FIrst of all, don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that every competitive or viable deck should be behind a big Paywall; that would actually be bad..i'm saying that it's healthy for the game that the deck that's regarded as the absolute best deck (top tier 1 or tier 0) is hidden behind a Paywall and i'll give you an example based on a recent experience.
How did i came to this conclusion? well..i'm a completely f2p player playing since February 2014..and in this two years i've amassed my own little Hearthstone fortune allowing me to play almost any deck i want including "wallet warrior" which may not be tier 1 right now but is regarded as one of the most expensive decks.
So for some odd reason (boredom maybe?) i missed the challenge and the frustration of being card starved and trying to squeeze wins agaisnt wealthier opponents and i went off adventuring into Pokemon TCG online.
I eventually came to face the top tier deck "Night march" a deck that seems cheap but isn't, why? because in order to have an efficient Nightmarch deck you should run 3 Shaymin-Ex from the roaring skyes expansion (there's another Shaymin-ex from another expansion but that one is bad and only used to scam people dumb enough to not read the card) and well that card is like the dr.Boom of pokemon..you add it to 99% of decks and it's automatically better so logically it costs US$51 so in order to get "Nightmarch" you need to spend a minimum of US$153 but that's in physical, pokemon online doesn't sell single cards for real money,you can get packs by buying real packs and then redeeming the code that comes inside the pack but that's not a f2p option either and even as a paying customer it seems like way too much for just 3 cards. So how do you as a f2p get cards ?, and most importantly how do you get the coveted Shaymin EX?, well, there's a trading system where people can trade "cards for cards" or "card for packs"..the second one being the most common and most efficient. To explain the next part i'll have to explain some basics about the trading system, Pokemon EX and how do you get the tradeable packs.
1. you get packs from tournament mode, there are tournaments for each format and there are tournaments during all day long, all of these tournaments are single elimination and the more you advance through the rounds the more packs you get, although you have to advance at least one round to get one pack, there's also a particular format called Theme where players must use basic decks only..so basically thhis is your starting form of income
2. Pokemon EX are a big part of the game..because they are the stronger cards, and their pull rate is rarer than opening an Epic in Hearthstone.so they are rarer than an epic but not as rare as a legendary however decks are usually built around these Pokemon because of the sheer strenght or utility.. in the trading System a Pokemon EX usually goes for 2 packs..so basically isntead of opening hundreds of packs trying to get a ragnaros and getting a lot of junk in between, you trade two packs and get your Ragnaros.
So basically you can get a Pokemon EX (almost legendary card) if you advance one round during the span of two tournaments or advance two rounds during a single tournament. and basically a deck will cost something between 6-14 packs with an average of 11 packs
so you maybe thinking well i can get the shaymin ex for two packs right? and you can't be more wrong, since that card is so rare and powerful every Shaymin EX is actually worth 25 packs, so in order to get the 3 shaymin EX's for nightmarch you have to bank 75 packs, you can build around seven viable decks with that quantity! if you are a paying customer you might be thinking that you can just buy the real packs and redeem the codes but each pack costs around 3 dollars and 3*75=US$225, so this ends up being far more expensive than just buying the physical copies, which makes us come to the final point.
Since Nightmarch is behind such a huge paywall the result is that despite being the top tier deck, it's not as common to see it..in a Month i've played i've only seen it twice and the second time it was a shayminless budget version that didn't work at all , as a direct consequence the meta is way more diverse, because, most people prefer to spend in different competitive or viable decks that better suit their individual preferences, than sink into the paywall thus developing a more interesting and varied metagame and a healthier game environment.
The main issue is that Blizzard can't hide their cards or decks behind a paywall due to the lack of a trading system and a second-hand market. Shaymin-EX is worth 50$ each because the players value him at 50 bucks and are willing to pay 150$ to play three of them in their deck.
Let's pretend Hearthstone had a second hand market, where cards could be bought as singles and traded away for other cards or packs, but NO encahnting/disenchanting option, right. Let's also pretend this took place before WotOG, where Dr. Boom reigned king. Playing a deck without Dr. 7 was crucial. How much would he cost? Loads. Everyone needed Dr. 7 and BGH (to kill the opponent's Dr. 7). BGH would easily be worth 10$ and Dr. 7 would be worth, let's just throw the number 50$ here, because it's easy for math. So if it was 50$ for Dr. 7, or valuable pack trades, and 10$ per BGH, then less Dr. Booms, BGHs, Mysterious Challengers, and hell even Ice Block would show up less because of the pure cost in these cards. I do agree, the meta is very diverse this way... but only if a second-hand market exists.
