On a casual level, yes, f2p players have the possibility of reaching legend. But if they want to go competitive? Not really. Classes rotate in power levels, so just having a few classes you collect for means there will be seasons in which you cannot compete in open cups. You also cannot experiment with all top meta decks to understand how to play them, or play against them. On top of that, you need a subscription to hsreplay premium to understand the meta, winrates and mulligans. So yeah, don't tell me that having to sink endless hours in arena runs just so you can play standard without getting mopped is right. Also, saying that all card games are expensive and "you know what you get yourself into" is a poor argument, it does not make it right to pay the value of 2 triple a games every 4 months to keep up with the meta. There are other games that do not punish you for not paying. And yes, every voice counts, be it from a f2p player or the fattest whale in the ocean. By using their service and contributing to the player pool, everyone has the right to criticize it. Don't tell people they cannot complain just because you spent more than them.
Why should they be able to go competitive, with a wide range of decks across all classes? What's the point of the business in that case? Do you work? If so, what job do you do?
You don't need to spend the amount of 2 triple aaa games, man stop lying, it doesn't make your point seem more sound, it's transparent as fuck and just makes everything you say lack credibility. I have only ever ordered the small pre order bundle, one time I ordered the higher priced one. I don't do it every single expansion either. I have over 30k dust, a very wide collection and for the last year/year and a half have been able to play every deck I've wanted to. Included multiple decks where I've created a legendary or two, played the deck a handful of times and then just stopped. Not a chance I spend anything close to 6 aaa games in a year. Some people will be utter morons and spunk gold into stupid shit or have no real idea how to manage resources.
I'll end it there, pretty much everything you've said is either a lie, hyperbole or just naive.
On a casual level, yes, f2p players have the possibility of reaching legend. But if they want to go competitive? Not really. Classes rotate in power levels, so just having a few classes you collect for means there will be seasons in which you cannot compete in open cups. You also cannot experiment with all top meta decks to understand how to play them, or play against them. On top of that, you need a subscription to hsreplay premium to understand the meta, winrates and mulligans. So yeah, don't tell me that having to sink endless hours in arena runs just so you can play standard without getting mopped is right. Also, saying that all card games are expensive and "you know what you get yourself into" is a poor argument, it does not make it right to pay the value of 2 triple a games every 4 months to keep up with the meta. There are other games that do not punish you for not paying. And yes, every voice counts, be it from a f2p player or the fattest whale in the ocean. By using their service and contributing to the player pool, everyone has the right to criticize it. Don't tell people they cannot complain just because you spent more than them.
You don't need to spend the amount of 2 triple aaa games, man stop lying, it doesn't make your point seem more sound, it's transparent as fuck and just makes everything you say lack credibility.
Honestly I've never seen another (non political) forum that comes close to HearthPwn for this, it's actually pretty intriguing.
In most cases when someone lies, or tries to misguide people, they do so in an obfuscating way. On HearthPwn however, posters, on a regular basis, just flat out make absurd, objectively false, and easily debunked statements. Then despite other posters showing them clear and verifiable evidence that what they are saying is 100% fabricated, they just ignore it and repeat what they were saying anyway.
On a casual level, yes, f2p players have the possibility of reaching legend. But if they want to go competitive? Not really. Classes rotate in power levels, so just having a few classes you collect for means there will be seasons in which you cannot compete in open cups. You also cannot experiment with all top meta decks to understand how to play them, or play against them. On top of that, you need a subscription to hsreplay premium to understand the meta, winrates and mulligans. So yeah, don't tell me that having to sink endless hours in arena runs just so you can play standard without getting mopped is right. Also, saying that all card games are expensive and "you know what you get yourself into" is a poor argument, it does not make it right to pay the value of 2 triple a games every 4 months to keep up with the meta. There are other games that do not punish you for not paying. And yes, every voice counts, be it from a f2p player or the fattest whale in the ocean. By using their service and contributing to the player pool, everyone has the right to criticize it. Don't tell people they cannot complain just because you spent more than them.
You don't need to spend the amount of 2 triple aaa games, man stop lying, it doesn't make your point seem more sound, it's transparent as fuck and just makes everything you say lack credibility.
Honestly I've never seen another (non political) forum that comes close to HearthPwn for this, it's actually pretty intriguing.
In most cases when someone lies, or tries to misguide people, they do so in an obfuscating way. On HearthPwn however, posters, on a regular basis, just flat out make absurd, objectively false, and easily debunked statements. Then despite other posters showing them clear and verifiable evidence that what they are saying is 100% fabricated, they just ignore it and repeat what they were saying anyway.
