It's called paradigm. That timeframe where people adhere to a fix set of believes, in CGC that 'It's impossible to perfectly balance any competitive game.' and other psychological truths about 'best decks and strategies' It's written in stone. People within a paradigm tend to suffer from the Myth of the Given.
When a paradigm change overnight believes change and suddenly opinion change. Never argue as if things never change. Monetization by keeping the game aggressive is a choice not a given. Slowing down the game just attracts another paying crowd.
It's hard for Blizzard defenders to think outside the paradigm Blizzard set out for them to believe in. It's hard for flatlanders to think in third dimension. You can call it the Big Lie that the dominance of aggro is inevitable and that 'players will generally lean towards doing whatever it is makes them win the easiest.'
Card design is pure authoritarianism for CGC which is based on the broader notion of decisionism.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
I agree that some people appear to believe that the patterns they observe are the whole of possible experiences. "Tickatus ruined my game, and does so often, so Tickatus must ruin every game" sort of mind set. That's a thing, I get that.
But the Myth of the Given has nothing to do with opposing empirical evidence and statistics showing that every competitive game, from card games to fighting games to competitive First-Person Shooters, has strategies, tools, characters, weapons, and cards that are factually worse than others. In most fighting games (this is probably hyperbole but whatever) only like 30% of a character roster is competitively viable. In competitive FPS environments, even though every gun is capable of being strong in some players hands, the ones that are the easiest to use with the most success are the ones that get used most often. If Akimbo 1887's that 1-shot people across the map is the best strategy, those with access to it are factually more likely to do so in a competitive environment. Like now, Paladin in Standard and Mage in Wild are both everywhere, positing a large percentage of play over other classes in those formats because people know they're most likely to win with them.
I'm not defending Blizzard, I'm defending hard and fast - known - concepts in game design. Dominant Strategy is a real thing, not simply a paradigm that only exists because people believe it does. I've known about it for long before I played a Blizzard game, it's not some wacky concept that Blizzard constantly talks about to diffuse conversation around balance.
The dominance of aggro is not "inevitable", and I'm not sure anybody even said that. I said a reason aggro is heavily played is because it's the most accessible type of deck, most commons and rares can make an aggro deck function, without needing tons of high value legendaries like some control decks might. There's also time constraints, budgetary restraints, and many other factors that lead people to play aggro aside from sheer preference. But unless you can prove otherwise, it's not a lie that people will favor what helps them win easiest when they have access to it.
And that last comment is so asinine I won't even attempt to argue it. That's Shapiro levels of "that was so dumb I'll look like an idiot responding to it".
I agree that some people appear to believe that the patterns they observe are the whole of possible experiences. "Tickatus ruined my game, and does so often, so Tickatus must ruin every game" sort of mind set. That's a thing, I get that.
But the Myth of the Given has nothing to do with opposing empirical evidence and statistics showing that every competitive game, from card games to fighting games to competitive First-Person Shooters, has strategies, tools, characters, weapons, and cards that are factually worse than others. In most fighting games (this is probably hyperbole but whatever) only like 30% of a character roster is competitively viable. In competitive FPS environments, even though every gun is capable of being strong in some players hands, the ones that are the easiest to use with the most success are the ones that get used most often. If Akimbo 1887's that 1-shot people across the map is the best strategy, those with access to it are factually more likely to do so in a competitive environment. Like now, Paladin in Standard and Mage in Wild are both everywhere, positing a large percentage of play over other classes in those formats because people know they're most likely to win with them.
I'm not defending Blizzard, I'm defending hard and fast - known - concepts in game design. Dominant Strategy is a real thing, not simply a paradigm that only exists because people believe it does. I've known about it for long before I played a Blizzard game, it's not some wacky concept that Blizzard constantly talks about to diffuse conversation around balance.
The dominance of aggro is not "inevitable", and I'm not sure anybody even said that. I said a reason aggro is heavily played is because it's the most accessible type of deck, most commons and rares can make an aggro deck function, without needing tons of high value legendaries like some control decks might. There's also time constraints, budgetary restraints, and many other factors that lead people to play aggro aside from sheer preference. But unless you can prove otherwise, it's not a lie that people will favor what helps them win easiest when they have access to it.
And that last comment is so asinine I won't even attempt to argue it. That's Shapiro levels of "that was so dumb I'll look like an idiot responding to it".