With Hearthstone's lack of trading cards for packs or other cards, we're in a gruesome predicament: Buy packs, with gold or money, for cards to disenchant inorder to enchant the card in demand. Gold isn't easy to just snap your fingers, so many people turn to paying with real money. Where does it go? Blizzard. If we had a second-hand market, I would be very inclined to trade away my Dr. Boom for 50$ worth of good playable HS cards. Where did that money go? Me, and the person I traded with... We already spent our money. The person I traded my Dr. Boom didn't have to spend a chunk load of cash to find Dr. Boom, or enough 40 dust packs to craft Dr. Boom. He just had to give me a chunk of epics or another legendary and we're both happy. But then Blizzard makes no money.
I'm not saying Blizzard is really greedy, their not. I've seen many other game companies wayy more greedier than Blizzard. But Blizzard makes a fortune by preventing us from limiting the market. Sure some people out there would straight up pay 50$ for three copies of Dr. Boom, but 50$ for 40 packs, at 40 dust each is JUST BARELY 1600 dust, enough for one legendary exactly.
So by eliminating the second-hand market, Blizzard straight up priced every legendary to be sold at 40 packs (50$) opposed to Dr. Boom, who is in demand, selling for 50, while other playable legendaries like Archemage Antonidas (who is class specific, therefore less played) is only going for 12$. They also prevent players from trading epics and legendaries to other players, forcing both parties to disenchant valuable cards, eventually leading to buying more packs, just to get the cards they're looking for.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Roshambo to Hearthstone. Please be nice. Don't insult or be mad at someone for throwing Rock.
So by eliminating the second-hand market, Blizzard straight up priced every legendary to be sold at 40 packs (50$) opposed to Dr. Boom, who is in demand, selling for 50, while other playable legendaries like Archemage Antonidas (who is class specific, therefore less played) is only going for 12$. They also prevent players from trading epics and legendaries to other players, forcing both parties to disenchant valuable cards, eventually leading to buying more packs, just to get the cards they're looking for.
16, not 40. The average amount of dust per pack is ~100. More importantly, if Blizzard wanted to be greedy with the trading system, they could do so by simply taking a cut like the old D3 auction house. Plus, the flip side of what you said about the lack of trading means that you can trade 4 Millhouse for a Dr. Boom, or disenchant a bunch of junk rares to get that epic you want. You can never do this if you can trade cards, since your Millhouses and junk rares are not even worth 1% of a good legendary. The two systems are very hard to compare, but personally I would say crafting is superior to trading for consumer benefit.
Anyways, the problem with having a top tier deck behind a huge paywall means that the game would be more P2W, and will likely retain less people. It's a business decision that Blizzard has made, IMO for the better.
But best system is lcg style where you don't have to collect cards via packs/trades/crafting. Everyone pays set amount for all the newly released cards. Like netrunner datapacks or adventures in hs.
Pokemon is fun and all but you have to drop $500 in boosters every expansion or $250 in singles every expansion to keep up. Total rip off. And the collectible aspect adds nothing to the game.
16, not 40. The average amount of dust per pack is ~100. More importantly, if Blizzard wanted to be greedy with the trading system, they could do so by simply taking a cut like the old D3 auction house. Plus, the flip side of what you said about the lack of trading means that you can trade 4 Millhouse for a Dr. Boom, or disenchant a bunch of junk rares to get that epic you want. You can never do this if you can trade cards, since your Millhouse and junk rares will not worth 1% of a legendary. The two systems are very hard to compare, but personally I would say crafting is significantly superior to trading for consumer benefit.
1) 40 packs, 40 dust each, 1600 dust total. Average does not mean every time, so I always compare via minimum possible value, as that logically is the least amount you'll have to pay 2) Never played D3 and I never knew of it's auction house. That's actually a cool concept. 3) But Millhouse is just as rare as Dr. Boom, so sure, if you wonder upon 4 Millhouses, which each go for about 50 cents, then this crafting/disenchanting system is much better than trading, but you have to first have 4 Millhouses. That's still 4 legendaries which in turn, even 4 Dr. Booms is equivalent to one Dr. Boom in the current system, which would be quite the opposite with a second hand market. 4) You're right, the two systems are hard to compare. As someone whose made a few bucks off predicting prices in the MTG market, I would have to persist my opinion of a second-hand market being better for the consumer.
Last but not least, the real reason behind HS's choice in Crafting instead of Trading is to benefit Blizzard. It has nothing to do with us as players.