Yeah I honestly visit this site less and less, it's still a great place for news, so I'll check in to it for that but the standard of the forum and community is so, so poor. There are some good posters and along with the news it's the only reason I come back but I don't really browse or look to engage too much. For the reasons you listed, it's just pointless, even when people take the time to respond and break things down they just ignore it and carry on peddling the same bullshit.
Never known such a negative, conspiracy centric, mindless community. Its a shame for the 25% who are decent posters or people who will have an actual conversation. I'd stick to out of cards permanently because that seems better but the website format and design isn't all that great, sadly. It does seem a decent amount of the good users migrated over there though.
I just love how passionately some users here defend two points:
1. F2P players are not very important for the game.
2. The game is expensive and it is fine as it is.
Remember that the game must absolutely be fun for F2P players to have any amount of success. Everyone starts as F2P, and needs to be convinced that the game is worth paying for before they do so. They have the right to be unhappy about certain things and they have the right to voice it. What is reasonable request is up to debate, but the thread started with a guy asking for a lowered pity timer to 30 packs which seems very reasonable. They didn't even ask for a lowered average of open legendaries.
I will skip over all the personal attacks, because they are fallacies (read ad hominem to understand why) and they don't contribute to the arguments you are making, they are even making your position worse. Then there is another user who said two things: 1. why should f2p players deserve to be able to get competitive and 2. you don't need to spend the equivalent of two triple A games per expansion.
I will answer both again with arguments (maybe you can do the same this time around). To be at the top of competitive (playing official tournaments), you really do need to have a full collection on day one of a first expansion, and if you have 12k gold from a rewards track, that means 120 packs. That, for some people, can mean 3-5 legendaries, but on average it will be 6. The game gives you one or two for free, but you still need a wild 18 legendaries toi complete your collection. They are not all playable, but what if you happen to open the bad ones? Usually with a preorder you can save this problem and craft the rest with dust, then you want the pass for the rewards track because it is the most valuable expenditure of money you can do in the game. And again, HSReplay is very useful, unless you will just copy the lineup of yesterday's winner.
So yeah, the top of competitive needs to pay to stay on top. Here you can argue that that is fair, and you should pay to get to the top, but that is just proof that the game is not f2p at all, and there are many other examples of games in which only cosmetics need to be paid for, and the rest of the playing field is very level. Hearthstone has been focusing on cosmetics a lot recently, so why can't the players open more legendaries, or have a less frustrating pity timer at the very least?
I am not interested in politics or how politicians argue (I find the comparisons funny), but I think it's very reasonable to defend f2p players, if Blizzard does not please them, they will never spend a dime. And how you can defend Blizzard's greed (packs getting more expensive, 3 expansions and 3 minisets per year thus more cards to collect, more cosmetics but not making it easier to get the in-game stuff) is beyond me.
FWIW - a couple months ago, when Barrens launched, TrumpSC started a new F2P account, hitting Legend by the end of the month. He ended up playing one of the most expensive decks on ladder (Control Warlock.) By the end of the month, the deck had seven Legendaries and four Epics. Seven years ago, his first F2P deck ran a single Epic, and no Legendaries.
It seems fair to say that things have improved considerably for F2Ps.
F2P players are important for the game. The problem is that it just looks completely ridiculous when F2P players claim that things aren't fair, despite the fact that they have no intention of ever putting money into the game. It's just a mad view point to have.
This isn't to say a F2P player cannot have an opinion on how the monetisation of the game is, just putting it forward in a manner which suggests they are being hard done by is completely laughable. And that's what you see all the time on this forum, the Blizzard forums, and probably Reddit too.
Putting forward arguments in a reasonable manner is vital for getting any point across, and is the difference between someone looking silly or looking correct, even if they are essentially saying the same thing. Exaggerating and fabricating points to strengthen you position doesn't help.
I will answer both again with arguments (maybe you can do the same this time around). To be at the top of competitive (playing official tournaments), you really do need to have a full collection on day one of a first expansion, and if you have 12k gold from a rewards track, that means 120 packs. That, for some people, can mean 3-5 legendaries, but on average it will be 6. The game gives you one or two for free, but you still need a wild 18 legendaries toi complete your collection. They are not all playable, but what if you happen to open the bad ones? Usually with a preorder you can save this problem and craft the rest with dust, then you want the pass for the rewards track because it is the most valuable expenditure of money you can do in the game.
This is an exaggeration at best and a lie at worst, claim ad hominem all you want.
