I see you in this forum on occasion playing the part of a paying customer who thinks paying a is a great idea. You claim that paying customers should have a competitive advantage over non paying customers. And they do, they always have had that advantage. They have more cards, more dust, more resources to craft. They also got other rewards, skins, gold cards, early access etc.
But it seems to bother you that a lowly free to play can still consistently make legend and open 100 or so packs on release day. It seems that you and blizzard have decided that this is not right, that a free to play should not be able to compete with the spenders or enjoy a release of a new expansion. That a player should have to pay for that experience.
This is when the mask comes off and blizzard drops all pretense of this being a game. It is a gamelike experience designed to stimulate spending. And to view it as anything else is pure foolishness. A free to play player already could never dream of playing hearthstone competitvely. A shifting meta and multiple deck requirements rendered this goal DOA. But I guess being a part of the competitive scene was not enough of a motivation to spend, nor were the shiny baubles and early access. People were not spending enough.
So blizzard decided to leverage the last thing they had left, release day. Now if you don't buy the pay to the pay to win pass and/or pre-order you are going to have a sad release day. You will likely need to dust cards (a terrible decision in hearthstone, a losing proposition 90 percent of the time) in order to build 1, max 2 competitive decks on release. SInce Blizzard is committed to frequent nerfs/patches to constantly shift the meta, most f2p players will simply no longer be able to compete in standard once some time has past and stored resources are used up.
I suggest that the f2p players leave standard behind. Sure make decks, sure take a swing, but don't allow yourself to get caught in a frustration loop and allow the engine to constantly beat you with cards you don't have to hopefully goad you into buying more packs or crafting said card. The engine will just move on to beating you with the next card you don't have anyway.
Also notice that blizzard is moving the goal post on the spenders as well. That mid season card dump is going necessitate that those spenders spend more in order to keep up. This game is going to get more expensive for them, so have fun laughing at them as dump 100's of dollars on a dying game. I have been around these games for a long time, I have competed at a very high level in some and have spent money on some of them when I thought the game gave an honest return on investment. Hearthstone is entering the milking phase. They are going to try to get as much money as they can out of their existing whales, because their efforts to bring back players with DH failed and there will be almost no new players coming in the future due to the prohibitive cost to compete.
Speaking as a F2P player that has 14,000 dust and 5k gold ready for the next expansion release; It seems crazy that anyone could be so disappointed about a company wanting to make money off their product. Afterall, you don't walk into Mc Donald's demanding free burgers because you like to eat them. If you want one, buy it, if not, go eat from the dumpster out the back.
I’m not a F2P player but I prefer this biz model to annoying adds and pop ups.
As I said in an earlier post, you can get to legend with “cheap” decks, the only difference between f2p and p2p is the ability to play many top meta decks rather than 1 or 2, and to adjust to changes in the meta faster
I see you in this forum on occasion playing the part of a paying customer who thinks paying a is a great idea. You claim that paying customers should have a competitive advantage over non paying customers. And they do, they always have had that advantage. They have more cards, more dust, more resources to craft. They also got other rewards, skins, gold cards, early access etc.
But it seems to bother you that a lowly free to play can still consistently make legend and open 100 or so packs on release day. It seems that you and blizzard have decided that this is not right, that a free to play should not be able to compete with the spenders or enjoy a release of a new expansion. That a player should have to pay for that experience.
This is when the mask comes off and blizzard drops all pretense of this being a game. It is a gamelike experience designed to stimulate spending. And to view it as anything else is pure foolishness. A free to play player already could never dream of playing hearthstone competitvely. A shifting meta and multiple deck requirements rendered this goal DOA. But I guess being a part of the competitive scene was not enough of a motivation to spend, nor were the shiny baubles and early access. People were not spending enough.
So blizzard decided to leverage the last thing they had left, release day. Now if you don't buy the pay to the pay to win pass and/or pre-order you are going to have a sad release day. You will likely need to dust cards (a terrible decision in hearthstone, a losing proposition 90 percent of the time) in order to build 1, max 2 competitive decks on release. SInce Blizzard is committed to frequent nerfs/patches to constantly shift the meta, most f2p players will simply no longer be able to compete in standard once some time has past and stored resources are used up.
I suggest that the f2p players leave standard behind. Sure make decks, sure take a swing, but don't allow yourself to get caught in a frustration loop and allow the engine to constantly beat you with cards you don't have to hopefully goad you into buying more packs or crafting said card. The engine will just move on to beating you with the next card you don't have anyway.
Also notice that blizzard is moving the goal post on the spenders as well. That mid season card dump is going necessitate that those spenders spend more in order to keep up. This game is going to get more expensive for them, so have fun laughing at them as dump 100's of dollars on a dying game. I have been around these games for a long time, I have competed at a very high level in some and have spent money on some of them when I thought the game gave an honest return on investment. Hearthstone is entering the milking phase. They are going to try to get as much money as they can out of their existing whales, because their efforts to bring back players with DH failed and there will be almost no new players coming in the future due to the prohibitive cost to compete.
Nice cheap shots, dude. Too bad you're completely wrong about me.
1) I'm going to ignore your snide little "playing the part" remark as just another feeble attempt to cast me as some shill for Blizzard. But I think paying is neither a good thing or a bad thing. It's a choice. And, as you've acknowledged, paying customers should have an advantage. The only question is "how big an advantage"? In my view, it should be significant, but not overwhelming. And, as an earlier poster mentioned, that advantage can be (and should be) made up for by playing more. An f2p player who plays enough to earn 30 WINS a day should have an advantage over me, who rarely can PLAY more than 10-15 games a day. That's also fair. Put simply, Blizzard wants you to either pay for an advantage or play a lot (or both). It benefits either way.
2) Why would it bother me if an f2p makes legend? I think it's great, if that's what they want to do. For some people, laddering matters. To others, it doesn't. I've personally never seen the value of hitting legend, but if that's what you enjoy, go for it. (I feel the same way about Battlegrounds. I find it beyond pointless, but some people love it. Good for them.)
3) Where exactly do I say that f2p shouldn't "enjoy a release of a new expansion"? YOU'RE the one who, with exactly zero evidence, are insisting that you won't be able to stockpile gold and buy lots of packs on the first day. (BTW, that's exactly what I do roughly every other expansion.) We don't know how much gold we'll be able to earn on average. We don't know how much XP we'll earn per battle. We don't know if the 10 gold/ 3 wins setup will continue. In other words, we don't have any actual understanding of the details of the HS economy. Yet you feel qualified to declare that it'll screw f2p. Provide actual EVIDENCE of this (apart from the survey which we already know is no longer accurate), rather than "big corporation always screws the little guy" rhetoric. As was noted in the reddit discussion, the survey had people earning 25 gold for each level over 100, but we now know that you get 150 gold. Rather sizable change, to our benefit (assuming they haven't changed the amount of XP needed to go to the next level).
4) Nor is it true that f2p players can't play "competitively" (if by that you mean reach high levels of the ladder). There are several affordable decks that can hit legend, if you're willing to put the time into it. The truth is that hitting legend is more about the amount of time you're willing to put into the game (and your skill) than it is about how big a collection you have. The biggest advantage paying players have is that they can play a wider range of decks, since they have the dust and cards to do so.