Anyways, the problem with having a top tier deck behind a huge paywall means that the game would be more P2W, and will likely retain less people. It's a business decision that Blizzard has made, IMO for the better.
Never mind, THIS is the real reason for Crafting instead of Trading. Spot on, achan.
The only reason why traditional card games have a paywall at all is because secondary vendors are shady fucks who want to make maximum profit off their cardboard (I know this because I was and am one, quite shamelessly).
Hearthstone has no secondary vendors, so how do you intend on hiding everything behind a paywall?
Honestly, even if they weren't remotely concerned with their bottom line, the system they have currently is still preferred for a lot of reasons. All sorts of scams, dubious trading, and trade harasses go out the window. It's already annoying enough to beat someone and then have them whine to you, it'd be even more so for them to start wanting to buy your cards and whatnot. ESPECIALLY if you're a new or younger player. Hearthstone is meant to be readable and accessible to anyone, and adding a trading market, though it's something I'm sure they considered, would have overall been a massive net loss, to everyone.
Practical upshot of their current system especially is that good ideas are open to everyone, especially after a few months of play, for a few minutes a day. That lets people explore, enjoy the best stuff, and learn to use it.
1) 40 dust per pack minimum is wrong since pity timer exists for epics and legendarys so i wuld stil say 80 dust min 100 avrege is the corect argument
40 dust per pack is minimum. I personally don't believe in the pity timer since I've opened 80 packs with no legendaries before (in a row). So I always compare at minimum, not because I'm trying to find how much packs it'll require for the dust, but I'm trying to find the worst case scenario.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Roshambo to Hearthstone. Please be nice. Don't insult or be mad at someone for throwing Rock.
Trading cards will never be a thing because it would cut into blizzards profits. The reality is top tier decks like Nzoth paladin are in fact already behind a massive pay wall. However, it seems the blizzard fanbase is more than willing to pay their way over that wall as witnessed by thevideos of steamers opening multiple hundred and sometimes more than a thousand packs on the day a new expansion comes out. If you played wow, you would get the mentality i believe. Blizz gamers are not welfare state f2p types. Hearthstone is a good enough game thatn it has attracted a segment of the f2p gamer market, but all t takes is an afternoon in casual mod to see that good cards are the rule, and people with crappy decks made of basic cards are the exception.
1) 40 packs, 40 dust each, 1600 dust total. Average does not mean every time, so I always compare via minimum possible value, as that logically is the least amount you'll have to pay
When you are buying a reasonably large number of packs, you don't ever use the minimum. You always use the average. The chance of you getting 1600 dust in 40 packs is about as likely as you win lottery multiple times in a row. It's like predicting that there's going to be 0 heads when you toss a coin 100 times.
3) But Millhouse is just as rare as Dr. Boom, so sure, if you wonder upon 4 Millhouses, which each go for about 50 cents, then this crafting/disenchanting system is much better than trading, but you have to first have 4 Millhouses. That's still 4 legendaries which in turn, even 4 Dr. Booms is equivalent to one Dr. Boom in the current system, which would be quite the opposite with a second hand market.
It's not only Millhouse though. It's every junk epic/legendary you have gotten, every Am'gam Rager, and all the duplicate common/rares that you would have otherwise gotten. If you can only trade but not craft, those common/rares will be worth 0, or whatever minimum price floor Blizzard decide to set. I presume you can have a system where you can both trade and craft, but that sounds complicated, and probably cut too much into Blizzard's profit.
4) You're right, the two systems are hard to compare. As someone whose made a few bucks off predicting prices in the MTG market, I would have to persist my opinion of a second-hand market being better for the consumer.
That's only because you are good at trading. How about the people who loss out because of your actions?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
People who refuses to play aggro out of principle are even worse than people who play exclusively aggro.
One should seek to become a complete player and play all archetypes, including ones that he despises for whatever irrational reasons.
Honestly, even if they weren't remotely concerned with their bottom line, the system they have currently is still preferred for a lot of reasons. All sorts of scams, dubious trading, and trade harasses go out the window. It's already annoying enough to beat someone and then have them whine to you, it'd be even more so for them to start wanting to buy your cards and whatnot. ESPECIALLY if you're a new or younger player. Hearthstone is meant to be readable and accessible to anyone, and adding a trading market, though it's something I'm sure they considered, would have overall been a massive net loss, to everyone.