Image a soccer game where only one side has an extra player and fouls are free to commit. They can do what ever the want. What would you say as supporter of the other side? I guess at least unfair.
That's exactly how it goes down in Hearthstone. Oppressive cards printed at will, the so called 'balance changes' a mockery.
I guess CCG's grew up with Generation Z. They learn that it is perfectly normal to be unfair, imbalanced, partizan in card design and serve a target audience in other words to be repulsive as a normal state. I didn't grow up in that time frame.
BTW you say you don't defend Blizzard. Your comments show otherwise. What did I call it again? Paradigm!
It's called paradigm. That timeframe where people adhere to a fix set of believes, in CGC that 'It's impossible to perfectly balance any competitive game.' and other psychological truths about 'best decks and strategies' It's written in stone. People within a paradigm tend to suffer from the Myth of the Given.
When a paradigm change overnight believes change and suddenly opinion change. Never argue as if things never change. Monetization by keeping the game aggressive is a choice not a given. Slowing down the game just attracts another paying crowd.
It's hard for Blizzard defenders to think outside the paradigm Blizzard set out for them to believe in. It's hard for flatlanders to think in third dimension. You can call it the Big Lie that the dominance of aggro is inevitable and that 'players will generally lean towards doing whatever it is makes them win the easiest.'
Card design is pure authoritarianism for CGC which is based on the broader notion of decisionism.
I don't understand how making the metagame aggressive serves monetization. Aggro decks are historicslly the cheapest kind, therefore any company that wishes to make the gzme more expensive should steer away from it, shouldn't it?
The current roster of tier 1 decks in Standard are the cheapest i can remember, how is that the product of greedy corporate design?
The single greatest meta in terms of monetization was the vanilla situation where a huge amount of the power in the set was concentrated in the legendaries. There was a reason one of the most popular decks was called Wallet Warrior.
Since then, there has been no trend one way or the other, despite what certain posters would have you believe. Sometimes the meta concentrates towards more expensive decks with higher percentages of the cards being legendary and epic, sometimes not. As an easy example of the "not" times, there was a solid 4 months where the most powerful deck was Spell Hunter, a deck that used 2 legendaries at most and often times just one (Rexxar and/or Zul'jin).
The Midrange Shaman deck that gave everyone fits wasn't very expensive and I'd have to look at a list, but Pirate Warrior doesn't seem to have been that expensive either. Then there are times like Shudderwock's day where not only are certain decks expensive, but they used niche legendaries that weren't otherwise useful at all (e.g. Grumble).
It's gone back and forth. Right now is one of the cheaper metas if only because the Core set just debuted, and obviously I'm speaking of standard only, but who knows next set?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
By your logic, losing isn't fun, so that makes losing bad for the game. Does that mean we should nerf losing or just remove losing from the game altogether? When you lose you just get a big shower of confetti and a nice "congratulations" and you still get the same amount of xp and you get to go up the ladder.
The people in this thread seem like a bunch of whiners for the most part who for some reason are pushing stupid right wing BS theories about a card game.
You're just bad at the game. Some cards do need adjustment, but the fact that you aren't willing to change your strategy and adapt is the exact same problem you have in the rest of your life - the idea that everything has to be exactly the way YOU want it and that everyone else should change for you.
Chill out and learn to separate fantasy from reality.
uh, what right wing theories? The only conspiracies here have a decided anti-corporate bent, not usually what you associate with the right.
Or do you just associate everything you don't like with the right?
I agree with you in general, just curious about that comment.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
It's called paradigm. That timeframe where people adhere to a fix set of believes, in CGC that 'It's impossible to perfectly balance any competitive game.' and other psychological truths about 'best decks and strategies' It's written in stone. People within a paradigm tend to suffer from the Myth of the Given.
When a paradigm change overnight believes change and suddenly opinion change. Never argue as if things never change. Monetization by keeping the game aggressive is a choice not a given. Slowing down the game just attracts another paying crowd.
It's hard for Blizzard defenders to think outside the paradigm Blizzard set out for them to believe in. It's hard for flatlanders to think in third dimension. You can call it the Big Lie that the dominance of aggro is inevitable and that 'players will generally lean towards doing whatever it is makes them win the easiest.'