5) As for your declaration that HS is dying, yawn. I've heard this claim for years now, usually from someone who says exactly what you do: "I've been around a long time, I've seen this before, yada, yada, milking whales, yada, yada." Remember when all we heard was how "Gwent is going to destroy HS"? How'd that turn out?
@Nargacuga15 Free legendary every expansion – F2P and P2P
Ever changing pack economics - F2P and P2P
No duplicate epics/legendaries - F2P and P2P
10 pack feel good legendary - F2P and P2P
Classic cards - F2P and P2P
You spent a great deal to show how both F2P and P2P are equal on many terms, which is great. My curiosity is this, can you show how P2P is privileged compared to F2P?
-
I am an F2P player, have been, will always be.
My only complaint I have about this thread is this:
F2P community has a large quantity of entitled, “I should get this for free because I showed up” mentality. and P2P community has a large quantity of elitest, “I spent money so I am better than you, just quit if you don't like it” mentality.
-
For all of the F2P players out there, ask yourself this: if you go to the store and purchase a brand new computer with the latest hardware and software for $2000, how would you feel if the person who only ever comes into the store to ‘shop around’ and test all of the equipment, then gets the same computer for free?
That is what you are asking for when you come on here and complain about F2P v P2P equality.
Again, I AM AN F2P PLAYER, and I agree that there should be a separation of value for those who pay and those who don’t.
-
However, I DO NOT believe that the P2P players should be given an advantage in game play or win rate because they spend money.
F2P and P2P NEED to be able to play the game on EQUAL footing and have an EQUAL chance of winning their matches. This is achieved (for the most part) by understanding your class, card mechanics, the meta, card play value, and personal skill.
Blizzard has tried to enforce an ELO of sorts but I still feel (no proof) that it is glitchy…
There are things that need to be improved for sure, but making a monetary decision to separate F2P v P2P is normal business practice.
So…
TL;DR: for those who have short attention spans and want to feel justified for not reading, Blizzard needs to work on game still, P2P and F2P are not the same, equality should come in game play not value, you get back what you put in.
There are several affordable decks that can hit legend, if you're willing to put the time into it. The biggest advantage paying players have is that they can play a wider range of decks, since they have the dust and cards to do so.
5) As for your declaration that HS is dying, yawn. I've heard this claim for years now, usually from someone who says exactly what you do: "I've been around a long time, I've seen this before, yada, yada, milking whales, yada, yada." Remember when all we heard was how "Gwent is going to destroy HS"? How'd that turn out?
dude, sorry to say it but this is BS talk...how do u expect some1 who plays HS for fun (like the vast majority of us) play the same 2-3 decks over and over again for 3-4 months. i did go for legend 1 month, i did spam 1 deck and made me intoxicated with HS for the rest of the expansion (2 months of logging in just for dailies). i feel like most of the ones who're playing out there can agree with this statement.
The truth is that we need eachother, f2p needs p2p to pay for their game and p2p needs f2p to have with whom to actually play the game. And, as Daulphas said it before : "F2P and P2P NEED to be able to play the game on EQUAL footing and have an EQUAL chance of winning their matches." I would also add that both f2p and p2p players should have access to the same cards during one expansion.
The most fun i had in HS was during open beta when every1 was making their own decks almost and there was such a diversity that u didnt know in advance how ur matchup will unroll or concepts like playing around certain cards and stuff like that. This min-maxing mentality is ruining every game out there not only HS, but for HS's case its especially prevalent cuz of the card collection restrictions we all have.
The guys at Hearthstone Mathematics (who i think we all agree that they know their statistics) are the ones saying the game is dying and they are also the ones who come up with some very interesting solutions like having a 3rd form of card (besides normal and golden) for the p2p customers. And i think we dont need them to tell us how unfriendly this game is for a newcomer (even with the poor effort from bli$$ that they made after so many years by giving the free deck. It's to little and definitely to late)...
The beef i have with bli$$ (as a f2p) is that they're misleading on purpose (with all their ID's not only HS) and they put in the minimum amount of effort (at least that's how it seems to me) but demand more and more $$...and for all those who come in here and shout there's nothing wrong with a company making profit i say yes, there is nothing wrong when the profit is within decency, otherwise in the real world they are put in place, checked in and whatnot by specific authorities who's role is exactly that, to stop companies from being/becoming too greedy...
paying is HS is a choice yes, but when being able to have fun in a game (which for me means playing various decks during the 4 month expac lifespan) implies more or less me having to pay between 150 $ - XXX $ per year for it then i say......heck, no game out there is this level of expensive cmon....
There are several affordable decks that can hit legend, if you're willing to put the time into it. The biggest advantage paying players have is that they can play a wider range of decks, since they have the dust and cards to do so.
5) As for your declaration that HS is dying, yawn. I've heard this claim for years now, usually from someone who says exactly what you do: "I've been around a long time, I've seen this before, yada, yada, milking whales, yada, yada." Remember when all we heard was how "Gwent is going to destroy HS"? How'd that turn out?
dude, sorry to say it but this is BS talk...how do u expect some1 who plays HS for fun (like the vast majority of us) play the same 2-3 decks over and over again for 3-4 months. i did go for legend 1 month, i did spam 1 deck and made me intoxicated with HS for the rest of the expansion (2 months of logging in just for dailies). i feel like most of the ones who're playing out there can agree with this statement.
The truth is that we need eachother, f2p needs p2p to pay for their game and p2p needs f2p to have with whom to actually play the game. And, as Daulphas said it before : "F2P and P2P NEED to be able to play the game on EQUAL footing and have an EQUAL chance of winning their matches." I would also add that both f2p and p2p players should have access to the same cards during one expansion.
The most fun i had in HS was during open beta when every1 was making their own decks almost and there was such a diversity that u didnt know in advance how ur matchup will unroll or concepts like playing around certain cards and stuff like that. This min-maxing mentality is ruining every game out there not only HS, but for HS's case its especially prevalent cuz of the card collection restrictions we all have.
The guys at Hearthstone Mathematics (who i think we all agree that they know their statistics) are the ones saying the game is dying and they are also the ones who come up with some very interesting solutions like having a 3rd form of card (besides normal and golden) for the p2p customers. And i think we dont need them to tell us how unfriendly this game is for a newcomer (even with the poor effort from bli$$ that they made after so many years by giving the free deck. It's to little and definitely to late)...
The beef i have with bli$$ (as a f2p) is that they're misleading on purpose (with all their ID's not only HS) and they put in the minimum amount of effort (at least that's how it seems to me) but demand more and more $$...and for all those who come in here and shout there's nothing wrong with a company making profit i say yes, there is nothing wrong when the profit is within decency, otherwise in the real world they are put in place, checked in and whatnot by specific authorities who's role is exactly that, to stop companies from being/becoming too greedy...
paying is HS is a choice yes, but when being able to have fun in a game (which for me means playing various decks during the 4 month expac lifespan) implies more or less me having to pay between 150 $ - XXX $ per year for it then i say......heck, no game out there is this level of expensive cmon....
Are you playing for fun, or trying to ladder? If the former, there's no reason you need to only play 2-3 decks. An f2p player who saves up a sizable stockpile of gold and buys 70-80 packs on expansion day should be able to play at least the budget version of several new decks, plus an updated version of decks he's currently playing. Take tempo mage: the high cost version will run Astromancer Solarian, Chenvaala, Ras Frostwhisper, and Jandice Barov. Deck would cost you at least 10K dust. But there are several much cheaper versions for those who don't have all those cards. I found one on this site that costs 2K. Sure, your winrate will be lower, but you can still play it and have fun. Now, if you're trying to ladder, then yes, you'll have to focus on a smaller number of more refined decks. But, again, it's entirely doable if you learn your deck and are willing to spend enough time playing.