Anyone playing the game consistently will earn enough to be able to craft any meta deck at any point. If they are short then they can dust Wild sets.
A player starting the game literally today will have to put some time in before they get to that point, where playing the game pays for itself. But so what? What do they expect?
So yeah, the top of competitive needs to pay to stay on top. Here you can argue that that is fair, and you should pay to get to the top, but that is just proof that the game is not f2p at all, and there are many other examples of games in which only cosmetics need to be paid for, and the rest of the playing field is very level. Hearthstone has been focusing on cosmetics a lot recently, so why can't the players open more legendaries, or have a less frustrating pity timer at the very least?
How does any of this prove that 'Hearthstone is not F2P at all'? At best you have made a good claim that playing Hearthstone at the very, very highest level is not F2P as a HSReplay account is very beneficial. However that has nothing to do with Blizzard, and also isn't necessary as there are other ways to get relevant live info on the meta (one of which is to just ask someone who has an account).
You can also claim that somebody starting the game today will have a bit of a grind to play the game at the highest level. But again, this can be mitigated with tactics such as creating multiple accounts and focusing on only a few classes for each account. Or getting good at and playing Arena/Duels.
I am not interested in politics or how politicians argue (I find the comparisons funny), but I think it's very reasonable to defend f2p players, if Blizzard does not please them, they will never spend a dime. And how you can defend Blizzard's greed (packs getting more expensive, 3 expansions and 3 minisets per year thus more cards to collect, more cosmetics but not making it easier to get the in-game stuff) is beyond me.
I find the game vastly overpriced. I don't think I've ever defended Blizzards pricing model beyond me expecting them to what is best for their wallets. I actually find the price of packs to be pretty disgusting.
Remember that the game must absolutely be fun for F2P players to have any amount of success. Everyone starts as F2P, and needs to be convinced that the game is worth paying for before they do so. They have the right to be unhappy about certain things and they have the right to voice it. What is reasonable request is up to debate, but the thread started with a guy asking for a lowered pity timer to 30 packs which seems very reasonable. They didn't even ask for a lowered average of open legendaries.
I will skip over all the personal attacks, because they are fallacies (read ad hominem to understand why) and they don't contribute to the arguments you are making, they are even making your position worse. Then there is another user who said two things: 1. why should f2p players deserve to be able to get competitive and 2. you don't need to spend the equivalent of two triple A games per expansion.
I will answer both again with arguments (maybe you can do the same this time around). To be at the top of competitive (playing official tournaments), you really do need to have a full collection on day one of a first expansion, and if you have 12k gold from a rewards track, that means 120 packs. That, for some people, can mean 3-5 legendaries, but on average it will be 6. The game gives you one or two for free, but you still need a wild 18 legendaries toi complete your collection. They are not all playable, but what if you happen to open the bad ones? Usually with a preorder you can save this problem and craft the rest with dust, then you want the pass for the rewards track because it is the most valuable expenditure of money you can do in the game. And again, HSReplay is very useful, unless you will just copy the lineup of yesterday's winner.
So yeah, the top of competitive needs to pay to stay on top. Here you can argue that that is fair, and you should pay to get to the top, but that is just proof that the game is not f2p at all, and there are many other examples of games in which only cosmetics need to be paid for, and the rest of the playing field is very level. Hearthstone has been focusing on cosmetics a lot recently, so why can't the players open more legendaries, or have a less frustrating pity timer at the very least?
I am not interested in politics or how politicians argue (I find the comparisons funny), but I think it's very reasonable to defend f2p players, if Blizzard does not please them, they will never spend a dime. And how you can defend Blizzard's greed (packs getting more expensive, 3 expansions and 3 minisets per year thus more cards to collect, more cosmetics but not making it easier to get the in-game stuff) is beyond me.
I am not going to defend either group of players here but I would like to point out a few things:
1. It's honestly good to see that someone still believes that the main driver for buying into a game in 2021 is fun, but the reality looks a lot worse. In fact, most people who spend money on a game like Hearthstone do it because of addiction and fear of missing out. This is an increasing trend in the entire gaming industry and you can easily see this literally in every category of game at the moment. Fun would be great, but the strategy behind freemium games is to tell people that the fun only begins after they spend money and to offer them just enough resources so that they can get used to the game (notice the difference between getting used to it or having fun playing it). The player then decides whether they want to invest more money or time or nothing and quit eventually. Hearthstone does that by keeping legendaries/epics behind a certain paywall, which is not very high if you play a lot though.