Card design is pure authoritarianism for CGC which is based on the broader notion of decisionism.
I don't understand how making the metagame aggressive serves monetization. Aggro decks are historicslly the cheapest kind, therefore any company that wishes to make the gzme more expensive should steer away from it, shouldn't it?
The current roster of tier 1 decks in Standard are the cheapest i can remember, how is that the product of greedy corporate design?
Yeah the corporate conspiracy theories about blizzard’s card design never make any sense. Aggro endures largely because it’s cheap, accessible, and fast. From a monetary standpoint aggro is bad for blizzard because people achieve the maximum benefit for the least amount of investment. But blizzard also understands aggro has to exist for the balance of the game. Hell look at token druid. The deck runs no legendaries at all and it’s a solid tier 2 deck.
uh, what right wing theories? The only conspiracies here have a decided anti-corporate bent, not usually what you associate with the right.
Or do you just associate everything you don't like with the right?
I agree with you in general, just curious about that comment.
Two posts up:
"I guess CCG's grew up with Generation Z. They learn that it is perfectly normal to be unfair, imbalanced, partizan in card design and serve a target audience in other words to be repulsive as a normal state. I didn't grow up in that time frame"
He's literally giving the old "waaah people are discriminating against conservatives" speech with a little bit of smog over it
The Blizzard ecosystem has become pretty right leaning recently, with people praising Trump in tradechat in WoW, using racist dogwhistles against Horde, etc.
And the right has been real anti corporate lately against anyone they see as either "woke" or in with China, both of which Blizzard falls into lately
uh, what right wing theories? The only conspiracies here have a decided anti-corporate bent, not usually what you associate with the right.
Or do you just associate everything you don't like with the right?
I agree with you in general, just curious about that comment.
Two posts up:
"I guess CCG's grew up with Generation Z. They learn that it is perfectly normal to be unfair, imbalanced, partizan in card design and serve a target audience in other words to be repulsive as a normal state. I didn't grow up in that time frame"
He's literally giving the old "waaah people are discriminating against conservatives" speech with a little bit of smog over it
The Blizzard ecosystem has become pretty right leaning recently, with people praising Trump in tradechat in WoW, using racist dogwhistles against Horde, etc.
And the right has been real anti corporate lately against anyone they see as either "woke" or in with China, both of which Blizzard falls into lately
For the love of god can we keep politics out of every damn thing. The left is retarded, the right is retarded. The sooner people understand that the sooner we can move on with our lives.
uh, what right wing theories? The only conspiracies here have a decided anti-corporate bent, not usually what you associate with the right.
Or do you just associate everything you don't like with the right?
I agree with you in general, just curious about that comment.
Two posts up:
"I guess CCG's grew up with Generation Z. They learn that it is perfectly normal to be unfair, imbalanced, partizan in card design and serve a target audience in other words to be repulsive as a normal state. I didn't grow up in that time frame"
He's literally giving the old "waaah people are discriminating against conservatives" speech with a little bit of smog over it
The Blizzard ecosystem has become pretty right leaning recently, with people praising Trump in tradechat in WoW, using racist dogwhistles against Horde, etc.
And the right has been real anti corporate lately against anyone they see as either "woke" or in with China, both of which Blizzard falls into lately
For the love of god can we keep politics out of every damn thing. The left is ********, the right is ********. The sooner people understand that the sooner we can move on with our lives.
I mean. Every person who says that turns out to be libertarian who are worse than either so...
uh, what right wing theories? The only conspiracies here have a decided anti-corporate bent, not usually what you associate with the right.
Or do you just associate everything you don't like with the right?
I agree with you in general, just curious about that comment.
Two posts up:
"I guess CCG's grew up with Generation Z. They learn that it is perfectly normal to be unfair, imbalanced, partizan in card design and serve a target audience in other words to be repulsive as a normal state. I didn't grow up in that time frame"
He's literally giving the old "waaah people are discriminating against conservatives" speech with a little bit of smog over it
The Blizzard ecosystem has become pretty right leaning recently, with people praising Trump in tradechat in WoW, using racist dogwhistles against Horde, etc.
And the right has been real anti corporate lately against anyone they see as either "woke" or in with China, both of which Blizzard falls into lately
For the love of god can we keep politics out of every damn thing. The left is ********, the right is ********. The sooner people understand that the sooner we can move on with our lives.