Not sure what you or he meant by f2p and p2p having the same chance at winning their matches. Holding everything else equal (player skill, luck of the draw), more often than not the guy with better cards will win. If you want that not to be true, then you're smoking something. That's an advantage p2p SHOULD have. Take that away, and there's little reason to buy packs. If, on the other hand, all he's saying is that the RNG should not be manipulated to help p2p players, I agree. There's also no evidence to suggest it is. As for "access to the same cards during one expansion," again you're not clear. They already do. If you want a card, craft it. Unless you're suggesting that Blizzard say "For the next 4 months, you can use all the cards from this expac. Once the new one launches, you go back to your existing collection." If that's what you want, again you're smoking something.
And your profit rant is absurd. You have zero qualifications to determine what "decent" profits are, nor to demand that Blizzard limit themselves to them. If you dislike how profitable they are, take your business elsewhere. And your "otherwise in the real world they are put in place, checked in and whatnot by specific authorities who's role is exactly that, to stop companies from being/becoming too greedy..." is nonsensical and shows that you know exactly nothing about the government and its role in the economy. This may shock you, but there is no "specific authority" to "stop companies from being/ becoming too greedy." The closest thing to what you're talking about is anti-trust enforcement aimed at preventing monopolistic behavior. But Blizzard is not within light-years of being a monopoly, so it doesn't apply here. Something you'd know if you spent any time in the actual working world.
@Nargacuga15 Free legendary every expansion – F2P and P2P
Ever changing pack economics - F2P and P2P
No duplicate epics/legendaries - F2P and P2P
10 pack feel good legendary - F2P and P2P
Classic cards - F2P and P2P
You spent a great deal to show how both F2P and P2P are equal on many terms, which is great. My curiosity is this, can you show how P2P is privileged compared to F2P?
-
I am an F2P player, have been, will always be.
My only complaint I have about this thread is this:
F2P community has a large quantity of entitled, “I should get this for free because I showed up” mentality. and P2P community has a large quantity of elitest, “I spent money so I am better than you, just quit if you don't like it” mentality.
-
For all of the F2P players out there, ask yourself this: if you go to the store and purchase a brand new computer with the latest hardware and software for $2000, how would you feel if the person who only ever comes into the store to ‘shop around’ and test all of the equipment, then gets the same computer for free?
That is what you are asking for when you come on here and complain about F2P v P2P equality.
Again, I AM AN F2P PLAYER, and I agree that there should be a separation of value for those who pay and those who don’t.
-
However, I DO NOT believe that the P2P players should be given an advantage in game play or win rate because they spend money.
F2P and P2P NEED to be able to play the game on EQUAL footing and have an EQUAL chance of winning their matches. This is achieved (for the most part) by understanding your class, card mechanics, the meta, card play value, and personal skill.
Blizzard has tried to enforce an ELO of sorts but I still feel (no proof) that it is glitchy…
There are things that need to be improved for sure, but making a monetary decision to separate F2P v P2P is normal business practice.
So…
TL;DR: for those who have short attention spans and want to feel justified for not reading, Blizzard needs to work on game still, P2P and F2P are not the same, equality should come in game play not value, you get back what you put in.
It’s hard to tackle everything you said and not make this thread an essay. I’ll keep it short, but please feel free to reach back out to keep discussing:
The only privilege I see of P2P over F2P is faster access to the meta and the ability to go wider with decks. It’s a pretty sizable advantage, but really just a time sink bypass. I feel that’s fair. My points were to show F2P players that we ALL get pretty good handouts from the game.
As far as your points, the problem is the fair value you’re looking for can’t exist. There is no way to equate the value of F2P vs P2P otherwise no one would be paying. The balance of spending money vs not is as close as it’s going to get to “value balanced”. You’ll have to offer some ideas to balance the value if you think there are decent answers.
f2p dont pay why should they get to have fun... and dude there's more than just USA and it's array of political/economical/financial/social/etc systems on this dam earth...
its pretty clear ur way of thinking so it's really no point for me to continue this.
The beef i have with bli$$ (as a f2p) is that they're misleading on purpose (with all their ID's not only HS) and they put in the minimum amount of effort (at least that's how it seems to me) but demand more and more $$...and for all those who come in here and shout there's nothing wrong with a company making profit i say yes, there is nothing wrong when the profit is within decency, otherwise in the real world they are put in place, checked in and whatnot by specific authorities who's role is exactly that, to stop companies from being/becoming too greedy...
How can you still complain about "minimum effort" these days? Two years ago, I'd have still agreed with you. But the game changed more in the last 12 months than it had in YEARS. And another huge change is right around the corner (for the better or worse).
Sure, the monetization efforts have gone up as well, and they are kind of getting out of hand now, but in all fairness, it's not entirely out of place either. It is kinda stupid that we see a new hero portrait and old card backs and another bundle every couple weeks, and several new portraits coming just with the next expansion, and everything always for limited time only. But it was equally stupid (if not more), that they never put new hero portraits or any other cosmetics in the store, after Magni, Alleria, and Medivh were introduced in 2015! That was all they offered in almost 4 years! And only a handful of exceptions added some variety, until they started adding hero portraits to large pre-order bundles regularly.
And by the way: No, there's no limit to how profitable or "greedy" a company can be. If there was, Google (and a few others) would have stopped growing years ago. Just now (and arguably too late), authorities start to take an interest whether the systematic (read: enforced) domination of entire markets could potentially be problematic or even illegal.
There are laws against certain practices, but from my understanding "greed" is more of a moral than a legal term, especially in virtue ethics. I'm no jurist, but as far as I know, greed is only considered as a motive in jurisdiction; greed might motivate actions which ought to be punished, but is itself not a crime. Either way, within the (sometimes stretched) boundaries of the law, companies are free to make as much money as the market sees fit to throw at them. And outside of lootbox controversies or some things possibly happening in the background, Hearthstone is not and most likely never will be a case for the authorities. If I want to argue against Hearthstone's business model, I wouldn't pick a legal approach. Especially when I know close to nothing about laws.
And instead of the same old moral debate, whether Hearthstone is "fair" or not, I'd suggest discussing it from a technical point of view, whether it is the best system for whatever it tries to accomplish, if only because it filters out a lot of moral arguments, which I got sick of reading and responding to a long time ago.
f2p dont pay why should they get to have fun... and dude there's more than just USA and it's array of political/economical/financial/social/etc systems on this dam earth...
its pretty clear ur way of thinking so it's really no point for me to continue this.
No, there's no point in you continuing because you demonstrably don't know what you're talking about.
Meh you guys should not care what bliz doing at this point they are just adjusting their bussiness model to make maximum amount of bucks. This game already made profit more than enough and hearthstone community is getting smaller after each expansion they will never admit it for financial reasons but they are well aware of it so they will focus on eliminating veteran f2p players like myself and lure more new players with implementing new systems.
You should understand that this game cannot stay fresh forever because it is flawed they have to rewrite entire rule set to give it more potential but it would be an entire new game. So instead of trying to keep the game fresh they will have to focus on keeping player base fresh.
