I see Hearthstone as a CCG, not a video game. Coming from an MtG background, HS is incredibly cheap. I don’t get what all the fuss is about.
Good point to someone who misses the fact that when you buy paper MTG the cards are yours unlike this digital jpegs that you don't even own. On top of that you can sell your MTG cards at any point, sometimes even at higher price compared to what you bought them for, while selling your account is much more difficult, if not prohibited.
Pointing out the absurdity of the claims by the very vocal minority you happen to be a part of is not defending "greed".
Hearthstone is an ongoing game, constantly releasing new content, which means it has ongoing costs, so comparing it with something like Cyberpunk is absurd. As for wether these costs are reasonable, that is up to each individual to decide.
Every new or returning player gets a tier1 deck, every new player gets a pretty strong head start in gold etc and there are at least two modes of the game (Arena and Battlegrounds) that are essentially free. If what you want is a full collection for free on day1, then this is not the game for you.
Despite having a relatively full collection for 0$, i know i am in a minority of people who played since beta and that is an advantage, so I cannot say that i know exactly how it is to be a new player in Hearthstone who wants to play constructed. However, i also happen to have played a lot of other CCGs and TCGs and i can confidently say that Hearthstone has one of the most generous models, if not the most generous, of all the games that were not dogshit.
P.S. the fact that people blindly followed the hate train for the new progression system which - especially after the change from packs to gold in the later levels - is clearly, mathematically better than what we had before is indicative of why threads like this exist.
I see Hearthstone as a CCG, not a video game. Coming from an MtG background, HS is incredibly cheap. I don’t get what all the fuss is about.
Good point to someone who misses the fact that when you buy paper MTG the cards are yours unlike this digital jpegs that you don't even own. On top of that you can sell your MTG cards at any point, sometimes even at higher price compared to what you bought them for, while selling your account is much more difficult, if not prohibited.
Well, you miss the fact of Magic Arena so it evens out, I guess.
I'm FTP and I'm sitting here able to build about 4-5 decks from the current meta (which will be more, I'm just holding off crafting too much until the meta has settled) and last expansion by the end I could play every deck except a couple.
Reading all these people talk about how you can "pay hundreds of pound a year and can only build 1-2 decks" make me feel like I must have inadvertently entered a cheat code at some point and not realised it.
I'm FTP and I'm sitting here able to build about 4-5 decks from the current meta (which will be more, I'm just holding off crafting too much until the meta has settled) and last expansion by the end I could play every deck except a couple.
Reading all these people talk about how you can "pay hundreds of pound a year and can only build 1-2 decks" make me feel like I must have inadvertently entered a cheat code at some point and not realised it.
not all of us care for aggrp, i rather not play the game at all than play aggro
Now and then I see people defending blizzard and their greedy actions and I am just not capable of understanding why...
not long ago games cost around 70 euro, what do they cost now? these "f2p" models cost often way way way more than 70 euro, that is if you are not contempt at either only playing the cheapest of cheap decks pretty much exclusively and otherwise get slapped around by players who have bought the competitive cards... many decks don't even work without legendary / epic cards and a legendary card has a cost around 25 euro and epics 6.25 euro
comparing that to Cyperpunk 2077 with a cost of around 48,97Euro (one time purchase) is it really that difficult to see that the hearthstone community is getting ripped off? 1 hearthstone deck cost 2.8x as much as the newest of the newest triple A games... and again that is just 1 deck and not even the most expensive one
Because I care about the truth, and you people clearly don't. Your numbers are ridiculous because you're clearly pushing an agenda where blizzard is evil and they should give you free stuff. A preoder bundle for an expansion costs 40 euros and guarantees 2 legendaries and 5 epics (the preorder legendary, the legendary in the first 10 packs, and an epic every 8 packs due to pity timer). I guess we're getting 50 euros worth of legendaries and 50 worth of epics for only 40 euros? What a great deal! Blizzard are so generous!