Practical upshot of their current system especially is that good ideas are open to everyone, especially after a few months of play, for a few minutes a day. That lets people explore, enjoy the best stuff, and learn to use it.
but doesn't that end up stalling the metagame? i'm talking about having just the best deck behind a pay wall so that players are more inclined to choose other viable decks that fit their needs or playstyles making the game environment more varied and healthier overall..because if the absolute tier 1 deck is easily accessible to everyone *cough* undertaker hunter era *cough* then most players will see almost no point in playing the other decks because that's how human's competitive nature works....you can see that in the other card game simulators where everyone has access to all the cards (can't type the names because they tread too close to piratery) as soon as you set a foot in there you realize that 90% of its community is playing the absolute top tier deck with the absolute best cards and not even bothering to touch other cards or decks .
edit: also..dubious trading can also be handled by a post an offer sytem without chat, just restricting it to the basic components of transactions seeing the trade offer and either accepting or moving on, with a confirmation button somewhere in between " do you really want to accept this trade? to avoid missclick scams or something.. someone posts an offer everyone can see and then people can see it and then decide wether it's worth their resources or not. i'ts way harder to scam people if you can't sweet talk them into the falling for it.
1) 40 dust per pack minimum is wrong since pity timer exists for epics and legendarys so i wuld stil say 80 dust min 100 avrege is the corect argument
40 dust per pack is minimum. I personally don't believe in the pity timer since I've opened 80 packs with no legendaries before (in a row). So I always compare at minimum, not because I'm trying to find how much packs it'll require for the dust, but I'm trying to find the worst case scenario.
Pity timer or not, that doesn't matter. If you have an average dust amount of roughly 100 dust per pack (provided you disentchant everything), it makes absolutely zero sense to calculate with 40 dust since you will get 60 dust more. It might be that you personally want to take the worst case scenario (which will even then not apply if you actually are the unluckiest person in Hearthstone), but for comparing it to another game, you need to take the average value. Because that's what you will get on average (yes, even you).
1) 40 packs, 40 dust each, 1600 dust total. Average does not mean every time, so I always compare via minimum possible value, as that logically is the least amount you'll have to pay
When you are buying a reasonably large number of packs, you don't ever use the minimum. You always use the average. The chance of you getting 1600 dust in 40 packs is about as likely as you win lottery multiple times in a row. It's like predicting that there's going to be 0 heads when you toss a coin 100 times.
Worse than that, it's impossible. Hearthstone has pity timers. You'll get an epic every 10 packs at minimum and a legendary every 40, and that's the WORST you can do (that lottery example).
So the ultimate worst you can get from 40 packs is about 2400 dust, and that's NOT the average, that's the unluckiest you can get.
100 dust is what you get when you start beating out variance, and 30+ is when variance dies in a sample. Thus 40 packs will be expected to give you 4000 dust. It can give you more, it can give you less (not 1600) but you'll get around 3000-5000 dust unless RNG just plain old hates/loves you.
And can we please stop thinking about 'F2P' and label it "New F2P players"? There's a BIG difference between F2Pers like myself who started 2 years ago and, thus can build nearly every top tier deck and have 8k dust to craft whatever cards are lacking from whatever deck we want to make and folks just getting into the game now?
And note, that's NOT normal for a F2P game. I've played many others for years A LOT more than I do here and I've NEVER been close to the top tier payers. It took me about 1 year of playing dailies and at best 3-4 games on top a day, with most days JUST dailies to literally be able to build every tournament deck I wanted. 2 years and I can probably do TB's 30 legendary deck and he's as big a Whale as you can get.
That's not to go against the topic. Just want to try to ...narrow the focus of the terms? This is about new players who aren't whales, not "F2P" in general.
16, not 40. The average amount of dust per pack is ~100. More importantly, if Blizzard wanted to be greedy with the trading system, they could do so by simply taking a cut like the old D3 auction house. Plus, the flip side of what you said about the lack of trading means that you can trade 4 Millhouse for a Dr. Boom, or disenchant a bunch of junk rares to get that epic you want. You can never do this if you can trade cards, since your Millhouse and junk rares will not worth 1% of a legendary. The two systems are very hard to compare, but personally I would say crafting is significantly superior to trading for consumer benefit.
1) 40 packs, 40 dust each, 1600 dust total. Average does not mean every time, so I always compare via minimum possible value, as that logically is the least amount you'll have to pay
In that case, the evaluated dust of a pack is zero, not forty. Blizzard's servers could theoretically malfunction as you make your purchase, depriving you of your pack.
Your evaluated life expectancy is currently zero. Lightning could theoretically hit you right now, frying you alive.
You're allowed to evaluate averages in whatever way you want, but that doesn't mean anyone else has to, and it doesn't mean it's not completely idiotic.