2. The thread didn't start with someone suggesting anything (that was me, btw). The thread started with someone complaining about their unlucky legendary rate. It's fair and normal to be frustrated about this and of course, everyone is allowed to voice this frustration. I don't understand the "you paid nothing, so you shouldn't complain" players, but it's true that "you paid nothing, so you shouldn't expect 100% collection". There is a pretty big difference between these two, which many paying players don't seem to understand.
3. You don't need to have all legendaries from each expansion and the 120 packs will also give you a considerable amount of dust. You should keep that in mind. So even if you open a bunch of terrible legendaries, you will still be able to craft a considerable amount of good ones. And don't forget the amount of dust you get between expansions that you can use on day 1, as well as the free core set. I am not saying that 120 packs is enough to get everything you need (it probably isn't), but the dust you can acquire between expansions helps a lot. A full collection really isn't important for anyone, you just need to craft the cards you need and didn't open. Some legendaries and epics are obviously not worth a craft and a top competitive player will have at least some ability to predict those.
4. Do f2p players have to be on the top of the competitive scene? In theory, they can play every mode in the game and climb their way to the top ranks. Do you need to play tournaments as f2p? Also, most competitive top players of any game had to spend money on their career. I don't really see the problem here. On a sidenote, nobody needs a golden collection.
5. Is the rewards track the most efficient way to spend your money on the game? I really don't know and am at least doubtful.
6. There are enough free resources on the Internet to learn everything you need to know about the meta (in theory). And nothing beats experience anyway.
7. The fact that top players have to pay to stay on top is not proof that the game is not f2p. It's called free to play, not free to win the world championships. And on another sidenote, the term "f2p" is kind of awkward in itself because a) freemium is a much more realistic term and b) f2p as a term is often perceived as "you can play, win, get world champion, gain everything within the game, etc. for free" when the actual meaning is "you can play this game without paying a cost upfront". Freemium, on the other hand, implies that the game can be played for free, but isn't really free.
8. I wouldn't defend whiny f2p players (most of them aren't crying all the time, btw, or the forums would be A LOT fuller with complaints) and I wouldn't defend Blizzard's greed either. I just try to make some sense of both and my interpretation of Blizzard's recent behaviour is that they were scared that the Rewards Track would provide players with too many resources because they would farm/play more (this system is a lot more addictive than the original one). For me, this is actually true because I did quite a lot of farming when I was on my PC and had to do other stuff.
9. In your first comment, you say that there are games that don't punish you for not playing. That is definitely not true for freemium games. If you don't invest time or money, you will eventually fall behind. It happens faster for some freemium games and slower for others, but it happens.
10. As I already mentioned before, players who disrespect non-paying players or call their existence meaningless for the game are just ignorant. They should either learn a little more about psychology, games, and current trends in gaming design and monetisation models, or stop posting mindless, unhealthy, and unhelpful stuff. Complaining about people complaining is also complaining, by the way. No reason to look down on others.
My issue with f2p players isn't that they aren't important or shouldn't have a voice but it's the manner they do it.
A f2p player absolutely should be able to put forward ideas, be unhappy with a nerf etc but it's when they make demands or act entitled about a product they not only don't contribute to but openly say they never will do. It's the ones who take pride in that they will never pay a penny and the lack of gratitude that a game such as this. The free to play model wasn't always around and it stuns me that people can be so venomous and personally insulting to the development team. It tends to be free players who seem to complain about greed the most, which is just ironic to me because you're complaining you aren't getting enough free shit. Businesses have to make money, it's the people who can't get on board with it and treat a business like a charity, it's dumb.
F2Players are important, and the game has improved for F2Players a lot in recent changes. But...
The game is too expensive to keep up with competitively (for me), even when I was buying preorder bundles, I still never got all all the cards in a set, so I stopped buying bundles. This forces me to play sub optimal decks or just ignore some classes altogether so I can dust cards to craft things for one class. I'm fine with this.
In the end, perfect deck or not, I'll get win streaks and loss streaks, sometimes getting to legend, sometimes not. I feel like I'm probably still somewhere above average. Maybe?
Opinion: the game should be cheaper, for a digital product that has no value outside of your own entertainment, it's too expensive, but I've accepted it for what it is and enjoy it at my pace, and it's fine.
F2Players are important, and the game has improved for F2Players a lot in recent changes. But...
The game is too expensive to keep up with competitively (for me), even when I was buying preorder bundles, I still never got all all the cards in a set, so I stopped buying bundles. This forces me to play sub optimal decks or just ignore some classes altogether so I can dust cards to craft things for one class. I'm fine with this.