So I also accept that and eventually move on to another game for refreshment. I play battle ground that is why I am still here.
veteran players shouldn't be angry to new systems and mods etc just leave and start other games like many did.
@Nargacuga15 Free legendary every expansion – F2P and P2P
Ever changing pack economics - F2P and P2P
No duplicate epics/legendaries - F2P and P2P
10 pack feel good legendary - F2P and P2P
Classic cards - F2P and P2P
You spent a great deal to show how both F2P and P2P are equal on many terms, which is great. My curiosity is this, can you show how P2P is privileged compared to F2P?
-
I am an F2P player, have been, will always be.
My only complaint I have about this thread is this:
F2P community has a large quantity of entitled, “I should get this for free because I showed up” mentality. and P2P community has a large quantity of elitest, “I spent money so I am better than you, just quit if you don't like it” mentality.
-
For all of the F2P players out there, ask yourself this: if you go to the store and purchase a brand new computer with the latest hardware and software for $2000, how would you feel if the person who only ever comes into the store to ‘shop around’ and test all of the equipment, then gets the same computer for free?
That is what you are asking for when you come on here and complain about F2P v P2P equality.
Again, I AM AN F2P PLAYER, and I agree that there should be a separation of value for those who pay and those who don’t.
-
However, I DO NOT believe that the P2P players should be given an advantage in game play or win rate because they spend money.
F2P and P2P NEED to be able to play the game on EQUAL footing and have an EQUAL chance of winning their matches. This is achieved (for the most part) by understanding your class, card mechanics, the meta, card play value, and personal skill.
Blizzard has tried to enforce an ELO of sorts but I still feel (no proof) that it is glitchy…
There are things that need to be improved for sure, but making a monetary decision to separate F2P v P2P is normal business practice.
So…
TL;DR: for those who have short attention spans and want to feel justified for not reading, Blizzard needs to work on game still, P2P and F2P are not the same, equality should come in game play not value, you get back what you put in.
It’s hard to tackle everything you said and not make this thread an essay. I’ll keep it short, but please feel free to reach back out to keep discussing:
The only privilege I see of P2P over F2P is faster access to the meta and the ability to go wider with decks. It’s a pretty sizable advantage, but really just a time sink bypass. I feel that’s fair. My points were to show F2P players that we ALL get pretty good handouts from the game.
As far as your points, the problem is the fair value you’re looking for can’t exist. There is no way to equate the value of F2P vs P2P otherwise no one would be paying. The balance of spending money vs not is as close as it’s going to get to “value balanced”. You’ll have to offer some ideas to balance the value if you think there are decent answers.
I agree completely, it would be quite the essay.
When it comes to 'value' it is a broad spectrum, and though I don't think there needs to be any specificity in that respect.
It's quite right that the largest value a P2P individual gets is the time freedom instead of having to grind nearly as much.
What I can see so far from the new structure is that the P2P individuals will be getting customizability and cosmetic bonuses in addition to the time freedom.
This doesn't give an unfair advantage to winning, however, it can feel like an unfair game-play advantage. But again, that is the benefit of paying.
The largest QOL that can be put into effect to limit the gap between the 2 player bases is to fix the ELO/Match making system to be more intuitive and accurate.
Until the new structure is available (or I get a chance to test it personally) I will not be able to accurately give feed back or ideas on improvements.
So currently it's speculation on the future vs current "feelings".
I am not sure if you are not comprehending my post or are just being willfully obtuse. By the general ability to communicate you show, I will assume the latter. But I will try to speak simply in case it is the former.
P2P already has the advantage of fielding pretty much any deck they want. This is already a huge competitive advantage, if as a spender you want more of an advantage than that.....it just makes me kinda sad for you, F2p has to be very careful about what they craft as metas shift frequently with patches. Reaching legend is not always a choice for fun, I was quite happy for years getting to rank 5 to claim the top rewards for the month, only getting to legend a few times just to make sure I could. When blizzard put pressure on f2p to grind legend by moving the monthly rewards, that is when fielding a legend capable deck every month became more important because those free rewards that you can grind are immensely important for a f2p player to keep pace in this game.
One thing about this game is that it punishes playing the same deck over and over. Whether you choose to believe it is an algorithim that is countering your deck on purpose or you are just unlucky that your pocket meta has shifted such that you run only into counter decks who get nut draws for quite a while, I am not here to engage in that debate this time. But I will assert that you need more than one legend capable deck to make legend each month consistently. Opening 80-100 packs on release enables me to do that, opening 40 -50 packs on release does not.
You seem disingenous in your arguments in that on the one hand you state we don't know if gold is going to be choked in the new system for f2p and then on the other hand you state that it is right and good that gold should be choked for f2p because those paying customers deserve their bought and paid for advantage.
The reason people complain about this is because Blizzard is breaking the fundamental deal they made with players up front. Which is that a f2p is able to compete on ladder, they now seem to be moving the goalposts so that this will no longer be possible. If blizzard had built this game that way up front, then many of us would have skipped this game entirely, no harm no foul. Let the p2w whales have their pretty colors and elaborate slot machine that rewards them for spending and maybe code some realistic bots so they can feel as if they have skillfully won a game.
The point of posts such as mine is to point the problem with this approach out before it is implemented. Someone in the forum posted that blizzard has already increased the amount of gold in response to the negative feedback they received on the initial survey. I dunno if this is true, I hope it is. But my hope is that some people at blizzard have enough vision to understand that if they kill the f2p players they will watch their whales leave them and be left with a dead game. It has happened time and time again in f2p/p2w games, and seems to be happening here as blizzard seems to be milking them for even more cash while taking away the viability of f2p in the hopes of converting some of them to paying customers. That is running a business for the quarterly profit margin rather than the long term health of the game.
also: if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has feathers like a duck....it is prolly a duck
I am not sure if you are not comprehending my post or are just being willfully obtuse. By the general ability to communicate you show, I will assume the latter. But I will try to speak simply in case it is the former.
P2P already has the advantage of fielding pretty much any deck they want. This is already a huge competitive advantage, if as a spender you want more of an advantage than that.....it just makes me kinda sad for you, F2p has to be very careful about what they craft as metas shift frequently with patches. Reaching legend is not always a choice for fun, I was quite happy for years getting to rank 5 to claim the top rewards for the month, only getting to legend a few times just to make sure I could. When blizzard put pressure on f2p to grind legend by moving the monthly rewards, that is when fielding a legend capable deck every month became more important because those free rewards that you can grind are immensely important for a f2p player to keep pace in this game.
One thing about this game is that it punishes playing the same deck over and over. Whether you choose to believe it is an algorithim that is countering your deck on purpose or you are just unlucky that your pocket meta has shifted such that you run only into counter decks who get nut draws for quite a while, I am not here to engage in that debate this time. But I will assert that you need more than one legend capable deck to make legend each month consistently. Opening 80-100 packs on release enables me to do that, opening 40 -50 packs on release does not.
You seem disingenous in your arguments in that on the one hand you state we don't know if gold is going to be choked in the new system for f2p and then on the other hand you state that it is right and good that gold should be choked for f2p because those paying customers deserve their bought and paid for advantage.