When did I say it was idiotic? I didn't. I'm not STOPPING anyone from comparing 100 dust per pack. I'm just telling you that in 40 packs, you're minimum dust is 1600. Idk why my choice to compare minimum value instead of average value is rilling people up.
EDIT: Alrighty guys! Woah, I didn't realize four posts were all about me! I'm sorry for whatever I have done, and for your info, I will not be sticking around. I'm not here to derail the topic of conversation which has nothing to do with how I value packs, make trades, or anything else. I'm gonna walk away from this thread now, sorry for posting.
16, not 40. The average amount of dust per pack is ~100. More importantly, if Blizzard wanted to be greedy with the trading system, they could do so by simply taking a cut like the old D3 auction house. Plus, the flip side of what you said about the lack of trading means that you can trade 4 Millhouse for a Dr. Boom, or disenchant a bunch of junk rares to get that epic you want. You can never do this if you can trade cards, since your Millhouse and junk rares will not worth 1% of a legendary. The two systems are very hard to compare, but personally I would say crafting is significantly superior to trading for consumer benefit.
1) 40 packs, 40 dust each, 1600 dust total. Average does not mean every time, so I always compare via minimum possible value, as that logically is the least amount you'll have to pay.
Um, average means average, not every time. 40 dust is the minimum you can get from a pack, so the average, necessarily, is higher than 40. And you mean, logically that is the greatest amount you'll have to pay.
It seems to me that having this paywalled top tier deck is still inferior to having a variety of good decks whatever their cost. Personally, I think formats are the best way to have diversity. A bit offtopic, but I would love a dust limited format personally (a format where your deck could only cost x dust or less). Blizzard could change the limit each season and new decks and metas would arise from the changes.
Paywalls are discouraging and lead to people abandoning the game because the feel like they can't keep up. Even if the paywall is only really relevant to a few decks it's still a barrier to keeping people invested in the game. So personally, I think minimal paywalls are vital to the health of the game. As much as really good decks cost a lot of dust to create, Blizzard is pretty good at having a few cheaper decks that are viable, which is essential to keep people queuing and people queuing means opponents for the people who've spent hundreds or thousands of dollars and that means that the money keeps coming in.
The problem wasn't so much the idea of using hte worst case situation. I know I like to take that into account.
The issue is using that as a base for a major point about the manner of trading and blizzard's intentions of how they treat F2Pers. It's cherry picking data and a big violation of statistics. It's VERY easy to find a person who was robbed 10 times in a month. However, then using that to declare the horrible state of crime in the country isn't very honest as this person is an outlier compared to just about everyone else in the country.
Also the '100 dust' matter is BEFORE the pity timer as it's theorized the timer showed up after TGT while the 100 dust average was developed soon after beta. (which means it's actually probably a touch higher than before) So even if you believe the pity timer is gone, we're still sitting on most F2Pers seeing about 100 dust on average. You won't FEEL like you're getting that, with the most common opening being 40, but their ending dust collection will be based on data, not their feelings.
And with THAT, it means it takes, on average, 16 packs to get enough dust for a legendary. $32 with no discounts or 6 weeks on a 'dailies only, no arena' F2P account, which ARE the worst case scenerios as paying customers should be buying discounted packs and F2Pers really should be doing arenas, especially since 3 wins can turn 150 gold into 2 packs + gold/dust/cards.
As far as the OP itself, that's not really the paywall so much as the power of Progression. It's why you can't just flat out buy whatever card you want and why we have to collect the cards by hand. The result is a meta with people making alterations of decks due to the lack of particular cards. If anything, direct cash systems ruin that as people will just buy the cards they want then make that EPIC DECK. Instead, you get some packs, free or cash, and work with the cards you have.
Though not that this only affects the early meta and in the non-competitive circuit due to the crafting mechanic. F2P or cash, you can just dust the cards you don't need and go make that N'Zoth paladin, or you can jsut spend a few months gathering dust and just craft the thing withuot dusting (raises hand). At the competitive level, the variety due to limitation is pretty much gone nowadays. But it does make for an interesting early meta.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
FIrst of all, don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that every competitive or viable deck should be behind a big Paywall; that would actually be bad..i'm saying that it's healthy for the game that the deck that's regarded as the absolute best deck (top tier 1 or tier 0) is hidden behind a Paywall and i'll give you an example based on a recent experience.
How did i came to this conclusion? well..i'm a completely f2p player playing since February 2014..and in this two years i've amassed my own little Hearthstone fortune allowing me to play almost any deck i want including "wallet warrior" which may not be tier 1 right now but is regarded as one of the most expensive decks.