I mean. Every person who says that turns out to be libertarian who are worse than either so...
I am a libertarian. People only think we’re worse because they think we’re fence sitters. But that’s neither here nor there, your lack of understanding of the ideology isn’t an argument against it. That aside if you want proof that both the left at the right suck look no further than the state of American politics right now.
It's called paradigm. That timeframe where people adhere to a fix set of believes, in CGC that 'It's impossible to perfectly balance any competitive game.' and other psychological truths about 'best decks and strategies' It's written in stone. People within a paradigm tend to suffer from the Myth of the Given.
When a paradigm change overnight believes change and suddenly opinion change. Never argue as if things never change. Monetization by keeping the game aggressive is a choice not a given. Slowing down the game just attracts another paying crowd.
It's hard for Blizzard defenders to think outside the paradigm Blizzard set out for them to believe in. It's hard for flatlanders to think in third dimension. You can call it the Big Lie that the dominance of aggro is inevitable and that 'players will generally lean towards doing whatever it is makes them win the easiest.'
Card design is pure authoritarianism for CGC which is based on the broader notion of decisionism.
I don't understand how making the metagame aggressive serves monetization. Aggro decks are historicslly the cheapest kind, therefore any company that wishes to make the gzme more expensive should steer away from it, shouldn't it?
The current roster of tier 1 decks in Standard are the cheapest i can remember, how is that the product of greedy corporate design?
Numbers numbers . If something is cheap it attracts the masses. You can do the calculation for yourself. Increase price and you'll get less customers. The obvious solution should be to even out the expense of all play styles.
But that 'aggro is historically cheap' is a choice not a given. It's part of the psychology and politics of monetization:
keep the game aggressive means win fast or lose fast. The former is easy and fast gratification. The latter is a quick release of the bad feeling of losing with a fast next win opportunity. It results in an ongoing play frenzy, exactly what Blizzard aims.
Slower decks take more time. If you loose it takes a prolonged gratification effort as the wincon takes more time. It means people tend to put less playtime and effort. Blizzard calculates that means less pack selling.
Therefore in that theorem making and keeping the game aggressive, less creative with a small number of win conditions serves monetization. Look at McDonalds. Fastfood is cheap and attracts the masses. They are all over the world. Slowfood is expensive and by default attainable for a smaller group.
[EDIT]: Therefore the dominance of aggro in virtually all expansions up till now is perfectly explainable with the above.
Numbers numbers . If something is cheap it attracts the masses. You can do the calculation for yourself. Increase price and you'll get less customers. The obvious solution should be to even out the expense of all play styles.
But that 'aggro is historically cheap' is a choice not a given. It's part of the psychology and politics of monetization:
keep the game aggressive means win fast or lose fast. The former is easy and fast gratification. The latter is a quick release of the bad feeling of losing with a fast next win opportunity. It results in an ongoing play frenzy, exactly what Blizzard aims.
Slower decks takes more time. If you loose it takes a prolonged gratification effort as the wincon takes more time. It means people tend to put less playtime and effort. Blizzard calculates that means less pack selling.
Therefore in that theorem making and keeping the game aggressive, less creative with a small number of win conditions serves monetization. Look at McDonalds. Fastfood is cheap and attracts the masses. They are all over the world. Slowfood is expensive and by default attainable for a smaller group.
[EDIT]: Therefore the dominance of aggro in virtually all expansions up till now is perfectly explainable with the above.
You are entirely clueless about the modern monetisation model of games in particular and you are trying to apply logic from other fields that does not fit.
No microtransaction based game bases it's income on the masses. The low budget players are just necessary to keep the game alive for the "whales". The people who will want to spend thousands are the ones creating the majority of income for all games with lootboxes and cosmetics and those players want to see their money have an effect. If the game's developers were actively pursuing the maximisation of income then decks with a high cost would be at least competitive, whereas currently they are bottom feeders.
The game could also have been aggro-oriented without being cheap. Take MtG as an example, a game where high rarity cards are not more complicated, but simply better. An aggressive list can cost as much as the slowest control deck in that game and it has not halted it's success one bit.
It is evident to me that the development team and the marketing team of this game are not as closely connected as you believe. It is also clear to me that the marketing team of this game is not even competent enough to have the level of control that would be required for the schemes that you describe.