The reason people complain about this is because Blizzard is breaking the fundamental deal they made with players up front. Which is that a f2p is able to compete on ladder, they now seem to be moving the goalposts so that this will no longer be possible. If blizzard had built this game that way up front, then many of us would have skipped this game entirely, no harm no foul. Let the p2w whales have their pretty colors and elaborate slot machine that rewards them for spending and maybe code some realistic bots so they can feel as if they have skillfully won a game.
The point of posts such as mine is to point the problem with this approach out before it is implemented. Someone in the forum posted that blizzard has already increased the amount of gold in response to the negative feedback they received on the initial survey. I dunno if this is true, I hope it is. But my hope is that some people at blizzard have enough vision to understand that if they kill the f2p players they will watch their whales leave them and be left with a dead game. It has happened time and time again in f2p/p2w games, and seems to be happening here as blizzard seems to be milking them for even more cash while taking away the viability of f2p in the hopes of converting some of them to paying customers. That is running a business for the quarterly profit margin rather than the long term health of the game.
also: if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has feathers like a duck....it is prolly a duck
Apparently reading comprehension is not your strong suit. My first post in this thread told you what I think the p2p advantage is: more dust, better cards. By definition, that means I can field a broader array of decks. (I cannot, as you say, "field pretty much any deck I want." Certainly not at what I spend per year.) Nowhere do I suggest that should change. I think the XP bonus that appears to be coming in the future is probably fair, depending on the details. Quite honestly, I don't know what other advantage would even exist. There certainly should not be a game play advantage (i.e. better RNG, extra mulligan, etc.). Nor is anyone here advocating such an advantage. If you think the current advantage is unfair, then I'm sad for you.
Similarly, NOWHERE did I say it was "right and good that gold should be choked for f2p." That's an absolute, bald-faced lie. Period. And the fact that you're deliberately misrepresenting me speaks volumes about your intellectual dishonesty. In fact, if you actually read my posts, you'd see that my view is that the best way for f2p to compete with p2p is by playing a lot more, thereby earning the gold they need to buy packs, get dust, etc.
The entire rest of your rant is, quite frankly, based on complete ignorance and misinformation. Contrary to your claims, Blizzard has not "given up on the gold economy," as one can clearly see in the reddit discussion (not sure we're allowed to post links to outside websites, but the thread is called "Reward Track/ Tavern Pass rewards by level" and came out on reddit a few days ago). Since we'll continue to earn gold, it's reasonable to assume that we'll still be able to buy packs with it. You're assuming, based on the survey, that there will be a cap on gold and that you will, therefore, not be able to buy more than 40-50 packs on release day. That's almost certainly NOT true, given that we're going to earn 150 for each level we reach beyond 50. Why would Blizzard make that your final reward if it intended to cap your gold earnings? It makes zero logical sense. But then you didn't think about that, did you, sport? Yeah, didn't think so.
As several people have said to you already (and you seem to have conveniently ignored), we don't know the details of the economy yet. But has that stopped you from spouting off a bunch of ignorant nonsense? Of course not. Why bother thinking when you can just spew bile?
I am not sure if you are not comprehending my post or are just being willfully obtuse. By the general ability to communicate you show, I will assume the latter. But I will try to speak simply in case it is the former.
P2P already has the advantage of fielding pretty much any deck they want. This is already a huge competitive advantage, if as a spender you want more of an advantage than that.....it just makes me kinda sad for you, F2p has to be very careful about what they craft as metas shift frequently with patches. Reaching legend is not always a choice for fun, I was quite happy for years getting to rank 5 to claim the top rewards for the month, only getting to legend a few times just to make sure I could. When blizzard put pressure on f2p to grind legend by moving the monthly rewards, that is when fielding a legend capable deck every month became more important because those free rewards that you can grind are immensely important for a f2p player to keep pace in this game.
One thing about this game is that it punishes playing the same deck over and over. Whether you choose to believe it is an algorithim that is countering your deck on purpose or you are just unlucky that your pocket meta has shifted such that you run only into counter decks who get nut draws for quite a while, I am not here to engage in that debate this time. But I will assert that you need more than one legend capable deck to make legend each month consistently. Opening 80-100 packs on release enables me to do that, opening 40 -50 packs on release does not.
You seem disingenous in your arguments in that on the one hand you state we don't know if gold is going to be choked in the new system for f2p and then on the other hand you state that it is right and good that gold should be choked for f2p because those paying customers deserve their bought and paid for advantage.
The reason people complain about this is because Blizzard is breaking the fundamental deal they made with players up front. Which is that a f2p is able to compete on ladder, they now seem to be moving the goalposts so that this will no longer be possible. If blizzard had built this game that way up front, then many of us would have skipped this game entirely, no harm no foul. Let the p2w whales have their pretty colors and elaborate slot machine that rewards them for spending and maybe code some realistic bots so they can feel as if they have skillfully won a game.
The point of posts such as mine is to point the problem with this approach out before it is implemented. Someone in the forum posted that blizzard has already increased the amount of gold in response to the negative feedback they received on the initial survey. I dunno if this is true, I hope it is. But my hope is that some people at blizzard have enough vision to understand that if they kill the f2p players they will watch their whales leave them and be left with a dead game. It has happened time and time again in f2p/p2w games, and seems to be happening here as blizzard seems to be milking them for even more cash while taking away the viability of f2p in the hopes of converting some of them to paying customers. That is running a business for the quarterly profit margin rather than the long term health of the game.
also: if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has feathers like a duck....it is prolly a duck
Apparently reading comprehension is not your strong suit. My first post in this thread told you what I think the p2p advantage is: more dust, better cards. By definition, that means I can field a broader array of decks. (I cannot, as you say, "field pretty much any deck I want." Certainly not at what I spend per year.) Nowhere do I suggest that should change. I think the XP bonus that appears to be coming in the future is probably fair, depending on the details. Quite honestly, I don't know what other advantage would even exist. There certainly should not be a game play advantage (i.e. better RNG, extra mulligan, etc.). Nor is anyone here advocating such an advantage. If you think the current advantage is unfair, then I'm sad for you.
Similarly, NOWHERE did I say it was "right and good that gold should be choked for f2p." That's an absolute, bald-faced lie. Period. And the fact that you're deliberately misrepresenting me speaks volumes about your intellectual dishonesty. In fact, if you actually read my posts, you'd see that my view is that the best way for f2p to compete with p2p is by playing a lot more, thereby earning the gold they need to buy packs, get dust, etc.
The entire rest of your rant is, quite frankly, based on complete ignorance and misinformation. Contrary to your claims, Blizzard has not "given up on the gold economy," as one can clearly see in the reddit discussion (not sure we're allowed to post links to outside websites, but the thread is called "Reward Track/ Tavern Pass rewards by level" and came out on reddit a few days ago). Since we'll continue to earn gold, it's reasonable to assume that we'll still be able to buy packs with it. You're assuming, based on the survey, that there will be a cap on gold and that you will, therefore, not be able to buy more than 40-50 packs on release day. That's almost certainly NOT true, given that we're going to earn 150 for each level we reach beyond 50. Why would Blizzard make that your final reward if it intended to cap your gold earnings? It makes zero logical sense. But then you didn't think about that, did you, sport? Yeah, didn't think so.
As several people have said to you already (and you seem to have conveniently ignored), we don't know the details of the economy yet. But has that stopped you from spouting off a bunch of ignorant nonsense? Of course not. Why bother thinking when you can just spew bile?