So for some odd reason (boredom maybe?) i missed the challenge and the frustration of being card starved and trying to squeeze wins agaisnt wealthier opponents and i went off adventuring into Pokemon TCG online.
I eventually came to face the top tier deck "Night march" a deck that seems cheap but isn't, why? because in order to have an efficient Nightmarch deck you should run 3 Shaymin-Ex from the roaring skyes expansion (there's another Shaymin-ex from another expansion but that one is bad and only used to scam people dumb enough to not read the card) and well that card is like the dr.Boom of pokemon..you add it to 99% of decks and it's automatically better so logically it costs US$51 so in order to get "Nightmarch" you need to spend a minimum of US$153 but that's in physical, pokemon online doesn't sell single cards for real money,you can get packs by buying real packs and then redeeming the code that comes inside the pack but that's not a f2p option either and even as a paying customer it seems like way too much for just 3 cards. So how do you as a f2p get cards ?, and most importantly how do you get the coveted Shaymin EX?, well, there's a trading system where people can trade "cards for cards" or "card for packs"..the second one being the most common and most efficient. To explain the next part i'll have to explain some basics about the trading system, Pokemon EX and how do you get the tradeable packs.
1. you get packs from tournament mode, there are tournaments for each format and there are tournaments during all day long, all of these tournaments are single elimination and the more you advance through the rounds the more packs you get, although you have to advance at least one round to get one pack, there's also a particular format called Theme where players must use basic decks only..so basically thhis is your starting form of income
2. Pokemon EX are a big part of the game..because they are the stronger cards, and their pull rate is rarer than opening an Epic in Hearthstone.so they are rarer than an epic but not as rare as a legendary however decks are usually built around these Pokemon because of the sheer strenght or utility.. in the trading System a Pokemon EX usually goes for 2 packs..so basically isntead of opening hundreds of packs trying to get a ragnaros and getting a lot of junk in between, you trade two packs and get your Ragnaros.
So basically you can get a Pokemon EX (almost legendary card) if you advance one round during the span of two tournaments or advance two rounds during a single tournament. and basically a deck will cost something between 6-14 packs with an average of 11 packs
so you maybe thinking well i can get the shaymin ex for two packs right? and you can't be more wrong, since that card is so rare and powerful every Shaymin EX is actually worth 25 packs, so in order to get the 3 shaymin EX's for nightmarch you have to bank 75 packs, you can build around seven viable decks with that quantity! if you are a paying customer you might be thinking that you can just buy the real packs and redeem the codes but each pack costs around 3 dollars and 3*75=US$225, so this ends up being far more expensive than just buying the physical copies, which makes us come to the final point.
Since Nightmarch is behind such a huge paywall the result is that despite being the top tier deck, it's not as common to see it..in a Month i've played i've only seen it twice and the second time it was a shayminless budget version that didn't work at all , as a direct consequence the meta is way more diverse, because, most people prefer to spend in different competitive or viable decks that better suit their individual preferences, than sink into the paywall thus developing a more interesting and varied metagame and a healthier game environment.
The main issue is that Blizzard can't hide their cards or decks behind a paywall due to the lack of a trading system and a second-hand market. Shaymin-EX is worth 50$ each because the players value him at 50 bucks and are willing to pay 150$ to play three of them in their deck.
Let's pretend Hearthstone had a second hand market, where cards could be bought as singles and traded away for other cards or packs, but NO encahnting/disenchanting option, right. Let's also pretend this took place before WotOG, where Dr. Boom reigned king. Playing a deck without Dr. 7 was crucial. How much would he cost? Loads. Everyone needed Dr. 7 and BGH (to kill the opponent's Dr. 7). BGH would easily be worth 10$ and Dr. 7 would be worth, let's just throw the number 50$ here, because it's easy for math. So if it was 50$ for Dr. 7, or valuable pack trades, and 10$ per BGH, then less Dr. Booms, BGHs, Mysterious Challengers, and hell even Ice Block would show up less because of the pure cost in these cards. I do agree, the meta is very diverse this way... but only if a second-hand market exists.
With Hearthstone's lack of trading cards for packs or other cards, we're in a gruesome predicament: Buy packs, with gold or money, for cards to disenchant inorder to enchant the card in demand. Gold isn't easy to just snap your fingers, so many people turn to paying with real money. Where does it go? Blizzard. If we had a second-hand market, I would be very inclined to trade away my Dr. Boom for 50$ worth of good playable HS cards. Where did that money go? Me, and the person I traded with... We already spent our money. The person I traded my Dr. Boom didn't have to spend a chunk load of cash to find Dr. Boom, or enough 40 dust packs to craft Dr. Boom. He just had to give me a chunk of epics or another legendary and we're both happy. But then Blizzard makes no money.