Numbers numbers . If something is cheap it attracts the masses. You can do the calculation for yourself. Increase price and you'll get less customers. The obvious solution should be to even out the expense of all play styles.
But that 'aggro is historically cheap' is a choice not a given. It's part of the psychology and politics of monetization:
keep the game aggressive means win fast or lose fast. The former is easy and fast gratification. The latter is a quick release of the bad feeling of losing with a fast next win opportunity. It results in an ongoing play frenzy, exactly what Blizzard aims.
Slower decks takes more time. If you loose it takes a prolonged gratification effort as the wincon takes more time. It means people tend to put less playtime and effort. Blizzard calculates that means less pack selling.
Therefore in that theorem making and keeping the game aggressive, less creative with a small number of win conditions serves monetization. Look at McDonalds. Fastfood is cheap and attracts the masses. They are all over the world. Slowfood is expensive and by default attainable for a smaller group.
[EDIT]: Therefore the dominance of aggro in virtually all expansions up till now is perfectly explainable with the above.
You are entirely clueless about the modern monetisation model of games in particular and you are trying to apply logic from other fields that does not fit.
No microtransaction based game bases it's income on the masses. The low budget players are just necessary to keep the game alive for the "whales". The people who will want to spend thousands are the ones creating the majority of income for all games with lootboxes and cosmetics and those players want to see their money have an effect. If the game's developers were actively pursuing the maximisation of income then decks with a high cost would be at least competitive, whereas currently they are bottom feeders.
The game could also have been aggro-oriented without being cheap. Take MtG as an example, a game where high rarity cards are not more complicated, but simply better. An aggressive list can cost as much as the slowest control deck in that game and it has not halted it's success one bit.
It is evident to me that the development team and the marketing team of this game are not as closely connected as you believe. It is also clear to me that the marketing team of this game is not even competent enough to have the level of control that would be required for the schemes that you describe.
"If the game's developers were actively pursuing the maximisation of income then decks with a high cost would be at least competitive..."
There's where you are wrong. But I'm not going to argue with you as you don't read my post carefully, take a step back and try to think for yourself ...for a change. The rest of your post is pure speculation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
ah, I missed that post Sin, sorry about that. I see what you mean.
Since when is politics discussion not allowed? You've let people spew hateful shit at me for pages based on their guesses at my personal politics and not a word was said.
Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% behind the policy. Just wondering why it's applied so selectively.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Cut out the politics discussion. That is not something we allow.
Hello xskarma
I'll stop, but just to be clear, there is nothing in the forum rules banning political discussion.
They list:
Gold-selling/Account selling or trading websites
Keyloggers, hoaxes/phishing websites
Activities considered illegal by Blizzard Entertainment (botting, hacking, cheating, exploiting,...)
Religious opinions/debates
Hateful language about race, religion, country (Example: US vs. EU threads), political beliefs, etc.
Pornography
Content that is considered illegal by law
Referral links for contests, promotions, or anything else
The only thing that the rules ban is hateful language about political beliefs, and I don't believe we've used any of that here. If there is meant to be a blanket ban on political discussions, you should probably add that to the rules.
Hateful language about race and religion has passed without comment or removal repeatedly, so, in the immortal words of Captain Barbossa,
"they're more like guidelines"
And I'm sure somewhere in there is a catch all "whatever the hell the mods object to today"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
It's called paradigm. That timeframe where people adhere to a fix set of believes, in CGC that 'It's impossible to perfectly balance any competitive game.' and other psychological truths about 'best decks and strategies' It's written in stone. People within a paradigm tend to suffer from the Myth of the Given.
When a paradigm change overnight believes change and suddenly opinion change. Never argue as if things never change. Monetization by keeping the game aggressive is a choice not a given. Slowing down the game just attracts another paying crowd.
It's hard for Blizzard defenders to think outside the paradigm Blizzard set out for them to believe in. It's hard for flatlanders to think in third dimension. You can call it the Big Lie that the dominance of aggro is inevitable and that 'players will generally lean towards doing whatever it is makes them win the easiest.'
Card design is pure authoritarianism for CGC which is based on the broader notion of decisionism.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
I agree that some people appear to believe that the patterns they observe are the whole of possible experiences. "Tickatus ruined my game, and does so often, so Tickatus must ruin every game" sort of mind set. That's a thing, I get that.