Here's the thing: Is Hearthstone expensive? ABSO-LUTELY. Yes. We all know, we all agree. What I can't stand is people just saying dumb shit and lies and overrunning this forum with it. The game has been demonstrably getting more affordable. Not just is this battle pass mathematically better for everyone but aggro 100-gold a day farmers (all the math seems to agree, I've not seen math to the contrary, if it exists please do share I'm legit curious), but there's been a number of moves over the year to making the game more affordable (which many people have brought up already). Despite this, the conversation here is a non-stop circlejerk about how the game is getting more expensive. This just isn't the case.
Would I like the game to get cheaper? Yes. I like the game, I like my money, I would like to have more of both, please. Do I think it's more expensive than it could be? Probably, yes. I mean, Runeterra is way cheaper. Is it moving in the right direction? It looks like it from almost every perspective. I defend "Blizzard greed" because you people are exaggerating and lying and generally being a massive nuisance. I buy the cheap pre-order every expansion and don't spend a single cent more on the game, I craft meme legendaries to make stupid meme decks at launch, I craft good legendaries to make the decks I want to play competitively (usually Paladin) and I still have about 12k dust's worth on the disenchant all button, with that number having a net growth of about 0.5k every expansion cycle.
Basically, I defend "Blizzard greed" because a lot of the time the people complaining about it are saying dumb stuff like a Paladin deck costs 140 euros when it's simply not the case in the slightest.
I see Hearthstone as a CCG, not a video game. Coming from an MtG background, HS is incredibly cheap. I don’t get what all the fuss is about.
Good point to someone who misses the fact that when you buy paper MTG the cards are yours unlike this digital jpegs that you don't even own. On top of that you can sell your MTG cards at any point, sometimes even at higher price compared to what you bought them for, while selling your account is much more difficult, if not prohibited.
As someone who has played 5 or 6 different physical TCG’s over the past 20+ years I have to interject. While some cards do accrue in value, the vast majority of your collection (99%+) will be worth pennies. There is a massive fallacy in treating TCG’s as having any long lasting value that has been created by MTG’s “Power Nine” (or alpha/beta rares) and the nostalgia value of some Pokemon cards. Outside of these exceptions, inherent value in the cards drives the market price. Once cards leave the standard tournament scene they lose a lot of value. Yes there are legacy formats, but by and large you don’t see the same market price. Let’s not even talk about reprints and their impact. This leaves your “monetary recoupment” at pennies on the dollar spent. Great job! You sold your collection of 30,000 cards that you spent $8000 for $400 bucks. But, you’ll say, Hearthstone makes no money back! Which you are correct, but you also miss a huge difference. Hearthstone provides avenues to greatly reduce expenses: duplicate protection; crafting of cards; packs from gold (ftp). Which is better? Putting more money in and getting a little back out at the end or putting less in initially in the first place?
This whole thing is backfiring for me and people like me and I'll tell you why.
When a company cares for me I feel grateful and do my best to support them. For example Riot-LOL. I have spent hundreds of dollars on cosmetics not only because I want them but also I want to repay my gratitude to a company that never forces me to pay.
I pre-ordered TGT, WotOG, Un'goro, KotFT, K&C, Witchwood, Doomsday Project, and DoD. Also, I bought Hazelbark, Horseman Uther, Sir Annoy-o, Medivh, and Magni (u can check the uploaded images). I bought them because I didn't felt like they are forcing me. But now it's different, if I want to keep up with the collection, making meme decks, and have fun I have to pay. Paying is not an option, it's a necessity if you want to have fun and I'm not cool with it and will not spend any money from now on.
Dear People Who Defending Blizzard,
If the player base going to leave the hearthstone because of blizzard's monetization politics that means the game will be less popular every day and more people leave it. Eventually at one point player base could shrink too much and servers could shut down. This means that the game you invested your time and money into could die because of the shrinking player base.
I'm not saying Blizzard should make everything free but I believe they can come up with a win-win system for both of us.
This whole thing is backfiring for me and people like me and I'll tell you why.
When a company cares for me I feel grateful and do my best to support them. For example Riot-LOL. I have spent hundreds of dollars on cosmetics not only because I want them but also I want to repay my gratitude to a company that never forces me to pay.