I'm not saying Blizzard is really greedy, their not. I've seen many other game companies wayy more greedier than Blizzard. But Blizzard makes a fortune by preventing us from limiting the market. Sure some people out there would straight up pay 50$ for three copies of Dr. Boom, but 50$ for 40 packs, at 40 dust each is JUST BARELY 1600 dust, enough for one legendary exactly.
So by eliminating the second-hand market, Blizzard straight up priced every legendary to be sold at 40 packs (50$) opposed to Dr. Boom, who is in demand, selling for 50, while other playable legendaries like Archemage Antonidas (who is class specific, therefore less played) is only going for 12$. They also prevent players from trading epics and legendaries to other players, forcing both parties to disenchant valuable cards, eventually leading to buying more packs, just to get the cards they're looking for.
The Roshambo to Hearthstone. Please be nice. Don't insult or be mad at someone for throwing Rock.
People who refuses to play aggro out of principle are even worse than people who play exclusively aggro.
One should seek to become a complete player and play all archetypes, including ones that he despises for whatever irrational reasons.
Crafting >>> secondary market.
But best system is lcg style where you don't have to collect cards via packs/trades/crafting. Everyone pays set amount for all the newly released cards. Like netrunner datapacks or adventures in hs.
Pokemon is fun and all but you have to drop $500 in boosters every expansion or $250 in singles every expansion to keep up. Total rip off. And the collectible aspect adds nothing to the game.
2) Never played D3 and I never knew of it's auction house. That's actually a cool concept.
3) But Millhouse is just as rare as Dr. Boom, so sure, if you wonder upon 4 Millhouses, which each go for about 50 cents, then this crafting/disenchanting system is much better than trading, but you have to first have 4 Millhouses. That's still 4 legendaries which in turn, even 4 Dr. Booms is equivalent to one Dr. Boom in the current system, which would be quite the opposite with a second hand market.
4) You're right, the two systems are hard to compare. As someone whose made a few bucks off predicting prices in the MTG market, I would have to persist my opinion of a second-hand market being better for the consumer.
Last but not least, the real reason behind HS's choice in Crafting instead of Trading is to benefit Blizzard. It has nothing to do with us as players.The Roshambo to Hearthstone. Please be nice. Don't insult or be mad at someone for throwing Rock.
The only reason why traditional card games have a paywall at all is because secondary vendors are shady fucks who want to make maximum profit off their cardboard (I know this because I was and am one, quite shamelessly).
Hearthstone has no secondary vendors, so how do you intend on hiding everything behind a paywall?
Make the Card: The biggest thread on the site!
My mandibles which are capable of pressing down and tearing, my talons which are known to intercept and hold.
1) 40 dust per pack minimum is wrong since pity timer exists for epics and legendarys so i wuld stil say 80 dust min 100 avrege is the corect argument
KEEP CALM AND PLAY CONTROL
Honestly, even if they weren't remotely concerned with their bottom line, the system they have currently is still preferred for a lot of reasons. All sorts of scams, dubious trading, and trade harasses go out the window. It's already annoying enough to beat someone and then have them whine to you, it'd be even more so for them to start wanting to buy your cards and whatnot. ESPECIALLY if you're a new or younger player. Hearthstone is meant to be readable and accessible to anyone, and adding a trading market, though it's something I'm sure they considered, would have overall been a massive net loss, to everyone.
Practical upshot of their current system especially is that good ideas are open to everyone, especially after a few months of play, for a few minutes a day. That lets people explore, enjoy the best stuff, and learn to use it.
The Roshambo to Hearthstone. Please be nice. Don't insult or be mad at someone for throwing Rock.
Trading cards will never be a thing because it would cut into blizzards profits. The reality is top tier decks like Nzoth paladin are in fact already behind a massive pay wall. However, it seems the blizzard fanbase is more than willing to pay their way over that wall as witnessed by thevideos of steamers opening multiple hundred and sometimes more than a thousand packs on the day a new expansion comes out. If you played wow, you would get the mentality i believe. Blizz gamers are not welfare state f2p types. Hearthstone is a good enough game thatn it has attracted a segment of the f2p gamer market, but all t takes is an afternoon in casual mod to see that good cards are the rule, and people with crappy decks made of basic cards are the exception.