I wonder why the details are not there yet. Especially the info on how much play to earn max gold rewards as f2p, vs how much play to earn maximum gold rewards as a p2p.
Blizzard intentionally hides key pieces of information so that people cannot analyze the changes properly. All so that their representatives can shout, how can you be critical when you don't know the details?
If I am wrong about the gold economy and if I am still able to buy 100 packs on release day come the first expansion of 2021 as a f2p, then I will come back and say that I was wrong and that blizzard did not destroy the f2p ability to enjoy a release. But if I am capped at say 40 - 50 packs in an expansion loaded with even more necessary cards to compete, I will be back to remind you.....unless of course I am banned for not being positive enough about the opportunities blizzard gives me to give them money.
also, nice to know that sherm ain't dead.....have a good one.
@tall stranger
I see you in this forum on occasion playing the part of a paying customer who thinks paying a is a great idea. You claim that paying customers should have a competitive advantage over non paying customers. And they do, they always have had that advantage. They have more cards, more dust, more resources to craft. They also got other rewards, skins, gold cards, early access etc.
But it seems to bother you that a lowly free to play can still consistently make legend and open 100 or so packs on release day. It seems that you and blizzard have decided that this is not right, that a free to play should not be able to compete with the spenders or enjoy a release of a new expansion. That a player should have to pay for that experience.
This is when the mask comes off and blizzard drops all pretense of this being a game. It is a gamelike experience designed to stimulate spending. And to view it as anything else is pure foolishness. A free to play player already could never dream of playing hearthstone competitvely. A shifting meta and multiple deck requirements rendered this goal DOA. But I guess being a part of the competitive scene was not enough of a motivation to spend, nor were the shiny baubles and early access. People were not spending enough.
So blizzard decided to leverage the last thing they had left, release day. Now if you don't buy the pay to the pay to win pass and/or pre-order you are going to have a sad release day. You will likely need to dust cards (a terrible decision in hearthstone, a losing proposition 90 percent of the time) in order to build 1, max 2 competitive decks on release. SInce Blizzard is committed to frequent nerfs/patches to constantly shift the meta, most f2p players will simply no longer be able to compete in standard once some time has past and stored resources are used up.
I suggest that the f2p players leave standard behind. Sure make decks, sure take a swing, but don't allow yourself to get caught in a frustration loop and allow the engine to constantly beat you with cards you don't have to hopefully goad you into buying more packs or crafting said card. The engine will just move on to beating you with the next card you don't have anyway.
Also notice that blizzard is moving the goal post on the spenders as well. That mid season card dump is going necessitate that those spenders spend more in order to keep up. This game is going to get more expensive for them, so have fun laughing at them as dump 100's of dollars on a dying game. I have been around these games for a long time, I have competed at a very high level in some and have spent money on some of them when I thought the game gave an honest return on investment. Hearthstone is entering the milking phase. They are going to try to get as much money as they can out of their existing whales, because their efforts to bring back players with DH failed and there will be almost no new players coming in the future due to the prohibitive cost to compete.
Speaking as a F2P player that has 14,000 dust and 5k gold ready for the next expansion release; It seems crazy that anyone could be so disappointed about a company wanting to make money off their product. Afterall, you don't walk into Mc Donald's demanding free burgers because you like to eat them. If you want one, buy it, if not, go eat from the dumpster out the back.
I’m not a F2P player but I prefer this biz model to annoying adds and pop ups.
As I said in an earlier post, you can get to legend with “cheap” decks, the only difference between f2p and p2p is the ability to play many top meta decks rather than 1 or 2, and to adjust to changes in the meta faster
Nice cheap shots, dude. Too bad you're completely wrong about me.
1) I'm going to ignore your snide little "playing the part" remark as just another feeble attempt to cast me as some shill for Blizzard. But I think paying is neither a good thing or a bad thing. It's a choice. And, as you've acknowledged, paying customers should have an advantage. The only question is "how big an advantage"? In my view, it should be significant, but not overwhelming. And, as an earlier poster mentioned, that advantage can be (and should be) made up for by playing more. An f2p player who plays enough to earn 30 WINS a day should have an advantage over me, who rarely can PLAY more than 10-15 games a day. That's also fair. Put simply, Blizzard wants you to either pay for an advantage or play a lot (or both). It benefits either way.
2) Why would it bother me if an f2p makes legend? I think it's great, if that's what they want to do. For some people, laddering matters. To others, it doesn't. I've personally never seen the value of hitting legend, but if that's what you enjoy, go for it. (I feel the same way about Battlegrounds. I find it beyond pointless, but some people love it. Good for them.)
3) Where exactly do I say that f2p shouldn't "enjoy a release of a new expansion"? YOU'RE the one who, with exactly zero evidence, are insisting that you won't be able to stockpile gold and buy lots of packs on the first day. (BTW, that's exactly what I do roughly every other expansion.) We don't know how much gold we'll be able to earn on average. We don't know how much XP we'll earn per battle. We don't know if the 10 gold/ 3 wins setup will continue. In other words, we don't have any actual understanding of the details of the HS economy. Yet you feel qualified to declare that it'll screw f2p. Provide actual EVIDENCE of this (apart from the survey which we already know is no longer accurate), rather than "big corporation always screws the little guy" rhetoric. As was noted in the reddit discussion, the survey had people earning 25 gold for each level over 100, but we now know that you get 150 gold. Rather sizable change, to our benefit (assuming they haven't changed the amount of XP needed to go to the next level).
4) Nor is it true that f2p players can't play "competitively" (if by that you mean reach high levels of the ladder). There are several affordable decks that can hit legend, if you're willing to put the time into it. The truth is that hitting legend is more about the amount of time you're willing to put into the game (and your skill) than it is about how big a collection you have. The biggest advantage paying players have is that they can play a wider range of decks, since they have the dust and cards to do so.
5) As for your declaration that HS is dying, yawn. I've heard this claim for years now, usually from someone who says exactly what you do: "I've been around a long time, I've seen this before, yada, yada, milking whales, yada, yada." Remember when all we heard was how "Gwent is going to destroy HS"? How'd that turn out?
@Nargacuga15
Free legendary every expansion – F2P and P2P
Ever changing pack economics - F2P and P2P
No duplicate epics/legendaries - F2P and P2P
10 pack feel good legendary - F2P and P2P
Classic cards - F2P and P2P
You spent a great deal to show how both F2P and P2P are equal on many terms, which is great.
My curiosity is this, can you show how P2P is privileged compared to F2P?
-
I am an F2P player, have been, will always be.
My only complaint I have about this thread is this:
F2P community has a large quantity of entitled, “I should get this for free because I showed up” mentality.
and
P2P community has a large quantity of elitest, “I spent money so I am better than you, just quit if you don't like it” mentality.
-
For all of the F2P players out there, ask yourself this:
if you go to the store and purchase a brand new computer with the latest hardware and software for $2000, how would you feel if the person who only ever comes into the store to ‘shop around’ and test all of the equipment, then gets the same computer for free?
That is what you are asking for when you come on here and complain about F2P v P2P equality.
Again, I AM AN F2P PLAYER, and I agree that there should be a separation of value for those who pay and those who don’t.
-
However, I DO NOT believe that the P2P players should be given an advantage in game play or win rate because they spend money.