I pre-ordered TGT, WotOG, Un'goro, KotFT, K&C, Witchwood, Doomsday Project, and DoD. Also, I bought Hazelbark, Horseman Uther, Sir Annoy-o, Medivh, and Magni (u can check the uploaded images). I bought them because I didn't felt like they are forcing me. But now it's different, if I want to keep up with the collection, making meme decks, and have fun I have to pay. Paying is not an option, it's a necessity if you want to have fun and I'm not cool with it and will not spend any money from now on.
Dear People Who Defending Blizzard,
If the player base going to leave the hearthstone because of blizzard's monetization politics that means the game will be less popular every day and more people leave it. Eventually at one point player base could shrink too much and servers could shut down. This means that the game you invested your time and money into could die because of the shrinking player base.
I'm not saying Blizzard should make everything free but I believe they can come up with a win-win system for both of us.
Your way of thinking is correct. The only mistake that i believe you are making is assuming that the game has become more expensive.
By my calculations and personal experience, Blizzard tries to keep the cost of the game the same despite all the changes that have happened.
When they went from alternating between sets and adventures to 2 sets + 1 adventure they increased the gold rewards and seasonal gifts.
When they switched to 3 sets a year they introduced duplicate protection.
Now they added mini-sets and we just need to wait and see if we'll be getting something on top of the reward system's revamp.
Please read the responses of the so called "blizzard defenders" and then the answers of OP. As far as I see it the "defenders of greed" have pretty solid arguments. Some even bring up your point of "win/win changes".
Also try to detach your emotion from the facts. I advise HearthstoneMathematics, very objective and statistical point of view on the cost of all things hearthstone.
Totally get your point regarding financial (emotional) investment though.
It's so nice to see how these threads turn to personal attacks - I mean that just shows how mature and capable people are to educate and continue with civil conversations, I applaud all you personal attackers.../s
Now that I have that out of the way I am F2P so I look at things from that lense- Here is some math that I did before, prefacing this again with I am not arguing for or against blizzard I am just providing data!!! (all the data is in the spoilers to save space all of it based on F2P)
MY MATH AND NUMBERS MAY BE OFF I AM OPEN TO CORRECTIONS
Here is some of my own Math presuming you ONLY go for level 50 - It's a 4 month rotation for each Reward track and "SHOULD" be possible to hit level 50. Levels 6/7/9/11/13/14/16/18/19/21/22/24 = 100gp (total 1200 gp) Levels 16/28/29/31/32/33/34 = 150gp (total 1050 gp) Levels 36/37/38/39/40/41/42/43/44 = 200gp (total 1800 gp) Levels 45/46/47/48/49 = 300 gp (total 1500 gp) Grand total of GP earned by lvl 50 = 5550 gp
Note: every level there after is 150 GP and still creates the same scaling xp need per additional level.
Even taking the lowest GP quest previously at 50gp we see this:
50gp * 7 = 350/week
350 * 16 = 5600 gp
So as it sits right now WITHOUT additional leveling or even the 10gp bonus per win we had before, the new ranked rewards are only 50 gp lower than before in a 4 month cycle.
However!! If we take into account the wins per day for an additional 10 gp – and assuming you ONLY go for the single 10 gp reward of 3 wins. (meaning you only play till you win 3 games that day). That is an additional 1220 gp in that 4 month time frame.
Now the gap between the old system and the new system a total of 1270gp.
That is the equivalent value of another 9 levels (level 59) on the new system Or another 38,300 xp – Which is another 3 weeks of XP grinding as per outofcards calculations.
Now that I have laid out a BASIC idea of what the math looks like – you can decide if it’s adequate or not.
MY MATH AND NUMBERS MAY BE OFF I AM OPEN TO CORRECTIONS
As was pointed out to me by another member average playtime is around 1hr and 14min - A player can still earn 14400 xp per week – and an additional one time 14800 xp boost.
At 12.59 weeks (round to 12 weeks considering the 14 minute addition) that leaves 4 weeks left to earn XP over and above the minimum requirement (lvl 50).
Which still leads to the same theory as before: 16 weeks with the old system and the LEAST amount of effort would earn you 6,870 GP
And at level 50 with the new system would earn you 5,550 gp (again the LEAST amount of effort)
In order to equal the amount of gold earned with the new system you will need to play to level 69 This is based on the 150 gp earned every level past 50. (6,870-5,550 = 1,320) (1,320/150=8.8)
The XP difference from 50 – 69 is 83,300. (279,500-196,200=83,300) At the rate of 14400 xp per week that means it would take 6 weeks. (83,330/14400 = 5.78472)
We have a 4 week window from hitting level 50 again presuming you do so in 12 weeks. If my numbers are still accurate enough then that means a 2 week difference or that of 300gp.