But the Myth of the Given has nothing to do with opposing empirical evidence and statistics showing that every competitive game, from card games to fighting games to competitive First-Person Shooters, has strategies, tools, characters, weapons, and cards that are factually worse than others. In most fighting games (this is probably hyperbole but whatever) only like 30% of a character roster is competitively viable. In competitive FPS environments, even though every gun is capable of being strong in some players hands, the ones that are the easiest to use with the most success are the ones that get used most often. If Akimbo 1887's that 1-shot people across the map is the best strategy, those with access to it are factually more likely to do so in a competitive environment. Like now, Paladin in Standard and Mage in Wild are both everywhere, positing a large percentage of play over other classes in those formats because people know they're most likely to win with them.
I'm not defending Blizzard, I'm defending hard and fast - known - concepts in game design. Dominant Strategy is a real thing, not simply a paradigm that only exists because people believe it does. I've known about it for long before I played a Blizzard game, it's not some wacky concept that Blizzard constantly talks about to diffuse conversation around balance.
The dominance of aggro is not "inevitable", and I'm not sure anybody even said that. I said a reason aggro is heavily played is because it's the most accessible type of deck, most commons and rares can make an aggro deck function, without needing tons of high value legendaries like some control decks might. There's also time constraints, budgetary restraints, and many other factors that lead people to play aggro aside from sheer preference. But unless you can prove otherwise, it's not a lie that people will favor what helps them win easiest when they have access to it.
And that last comment is so asinine I won't even attempt to argue it. That's Shapiro levels of "that was so dumb I'll look like an idiot responding to it".
please don't bully my son
Image a soccer game where only one side has an extra player and fouls are free to commit. They can do what ever the want. What would you say as supporter of the other side? I guess at least unfair.
That's exactly how it goes down in Hearthstone. Oppressive cards printed at will, the so called 'balance changes' a mockery.
I guess CCG's grew up with Generation Z. They learn that it is perfectly normal to be unfair, imbalanced, partizan in card design and serve a target audience in other words to be repulsive as a normal state. I didn't grow up in that time frame.
BTW you say you don't defend Blizzard. Your comments show otherwise. What did I call it again? Paradigm!
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
I don't understand how making the metagame aggressive serves monetization. Aggro decks are historicslly the cheapest kind, therefore any company that wishes to make the gzme more expensive should steer away from it, shouldn't it?
The current roster of tier 1 decks in Standard are the cheapest i can remember, how is that the product of greedy corporate design?
It doesn't, he just has an agenda to serve.
The single greatest meta in terms of monetization was the vanilla situation where a huge amount of the power in the set was concentrated in the legendaries. There was a reason one of the most popular decks was called Wallet Warrior.
Since then, there has been no trend one way or the other, despite what certain posters would have you believe. Sometimes the meta concentrates towards more expensive decks with higher percentages of the cards being legendary and epic, sometimes not. As an easy example of the "not" times, there was a solid 4 months where the most powerful deck was Spell Hunter, a deck that used 2 legendaries at most and often times just one (Rexxar and/or Zul'jin).
The Midrange Shaman deck that gave everyone fits wasn't very expensive and I'd have to look at a list, but Pirate Warrior doesn't seem to have been that expensive either. Then there are times like Shudderwock's day where not only are certain decks expensive, but they used niche legendaries that weren't otherwise useful at all (e.g. Grumble).
It's gone back and forth. Right now is one of the cheaper metas if only because the Core set just debuted, and obviously I'm speaking of standard only, but who knows next set?
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
By your logic, losing isn't fun, so that makes losing bad for the game. Does that mean we should nerf losing or just remove losing from the game altogether? When you lose you just get a big shower of confetti and a nice "congratulations" and you still get the same amount of xp and you get to go up the ladder.
The people in this thread seem like a bunch of whiners for the most part who for some reason are pushing stupid right wing BS theories about a card game.
You're just bad at the game. Some cards do need adjustment, but the fact that you aren't willing to change your strategy and adapt is the exact same problem you have in the rest of your life - the idea that everything has to be exactly the way YOU want it and that everyone else should change for you.
Chill out and learn to separate fantasy from reality.
uh, what right wing theories? The only conspiracies here have a decided anti-corporate bent, not usually what you associate with the right.