F2P and P2P NEED to be able to play the game on EQUAL footing and have an EQUAL chance of winning their matches. This is achieved (for the most part) by understanding your class, card mechanics, the meta, card play value, and personal skill.
Blizzard has tried to enforce an ELO of sorts but I still feel (no proof) that it is glitchy…
There are things that need to be improved for sure, but making a monetary decision to separate F2P v P2P is normal business practice.
So…
TL;DR: for those who have short attention spans and want to feel justified for not reading, Blizzard needs to work on game still, P2P and F2P are not the same, equality should come in game play not value, you get back what you put in.
Cute, ineffective, but cute.
dude, sorry to say it but this is BS talk...how do u expect some1 who plays HS for fun (like the vast majority of us) play the same 2-3 decks over and over again for 3-4 months. i did go for legend 1 month, i did spam 1 deck and made me intoxicated with HS for the rest of the expansion (2 months of logging in just for dailies). i feel like most of the ones who're playing out there can agree with this statement.
The truth is that we need eachother, f2p needs p2p to pay for their game and p2p needs f2p to have with whom to actually play the game. And, as Daulphas said it before : "F2P and P2P NEED to be able to play the game on EQUAL footing and have an EQUAL chance of winning their matches." I would also add that both f2p and p2p players should have access to the same cards during one expansion.
The most fun i had in HS was during open beta when every1 was making their own decks almost and there was such a diversity that u didnt know in advance how ur matchup will unroll or concepts like playing around certain cards and stuff like that. This min-maxing mentality is ruining every game out there not only HS, but for HS's case its especially prevalent cuz of the card collection restrictions we all have.
The guys at Hearthstone Mathematics (who i think we all agree that they know their statistics) are the ones saying the game is dying and they are also the ones who come up with some very interesting solutions like having a 3rd form of card (besides normal and golden) for the p2p customers. And i think we dont need them to tell us how unfriendly this game is for a newcomer (even with the poor effort from bli$$ that they made after so many years by giving the free deck. It's to little and definitely to late)...
The beef i have with bli$$ (as a f2p) is that they're misleading on purpose (with all their ID's not only HS) and they put in the minimum amount of effort (at least that's how it seems to me) but demand more and more $$...and for all those who come in here and shout there's nothing wrong with a company making profit i say yes, there is nothing wrong when the profit is within decency, otherwise in the real world they are put in place, checked in and whatnot by specific authorities who's role is exactly that, to stop companies from being/becoming too greedy...
paying is HS is a choice yes, but when being able to have fun in a game (which for me means playing various decks during the 4 month expac lifespan) implies more or less me having to pay between 150 $ - XXX $ per year for it then i say......heck, no game out there is this level of expensive cmon....
Are you playing for fun, or trying to ladder? If the former, there's no reason you need to only play 2-3 decks. An f2p player who saves up a sizable stockpile of gold and buys 70-80 packs on expansion day should be able to play at least the budget version of several new decks, plus an updated version of decks he's currently playing. Take tempo mage: the high cost version will run Astromancer Solarian, Chenvaala, Ras Frostwhisper, and Jandice Barov. Deck would cost you at least 10K dust. But there are several much cheaper versions for those who don't have all those cards. I found one on this site that costs 2K. Sure, your winrate will be lower, but you can still play it and have fun. Now, if you're trying to ladder, then yes, you'll have to focus on a smaller number of more refined decks. But, again, it's entirely doable if you learn your deck and are willing to spend enough time playing.
Not sure what you or he meant by f2p and p2p having the same chance at winning their matches. Holding everything else equal (player skill, luck of the draw), more often than not the guy with better cards will win. If you want that not to be true, then you're smoking something. That's an advantage p2p SHOULD have. Take that away, and there's little reason to buy packs. If, on the other hand, all he's saying is that the RNG should not be manipulated to help p2p players, I agree. There's also no evidence to suggest it is. As for "access to the same cards during one expansion," again you're not clear. They already do. If you want a card, craft it. Unless you're suggesting that Blizzard say "For the next 4 months, you can use all the cards from this expac. Once the new one launches, you go back to your existing collection." If that's what you want, again you're smoking something.
And your profit rant is absurd. You have zero qualifications to determine what "decent" profits are, nor to demand that Blizzard limit themselves to them. If you dislike how profitable they are, take your business elsewhere. And your "otherwise in the real world they are put in place, checked in and whatnot by specific authorities who's role is exactly that, to stop companies from being/becoming too greedy..." is nonsensical and shows that you know exactly nothing about the government and its role in the economy. This may shock you, but there is no "specific authority" to "stop companies from being/ becoming too greedy." The closest thing to what you're talking about is anti-trust enforcement aimed at preventing monopolistic behavior. But Blizzard is not within light-years of being a monopoly, so it doesn't apply here. Something you'd know if you spent any time in the actual working world.
My post is BS, but you contributed nothing to the conversation and attempted to insult me instead. Quite the contrarian, @yoop.
It’s hard to tackle everything you said and not make this thread an essay. I’ll keep it short, but please feel free to reach back out to keep discussing:
The only privilege I see of P2P over F2P is faster access to the meta and the ability to go wider with decks. It’s a pretty sizable advantage, but really just a time sink bypass. I feel that’s fair. My points were to show F2P players that we ALL get pretty good handouts from the game.
As far as your points, the problem is the fair value you’re looking for can’t exist. There is no way to equate the value of F2P vs P2P otherwise no one would be paying. The balance of spending money vs not is as close as it’s going to get to “value balanced”. You’ll have to offer some ideas to balance the value if you think there are decent answers.
@Tallstranger
f2p dont pay why should they get to have fun... and dude there's more than just USA and it's array of political/economical/financial/social/etc systems on this dam earth...
its pretty clear ur way of thinking so it's really no point for me to continue this.
How can you still complain about "minimum effort" these days? Two years ago, I'd have still agreed with you. But the game changed more in the last 12 months than it had in YEARS. And another huge change is right around the corner (for the better or worse).
Sure, the monetization efforts have gone up as well, and they are kind of getting out of hand now, but in all fairness, it's not entirely out of place either. It is kinda stupid that we see a new hero portrait and old card backs and another bundle every couple weeks, and several new portraits coming just with the next expansion, and everything always for limited time only. But it was equally stupid (if not more), that they never put new hero portraits or any other cosmetics in the store, after Magni, Alleria, and Medivh were introduced in 2015! That was all they offered in almost 4 years! And only a handful of exceptions added some variety, until they started adding hero portraits to large pre-order bundles regularly.
And by the way: No, there's no limit to how profitable or "greedy" a company can be. If there was, Google (and a few others) would have stopped growing years ago. Just now (and arguably too late), authorities start to take an interest whether the systematic (read: enforced) domination of entire markets could potentially be problematic or even illegal.
There are laws against certain practices, but from my understanding "greed" is more of a moral than a legal term, especially in virtue ethics. I'm no jurist, but as far as I know, greed is only considered as a motive in jurisdiction; greed might motivate actions which ought to be punished, but is itself not a crime. Either way, within the (sometimes stretched) boundaries of the law, companies are free to make as much money as the market sees fit to throw at them. And outside of lootbox controversies or some things possibly happening in the background, Hearthstone is not and most likely never will be a case for the authorities. If I want to argue against Hearthstone's business model, I wouldn't pick a legal approach. Especially when I know close to nothing about laws.