MY MATH AND NUMBERS MAY BE OFF I AM OPEN TO CORRECTIONS
Since a number of people are bringing up the free packs and legendary as part of the Reward Track. Which I had not added in, as I was only looking at gold gain, gold gain which was used by many to increase overall ROI on playtime as well as to store up for purchasing more packs when the next expansion comes out.
Here is some additional math.
-
Packs are of course worth 100g
Dusting a pack of cards gets a minimum 40 (4 common + 1 rare)
Crafting cost for legendary is 1600 dust or 40 packs with the minimum amount of dust.
Which equates to 4000gp (using this math for the post as I work with worst case scenarios also why I stick with 50gp quests as a base)
Now, you are more likely to get a variable amount of dust over time when opening packs and from a multitude of sites it looks like the average is 100 dust from packs.
This now pushes the value of a legendary to only 16 packs or 1600gp
-
I would like to point out, that I am not here to say the Rewards Track is better or worse I am merely trying to provide context to what is gained from the New system Vs the Old system.
And math is the best tool (at this point) to showcase the differences.
TL;DR of the math I have seen so far only using 122 days played not taking into account amount of time 'supposedly' needed to reach certain benchmarks :
Minimum effort old system = 10,870gp (6,870gp through play + legendary from expansion release) Minimum effort new system = 14,850 (5,550 + 13 packs + legendary from rewards track + legendary from expansion release)
Maximum effort old system = 22,300 (6,100gp from 50gp quests + 12,200 from 100gp win cap + legendary (ER)) Maximum effort new system = 24,300 (15,000 gp from leveling +13 packs + legendary (ER) + Legendary (RT))
(p.s. I have been doing this research in my spare time at work, so it's not as neat and detailed as in the link I provided above)
Make your own conclusions as to whether Blizzard is greedy and taking your money, the data is out there. Again I am F2P - my math is based on F2P game play.
Your way of thinking is correct. The only mistake that i believe you are making is assuming that the game has become more expensive.
Sorry but no. You are wrong, the game has become more expensive. You talking about duplicate protection but you are forgetting there is one more class we have now and there are more class legendaries. Please change the point of view.
Blizzard gives something. that is true but they are calculating the minimum for keeping F2P barely alive. BTW I'm not in a bad situation, I play wild and don't need much of the new cards, and not talking this and writing this because I desperately need gold, I'm talking because I feel betrayed. If in-game card trading and selling were possible, I wouldn't think for a minute to sell my collection at this point.
Sorry but no. You are wrong, the game has become more expensive. You talking about duplicate protection but you are forgetting there is one more class we have now and there are more class legendaries. Please change the point of view.
The extra class makes no difference seeing as the overall size of the expansion has made the same (it has been 130-135 cards for every set since TGT). The number of legendaries has also not changed much. I mean it was lower back in 2015 or whatever, but back then we got so much less free stuff there is just no comparison.
If that's the best argument you've got that the game has got more expensive, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Sure thing: What happened to Glide ? Still gamebreaking OP?
Honest question: Il'gynoth, that card as OP as people cried?
Good point to someone who misses the fact that when you buy paper MTG the cards are yours unlike this digital jpegs that you don't even own. On top of that you can sell your MTG cards at any point, sometimes even at higher price compared to what you bought them for, while selling your account is much more difficult, if not prohibited.
this is why
Noone is defending "greed".
Pointing out the absurdity of the claims by the very vocal minority you happen to be a part of is not defending "greed".
Hearthstone is an ongoing game, constantly releasing new content, which means it has ongoing costs, so comparing it with something like Cyberpunk is absurd. As for wether these costs are reasonable, that is up to each individual to decide.
Every new or returning player gets a tier1 deck, every new player gets a pretty strong head start in gold etc and there are at least two modes of the game (Arena and Battlegrounds) that are essentially free. If what you want is a full collection for free on day1, then this is not the game for you.