When you are buying a reasonably large number of packs, you don't ever use the minimum. You always use the average. The chance of you getting 1600 dust in 40 packs is about as likely as you win lottery multiple times in a row. It's like predicting that there's going to be 0 heads when you toss a coin 100 times.
That's only because you are good at trading. How about the people who loss out because of your actions?
People who refuses to play aggro out of principle are even worse than people who play exclusively aggro.
One should seek to become a complete player and play all archetypes, including ones that he despises for whatever irrational reasons.
Worse than that, it's impossible. Hearthstone has pity timers. You'll get an epic every 10 packs at minimum and a legendary every 40, and that's the WORST you can do (that lottery example).
So the ultimate worst you can get from 40 packs is about 2400 dust, and that's NOT the average, that's the unluckiest you can get.
100 dust is what you get when you start beating out variance, and 30+ is when variance dies in a sample. Thus 40 packs will be expected to give you 4000 dust. It can give you more, it can give you less (not 1600) but you'll get around 3000-5000 dust unless RNG just plain old hates/loves you.
And can we please stop thinking about 'F2P' and label it "New F2P players"? There's a BIG difference between F2Pers like myself who started 2 years ago and, thus can build nearly every top tier deck and have 8k dust to craft whatever cards are lacking from whatever deck we want to make and folks just getting into the game now?
And note, that's NOT normal for a F2P game. I've played many others for years A LOT more than I do here and I've NEVER been close to the top tier payers. It took me about 1 year of playing dailies and at best 3-4 games on top a day, with most days JUST dailies to literally be able to build every tournament deck I wanted. 2 years and I can probably do TB's 30 legendary deck and he's as big a Whale as you can get.
That's not to go against the topic. Just want to try to ...narrow the focus of the terms? This is about new players who aren't whales, not "F2P" in general.
Carry on.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
The Roshambo to Hearthstone. Please be nice. Don't insult or be mad at someone for throwing Rock.
It seems to me that having this paywalled top tier deck is still inferior to having a variety of good decks whatever their cost. Personally, I think formats are the best way to have diversity. A bit offtopic, but I would love a dust limited format personally (a format where your deck could only cost x dust or less). Blizzard could change the limit each season and new decks and metas would arise from the changes.
Paywalls are discouraging and lead to people abandoning the game because the feel like they can't keep up. Even if the paywall is only really relevant to a few decks it's still a barrier to keeping people invested in the game. So personally, I think minimal paywalls are vital to the health of the game. As much as really good decks cost a lot of dust to create, Blizzard is pretty good at having a few cheaper decks that are viable, which is essential to keep people queuing and people queuing means opponents for the people who've spent hundreds or thousands of dollars and that means that the money keeps coming in.
The problem wasn't so much the idea of using hte worst case situation. I know I like to take that into account.
The issue is using that as a base for a major point about the manner of trading and blizzard's intentions of how they treat F2Pers. It's cherry picking data and a big violation of statistics. It's VERY easy to find a person who was robbed 10 times in a month. However, then using that to declare the horrible state of crime in the country isn't very honest as this person is an outlier compared to just about everyone else in the country.
Also the '100 dust' matter is BEFORE the pity timer as it's theorized the timer showed up after TGT while the 100 dust average was developed soon after beta. (which means it's actually probably a touch higher than before) So even if you believe the pity timer is gone, we're still sitting on most F2Pers seeing about 100 dust on average. You won't FEEL like you're getting that, with the most common opening being 40, but their ending dust collection will be based on data, not their feelings.
And with THAT, it means it takes, on average, 16 packs to get enough dust for a legendary. $32 with no discounts or 6 weeks on a 'dailies only, no arena' F2P account, which ARE the worst case scenerios as paying customers should be buying discounted packs and F2Pers really should be doing arenas, especially since 3 wins can turn 150 gold into 2 packs + gold/dust/cards.
As far as the OP itself, that's not really the paywall so much as the power of Progression. It's why you can't just flat out buy whatever card you want and why we have to collect the cards by hand. The result is a meta with people making alterations of decks due to the lack of particular cards. If anything, direct cash systems ruin that as people will just buy the cards they want then make that EPIC DECK. Instead, you get some packs, free or cash, and work with the cards you have.
Though not that this only affects the early meta and in the non-competitive circuit due to the crafting mechanic. F2P or cash, you can just dust the cards you don't need and go make that N'Zoth paladin, or you can jsut spend a few months gathering dust and just craft the thing withuot dusting (raises hand). At the competitive level, the variety due to limitation is pretty much gone nowadays. But it does make for an interesting early meta.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.