerfed card with 19,5% in the stats?
If such a criteria existed to determine what would be a "minor" nerf not worthy of a refund and what would, it would be extremely confusing, and frankly, very subjective.
Those crunched numbers may give an aura of "data collected", but when you say that for you the nerf isn't big enough for a refund, it's simple a subjective opinion, not an objective one. Coupled with previous posts with things like "I don't want F2P getting free dust" just seemed like you didn't agree with this being a nerf more because of a personal stance on other issues that had nothing to do with Tess ( I know you don't like that people just slam the "I hate F2P" on you, but this time, in this thread, you did made a post very loudly about it for everyone to see it, so...), even if you kinda of regretted it later.
This is why I don't agree with you.
And honestly, instead of dust refunds me and many others really prefer the changes reverted instead.
My other question is why didn't Shudderwock get the same treatment of Tess? I just watched my opponent silence his Shudderwock over and over but it didn't stop Shudderwock. If they are going to perform these bug fixes at least be consistent in the choices and apply them uniformly.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
So while on principle I believe the card should be given a full refund, I am glad it was not. Why? Because Tess is a cool card that I wish were played more. And if it had a full dust refund it would just get dusted on the spot. Which means less fun cards.
they should change the cap of Shudderwock to 30 as Tess Greymane have
It is capped at 30, they did that a while back. However you can still go beyond that with Murmuring Elemental because it is doubling your battlecries.
1 - (1 - 0.01)^8
Anger is the punishment we give ourselves for someone else's mistake.
https://us.battle.net/forums/en/hearthstone/topic/20765117580
tl;dr (regarding Tess) no refund but she will be reverted back to pre-Yogg status.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
I still want my dust because this is not the same Yogg or Tess in which I grinded countless hours for. Its like ordering a steak medium and receiving it rare. I’m both instances, you did not get what you paid for.
Rob Dawg
Nice! I'm happy they listened and reverted the change.
I firmly believe the only reason they reverted it is because Blizzard staff said she would work like pre-nerf Yogg when she was released.
Revert Tess makes more sense then dust simply cause she was never broken to begin with unlike Yogg so nerfing a trash tier card would be stupid. This way no dust for me but i will be able to keep a great looking card that makes casual matches fun as hell
Well, we will not get any dust in the end, but at least Blizzard did not get away with it. F...k yeah, we still won in a certain way, and that is enough for me. :) :) :)
God bless the Hearthstone community!!! :) :) :)
:P
I agree with this. Tess's condition is so much more expensive to meet than Yogg or Shudderwock. She deserves to get a bit of a boost.