Despite having a relatively full collection for 0$, i know i am in a minority of people who played since beta and that is an advantage, so I cannot say that i know exactly how it is to be a new player in Hearthstone who wants to play constructed. However, i also happen to have played a lot of other CCGs and TCGs and i can confidently say that Hearthstone has one of the most generous models, if not the most generous, of all the games that were not dogshit.
P.S. the fact that people blindly followed the hate train for the new progression system which - especially after the change from packs to gold in the later levels - is clearly, mathematically better than what we had before is indicative of why threads like this exist.
Well, you miss the fact of Magic Arena so it evens out, I guess.
Yes, just about most DH cards, it's very poorly designed.
Quote for truth.
...and you're saying?
I'm FTP and I'm sitting here able to build about 4-5 decks from the current meta (which will be more, I'm just holding off crafting too much until the meta has settled) and last expansion by the end I could play every deck except a couple.
Reading all these people talk about how you can "pay hundreds of pound a year and can only build 1-2 decks" make me feel like I must have inadvertently entered a cheat code at some point and not realised it.
The only cancer in Hearthstone is its community.
not all of us care for aggrp, i rather not play the game at all than play aggro
Because I care about the truth, and you people clearly don't. Your numbers are ridiculous because you're clearly pushing an agenda where blizzard is evil and they should give you free stuff. A preoder bundle for an expansion costs 40 euros and guarantees 2 legendaries and 5 epics (the preorder legendary, the legendary in the first 10 packs, and an epic every 8 packs due to pity timer). I guess we're getting 50 euros worth of legendaries and 50 worth of epics for only 40 euros? What a great deal! Blizzard are so generous!
Here's the thing: Is Hearthstone expensive? ABSO-LUTELY. Yes. We all know, we all agree. What I can't stand is people just saying dumb shit and lies and overrunning this forum with it. The game has been demonstrably getting more affordable. Not just is this battle pass mathematically better for everyone but aggro 100-gold a day farmers (all the math seems to agree, I've not seen math to the contrary, if it exists please do share I'm legit curious), but there's been a number of moves over the year to making the game more affordable (which many people have brought up already). Despite this, the conversation here is a non-stop circlejerk about how the game is getting more expensive. This just isn't the case.
Would I like the game to get cheaper? Yes. I like the game, I like my money, I would like to have more of both, please. Do I think it's more expensive than it could be? Probably, yes. I mean, Runeterra is way cheaper. Is it moving in the right direction? It looks like it from almost every perspective. I defend "Blizzard greed" because you people are exaggerating and lying and generally being a massive nuisance. I buy the cheap pre-order every expansion and don't spend a single cent more on the game, I craft meme legendaries to make stupid meme decks at launch, I craft good legendaries to make the decks I want to play competitively (usually Paladin) and I still have about 12k dust's worth on the disenchant all button, with that number having a net growth of about 0.5k every expansion cycle.
Basically, I defend "Blizzard greed" because a lot of the time the people complaining about it are saying dumb stuff like a Paladin deck costs 140 euros when it's simply not the case in the slightest.
.
As someone who has played 5 or 6 different physical TCG’s over the past 20+ years I have to interject. While some cards do accrue in value, the vast majority of your collection (99%+) will be worth pennies. There is a massive fallacy in treating TCG’s as having any long lasting value that has been created by MTG’s “Power Nine” (or alpha/beta rares) and the nostalgia value of some Pokemon cards. Outside of these exceptions, inherent value in the cards drives the market price. Once cards leave the standard tournament scene they lose a lot of value. Yes there are legacy formats, but by and large you don’t see the same market price. Let’s not even talk about reprints and their impact. This leaves your “monetary recoupment” at pennies on the dollar spent. Great job! You sold your collection of 30,000 cards that you spent $8000 for $400 bucks. But, you’ll say, Hearthstone makes no money back! Which you are correct, but you also miss a huge difference. Hearthstone provides avenues to greatly reduce expenses: duplicate protection; crafting of cards; packs from gold (ftp). Which is better? Putting more money in and getting a little back out at the end or putting less in initially in the first place?
This whole thing is backfiring for me and people like me and I'll tell you why.