Or do you just associate everything you don't like with the right?
I agree with you in general, just curious about that comment.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Yeah the corporate conspiracy theories about blizzard’s card design never make any sense. Aggro endures largely because it’s cheap, accessible, and fast. From a monetary standpoint aggro is bad for blizzard because people achieve the maximum benefit for the least amount of investment. But blizzard also understands aggro has to exist for the balance of the game. Hell look at token druid. The deck runs no legendaries at all and it’s a solid tier 2 deck.
Two posts up:
"I guess CCG's grew up with Generation Z. They learn that it is perfectly normal to be unfair, imbalanced, partizan in card design and serve a target audience in other words to be repulsive as a normal state. I didn't grow up in that time frame"
He's literally giving the old "waaah people are discriminating against conservatives" speech with a little bit of smog over it
The Blizzard ecosystem has become pretty right leaning recently, with people praising Trump in tradechat in WoW, using racist dogwhistles against Horde, etc.
And the right has been real anti corporate lately against anyone they see as either "woke" or in with China, both of which Blizzard falls into lately
For the love of god can we keep politics out of every damn thing. The left is retarded, the right is retarded. The sooner people understand that the sooner we can move on with our lives.
I mean. Every person who says that turns out to be libertarian who are worse than either so...
I am a libertarian. People only think we’re worse because they think we’re fence sitters. But that’s neither here nor there, your lack of understanding of the ideology isn’t an argument against it. That aside if you want proof that both the left at the right suck look no further than the state of American politics right now.
Numbers numbers . If something is cheap it attracts the masses. You can do the calculation for yourself. Increase price and you'll get less customers. The obvious solution should be to even out the expense of all play styles.
But that 'aggro is historically cheap' is a choice not a given. It's part of the psychology and politics of monetization:
Therefore in that theorem making and keeping the game aggressive, less creative with a small number of win conditions serves monetization. Look at McDonalds. Fastfood is cheap and attracts the masses. They are all over the world. Slowfood is expensive and by default attainable for a smaller group.
[EDIT]: Therefore the dominance of aggro in virtually all expansions up till now is perfectly explainable with the above.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Cut out the politics discussion. That is not something we allow.
If you see a bad post on the forum use the report function under it, so I or someone else of the moderation team can take care of it!
You are entirely clueless about the modern monetisation model of games in particular and you are trying to apply logic from other fields that does not fit.
No microtransaction based game bases it's income on the masses. The low budget players are just necessary to keep the game alive for the "whales". The people who will want to spend thousands are the ones creating the majority of income for all games with lootboxes and cosmetics and those players want to see their money have an effect. If the game's developers were actively pursuing the maximisation of income then decks with a high cost would be at least competitive, whereas currently they are bottom feeders.
The game could also have been aggro-oriented without being cheap. Take MtG as an example, a game where high rarity cards are not more complicated, but simply better. An aggressive list can cost as much as the slowest control deck in that game and it has not halted it's success one bit.
It is evident to me that the development team and the marketing team of this game are not as closely connected as you believe. It is also clear to me that the marketing team of this game is not even competent enough to have the level of control that would be required for the schemes that you describe.
"If the game's developers were actively pursuing the maximisation of income then decks with a high cost would be at least competitive..."
There's where you are wrong. But I'm not going to argue with you as you don't read my post carefully, take a step back and try to think for yourself ...for a change. The rest of your post is pure speculation.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
ah, I missed that post Sin, sorry about that. I see what you mean.
Since when is politics discussion not allowed? You've let people spew hateful shit at me for pages based on their guesses at my personal politics and not a word was said.
Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% behind the policy. Just wondering why it's applied so selectively.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Hello xskarma
I'll stop, but just to be clear, there is nothing in the forum rules banning political discussion.
They list:
The only thing that the rules ban is hateful language about political beliefs, and I don't believe we've used any of that here. If there is meant to be a blanket ban on political discussions, you should probably add that to the rules.
Hateful language about race and religion has passed without comment or removal repeatedly, so, in the immortal words of Captain Barbossa,
"they're more like guidelines"
And I'm sure somewhere in there is a catch all "whatever the hell the mods object to today"
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
And when you called me a racist I didn't report it since I know who is saying it. Not to be taken seriously and full of sh*t.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.