And instead of the same old moral debate, whether Hearthstone is "fair" or not, I'd suggest discussing it from a technical point of view, whether it is the best system for whatever it tries to accomplish, if only because it filters out a lot of moral arguments, which I got sick of reading and responding to a long time ago.
No, there's no point in you continuing because you demonstrably don't know what you're talking about.
Meh you guys should not care what bliz doing at this point they are just adjusting their bussiness model to make maximum amount of bucks. This game already made profit more than enough and hearthstone community is getting smaller after each expansion they will never admit it for financial reasons but they are well aware of it so they will focus on eliminating veteran f2p players like myself and lure more new players with implementing new systems.
You should understand that this game cannot stay fresh forever because it is flawed they have to rewrite entire rule set to give it more potential but it would be an entire new game. So instead of trying to keep the game fresh they will have to focus on keeping player base fresh.
So I also accept that and eventually move on to another game for refreshment. I play battle ground that is why I am still here.
veteran players shouldn't be angry to new systems and mods etc just leave and start other games like many did.
I agree completely, it would be quite the essay.
When it comes to 'value' it is a broad spectrum, and though I don't think there needs to be any specificity in that respect.
It's quite right that the largest value a P2P individual gets is the time freedom instead of having to grind nearly as much.
What I can see so far from the new structure is that the P2P individuals will be getting customizability and cosmetic bonuses in addition to the time freedom.
This doesn't give an unfair advantage to winning, however, it can feel like an unfair game-play advantage. But again, that is the benefit of paying.
The largest QOL that can be put into effect to limit the gap between the 2 player bases is to fix the ELO/Match making system to be more intuitive and accurate.
Until the new structure is available (or I get a chance to test it personally) I will not be able to accurately give feed back or ideas on improvements.
So currently it's speculation on the future vs current "feelings".
Cute, ineffective, but cute.
@tall stranger
I am not sure if you are not comprehending my post or are just being willfully obtuse. By the general ability to communicate you show, I will assume the latter. But I will try to speak simply in case it is the former.
P2P already has the advantage of fielding pretty much any deck they want. This is already a huge competitive advantage, if as a spender you want more of an advantage than that.....it just makes me kinda sad for you, F2p has to be very careful about what they craft as metas shift frequently with patches. Reaching legend is not always a choice for fun, I was quite happy for years getting to rank 5 to claim the top rewards for the month, only getting to legend a few times just to make sure I could. When blizzard put pressure on f2p to grind legend by moving the monthly rewards, that is when fielding a legend capable deck every month became more important because those free rewards that you can grind are immensely important for a f2p player to keep pace in this game.
One thing about this game is that it punishes playing the same deck over and over. Whether you choose to believe it is an algorithim that is countering your deck on purpose or you are just unlucky that your pocket meta has shifted such that you run only into counter decks who get nut draws for quite a while, I am not here to engage in that debate this time. But I will assert that you need more than one legend capable deck to make legend each month consistently. Opening 80-100 packs on release enables me to do that, opening 40 -50 packs on release does not.
You seem disingenous in your arguments in that on the one hand you state we don't know if gold is going to be choked in the new system for f2p and then on the other hand you state that it is right and good that gold should be choked for f2p because those paying customers deserve their bought and paid for advantage.
The reason people complain about this is because Blizzard is breaking the fundamental deal they made with players up front. Which is that a f2p is able to compete on ladder, they now seem to be moving the goalposts so that this will no longer be possible. If blizzard had built this game that way up front, then many of us would have skipped this game entirely, no harm no foul. Let the p2w whales have their pretty colors and elaborate slot machine that rewards them for spending and maybe code some realistic bots so they can feel as if they have skillfully won a game.
The point of posts such as mine is to point the problem with this approach out before it is implemented. Someone in the forum posted that blizzard has already increased the amount of gold in response to the negative feedback they received on the initial survey. I dunno if this is true, I hope it is. But my hope is that some people at blizzard have enough vision to understand that if they kill the f2p players they will watch their whales leave them and be left with a dead game. It has happened time and time again in f2p/p2w games, and seems to be happening here as blizzard seems to be milking them for even more cash while taking away the viability of f2p in the hopes of converting some of them to paying customers. That is running a business for the quarterly profit margin rather than the long term health of the game.
also: if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has feathers like a duck....it is prolly a duck
Apparently reading comprehension is not your strong suit. My first post in this thread told you what I think the p2p advantage is: more dust, better cards. By definition, that means I can field a broader array of decks. (I cannot, as you say, "field pretty much any deck I want." Certainly not at what I spend per year.) Nowhere do I suggest that should change. I think the XP bonus that appears to be coming in the future is probably fair, depending on the details. Quite honestly, I don't know what other advantage would even exist. There certainly should not be a game play advantage (i.e. better RNG, extra mulligan, etc.). Nor is anyone here advocating such an advantage. If you think the current advantage is unfair, then I'm sad for you.
Similarly, NOWHERE did I say it was "right and good that gold should be choked for f2p." That's an absolute, bald-faced lie. Period. And the fact that you're deliberately misrepresenting me speaks volumes about your intellectual dishonesty. In fact, if you actually read my posts, you'd see that my view is that the best way for f2p to compete with p2p is by playing a lot more, thereby earning the gold they need to buy packs, get dust, etc.
The entire rest of your rant is, quite frankly, based on complete ignorance and misinformation. Contrary to your claims, Blizzard has not "given up on the gold economy," as one can clearly see in the reddit discussion (not sure we're allowed to post links to outside websites, but the thread is called "Reward Track/ Tavern Pass rewards by level" and came out on reddit a few days ago). Since we'll continue to earn gold, it's reasonable to assume that we'll still be able to buy packs with it. You're assuming, based on the survey, that there will be a cap on gold and that you will, therefore, not be able to buy more than 40-50 packs on release day. That's almost certainly NOT true, given that we're going to earn 150 for each level we reach beyond 50. Why would Blizzard make that your final reward if it intended to cap your gold earnings? It makes zero logical sense. But then you didn't think about that, did you, sport? Yeah, didn't think so.
As several people have said to you already (and you seem to have conveniently ignored), we don't know the details of the economy yet. But has that stopped you from spouting off a bunch of ignorant nonsense? Of course not. Why bother thinking when you can just spew bile?
I wonder why the details are not there yet. Especially the info on how much play to earn max gold rewards as f2p, vs how much play to earn maximum gold rewards as a p2p.
Blizzard intentionally hides key pieces of information so that people cannot analyze the changes properly. All so that their representatives can shout, how can you be critical when you don't know the details?
If I am wrong about the gold economy and if I am still able to buy 100 packs on release day come the first expansion of 2021 as a f2p, then I will come back and say that I was wrong and that blizzard did not destroy the f2p ability to enjoy a release. But if I am capped at say 40 - 50 packs in an expansion loaded with even more necessary cards to compete, I will be back to remind you.....unless of course I am banned for not being positive enough about the opportunities blizzard gives me to give them money.
also, nice to know that sherm ain't dead.....have a good one.
100 packs, huh? Funny, in your first post, you said 80-100. Now who's moving the goalposts?
Whatever, dude.
your desperate nitpicking is comical at this point.
You will be rewarded 150 Gold in any stage of the track. So Gold is still on the game.