When a company cares for me I feel grateful and do my best to support them. For example Riot-LOL. I have spent hundreds of dollars on cosmetics not only because I want them but also I want to repay my gratitude to a company that never forces me to pay.
I pre-ordered TGT, WotOG, Un'goro, KotFT, K&C, Witchwood, Doomsday Project, and DoD. Also, I bought Hazelbark, Horseman Uther, Sir Annoy-o, Medivh, and Magni (u can check the uploaded images). I bought them because I didn't felt like they are forcing me. But now it's different, if I want to keep up with the collection, making meme decks, and have fun I have to pay. Paying is not an option, it's a necessity if you want to have fun and I'm not cool with it and will not spend any money from now on.
Dear People Who Defending Blizzard,
If the player base going to leave the hearthstone because of blizzard's monetization politics that means the game will be less popular every day and more people leave it. Eventually at one point player base could shrink too much and servers could shut down. This means that the game you invested your time and money into could die because of the shrinking player base.
I'm not saying Blizzard should make everything free but I believe they can come up with a win-win system for both of us.
Your way of thinking is correct. The only mistake that i believe you are making is assuming that the game has become more expensive.
By my calculations and personal experience, Blizzard tries to keep the cost of the game the same despite all the changes that have happened.
When they went from alternating between sets and adventures to 2 sets + 1 adventure they increased the gold rewards and seasonal gifts.
When they switched to 3 sets a year they introduced duplicate protection.
Now they added mini-sets and we just need to wait and see if we'll be getting something on top of the reward system's revamp.
Please read the responses of the so called "blizzard defenders" and then the answers of OP. As far as I see it the "defenders of greed" have pretty solid arguments. Some even bring up your point of "win/win changes".
Also try to detach your emotion from the facts. I advise HearthstoneMathematics, very objective and statistical point of view on the cost of all things hearthstone.
Totally get your point regarding financial (emotional) investment though.
It's so nice to see how these threads turn to personal attacks - I mean that just shows how mature and capable people are to educate and continue with civil conversations, I applaud all you personal attackers.../s
Now that I have that out of the way I am F2P so I look at things from that lense-
Here is some math that I did before, prefacing this again with I am not arguing for or against blizzard I am just providing data!!!
(all the data is in the spoilers to save space all of it based on F2P)
First and foremost - check this article about the rewards track as quoted form Ben Lee:
https://www.pcgamer.com/blizzard-apologizes-for-hearthstone-rewards-mess-says-changes-are-coming/
Second here is a link to show the XP and time requirements to level upon the new rewards track (though as stated there are still unknown parts yet to come so this is only preliminary):
https://outof.cards/hearthstone/2200-the-rewards-track-how-long-to-get-to-level-50-644000-experience-required-to-get-to-level-150
MY MATH AND NUMBERS MAY BE OFF I AM OPEN TO CORRECTIONS
Here is some of my own Math presuming you ONLY go for level 50 -
It's a 4 month rotation for each Reward track and "SHOULD" be possible to hit level 50.
Levels 6/7/9/11/13/14/16/18/19/21/22/24 = 100gp (total 1200 gp)
Levels 16/28/29/31/32/33/34 = 150gp (total 1050 gp)
Levels 36/37/38/39/40/41/42/43/44 = 200gp (total 1800 gp)
Levels 45/46/47/48/49 = 300 gp (total 1500 gp)
Grand total of GP earned by lvl 50 = 5550 gp
Note: every level there after is 150 GP and still creates the same scaling xp need per additional level.
Even taking the lowest GP quest previously at 50gp we see this:
50gp * 7 = 350/week
350 * 16 = 5600 gp
So as it sits right now WITHOUT additional leveling or even the 10gp bonus per win we had before, the new ranked rewards are only 50 gp lower than before in a 4 month cycle.
However!!
If we take into account the wins per day for an additional 10 gp – and assuming you ONLY go for the single 10 gp reward of 3 wins. (meaning you only play till you win 3 games that day).
That is an additional 1220 gp in that 4 month time frame.
Now the gap between the old system and the new system a total of 1270gp.
That is the equivalent value of another 9 levels (level 59) on the new system
Or another 38,300 xp – Which is another 3 weeks of XP grinding as per outofcards calculations.
Now that I have laid out a BASIC idea of what the math looks like – you can decide if it’s adequate or not.
MY MATH AND NUMBERS MAY BE OFF I AM OPEN TO CORRECTIONS
As was pointed out to me by another member average playtime is around 1hr and 14min - A player can still earn 14400 xp per week – and an additional one time 14800 xp boost.
At 12.59 weeks (round to 12 weeks considering the 14 minute addition) that leaves 4 weeks left to earn XP over and above the minimum requirement (lvl 50).
Which still leads to the same theory as before:
16 weeks with the old system and the LEAST amount of effort would earn you 6,870 GP
And at level 50 with the new system would earn you 5,550 gp (again the LEAST amount of effort)
In order to equal the amount of gold earned with the new system you will need to play to level 69
This is based on the 150 gp earned every level past 50. (6,870-5,550 = 1,320) (1,320/150=8.8)
The XP difference from 50 – 69 is 83,300. (279,500-196,200=83,300)
At the rate of 14400 xp per week that means it would take 6 weeks. (83,330/14400 = 5.78472)
We have a 4 week window from hitting level 50 again presuming you do so in 12 weeks.
If my numbers are still accurate enough then that means a 2 week difference or that of 300gp.
MY MATH AND NUMBERS MAY BE OFF I AM OPEN TO CORRECTIONS
Since a number of people are bringing up the free packs and legendary as part of the Reward Track. Which I had not added in, as I was only looking at gold gain, gold gain which was used by many to increase overall ROI on playtime as well as to store up for purchasing more packs when the next expansion comes out.
Here is some additional math.
-
Packs are of course worth 100g
Dusting a pack of cards gets a minimum 40 (4 common + 1 rare)
Crafting cost for legendary is 1600 dust or 40 packs with the minimum amount of dust.
Which equates to 4000gp (using this math for the post as I work with worst case scenarios also why I stick with 50gp quests as a base)
Now, you are more likely to get a variable amount of dust over time when opening packs and from a multitude of sites it looks like the average is 100 dust from packs.
This now pushes the value of a legendary to only 16 packs or 1600gp
-
I would like to point out, that I am not here to say the Rewards Track is better or worse I am merely trying to provide context to what is gained from the New system Vs the Old system.
And math is the best tool (at this point) to showcase the differences.
As such I have to give credit to someone who did a hell of a lot more in-depth look into this than I did
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/general-discussion/245719-math-old-vs-new-reward-system-updated
-
TL;DR of the math I have seen so far only using 122 days played not taking into account amount of time 'supposedly' needed to reach certain benchmarks :
Minimum effort old system = 10,870gp (6,870gp through play + legendary from expansion release)
Minimum effort new system = 14,850 (5,550 + 13 packs + legendary from rewards track + legendary from expansion release)
Maximum effort old system = 22,300 (6,100gp from 50gp quests + 12,200 from 100gp win cap + legendary (ER))
Maximum effort new system = 24,300 (15,000 gp from leveling +13 packs + legendary (ER) + Legendary (RT))
(p.s. I have been doing this research in my spare time at work, so it's not as neat and detailed as in the link I provided above)
Make your own conclusions as to whether Blizzard is greedy and taking your money, the data is out there.
Again I am F2P - my math is based on F2P game play.
Cute, ineffective, but cute.
Sorry but no. You are wrong, the game has become more expensive. You talking about duplicate protection but you are forgetting there is one more class we have now and there are more class legendaries. Please change the point of view.
Blizzard gives something. that is true but they are calculating the minimum for keeping F2P barely alive. BTW I'm not in a bad situation, I play wild and don't need much of the new cards, and not talking this and writing this because I desperately need gold, I'm talking because I feel betrayed. If in-game card trading and selling were possible, I wouldn't think for a minute to sell my collection at this point.
The extra class makes no difference seeing as the overall size of the expansion has made the same (it has been 130-135 cards for every set since TGT). The number of legendaries has also not changed much. I mean it was lower back in 2015 or whatever, but back then we got so much less free stuff there is just no comparison.
If that's the best argument you've got that the game has got more expensive, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
The only cancer in Hearthstone is its community.