In the end, perfect deck or not, I'll get win streaks and loss streaks, sometimes getting to legend, sometimes not. I feel like I'm probably still somewhere above average. Maybe?
Opinion: the game should be cheaper, for a digital product that has no value outside of your own entertainment, it's too expensive, but I've accepted it for what it is and enjoy it at my pace, and it's fine.
This seems perfectly reasonable and I think they agree, at least to a degree. The game has gotten cheaper, I have a free account and whilst I don't have the access to cards that I do on my main, it's so much easier these days to have at least one or two good decks. Between freebies, tavern brawl packs, the reward tracks etc, you get an OK amount of cards for nothing. When you then add in things like new/returning player decks, if you jump back in now after a couple of years out, I would imagine you'll notice quite a shift in how much you can realistically access. I think they will continue to build on that and I suspect that they are feeling out how much response comes from cosmetic purchases and I don't see why it won't have a knock on effect, it already has done.
I don't buy the 'greedy' thing. Its really strange to me. A company makes a product and prices it at what they feel it is worth, their goal is to make money. I'm sure Ferrari could charge a lot less for their cars than they do, but they have a set target audience and objectives in terms of profit etc that they want to make. I don't know a company that doesn't value profit, even if its a very people focused business, it needs to profit to stay afloat, pay its staff, continue making its products etc.
The 'greed' thing just seems like a very childish accusation to make and to me it is similar to when a 7 year old wants things and has zero appreciation for the fact that their parents just can't buy it or have to prioritise other things. So the child has a strop because their naivety and ignorance means they can't understand it. I see nothing greedy about this game, I see a team that has made efforts to make it cheaper and more accessible. Promoting packs and bundles isn't greed, without that they will go under and there will be no game to complain about. If that happens with enough places then your options are narrowed further and further. There are a ton of games you can realistically play without spending money on. Sure it will be slower from a progression stand point but if that surprises someone then that's on that person for being greedy themselves. There are games I play and don't pay into but I don't go on twitter and abuse the dev team because I'm not getting enough stuff. I appreciate the very fact that I can play and not pay. I grew up in the 90s and that sort of thing was just inconceivable. You paid 40 quid for sonic the hedgehog and couldn't even save your run.
I just love how passionately some users here defend two points:
1. F2P players are not very important for the game.
2. The game is expensive and it is fine as it is.
That is a gross misstatement of both points.
1. The truth is that permanent f2p players -- who never intend to spend any money, no matter what -- are not important for the game. There is literally no reason for Blizzard to care what they think if there's nothing Blizzard can do to squeeze money out of them. On the other hand, new f2p players who can be converted into paying customers are very important. But the way to do that is -- as I said in my earlier post -- to make the game **almost** fun for f2p, and actually fun as soon as you buy some packs.
2. I have never seen anyone argue that the current cost of the game is acceptable. It is acceptable that the game is more fun when you pay, but I think most everyone agrees that the traditional pricing model is way too expensive. There has been a small amount of progress on this front, with the way mini-sets work, the rewards track, the duplicates rule, etc -- incremental improvements, to be sure, but improvements nonetheless.
I personally think the whole concept of random packs needs to be thrown out the window, but for some reason some people still get some kind of weird rush by opening packs and get upset when it's suggested that randomized packs are bad. A fair number of those people are f2p players, who are harmed the most by random packs! That, i will never understand, except when I remind myself that a lot of people are bad with numbers and money.
I do think the current cost of the game is acceptable, actually. I spend roughly $75/ year on this game (I buy the $50 bundle about every other expansion), which works out to about $0.21/ day. I enjoy the game, so play pretty much every day, usually in the evenings. So I get an hour or two of fun for less than a quarter.
By playing consistently and being smart about what cards I craft, I'm sitting on about 25k dust. And, keep in mind, I'm a long-time player, so much of that dust was accumulated during a time when it was much harder to come by. With the implementation of duplicate protection and other perks, newer players should be able to accumulate dust more quickly than I did.
The pricing on the game is fair: either spend money or spend time. If you're not willing to do either, you don't deserve a huge collection. The more you pay or play, the more dust/ cards/ deck options you get. But if people have gotten it in their heads that they should be able to play any deck they want whenever they want to for free, well they're (to put it kindly) delusional.
Waiting to hear the justification as to why they matter
Because it's a product sold by a company with the intention of generating profit (pretty much the norm since commerce was invented) so that means its nothing more than a greedy cash grab
I just love how passionately some users here defend two points:
1. F2P players are not very important for the game.
2. The game is expensive and it is fine as it is.
That is a gross misstatement of both points.
1. The truth is that permanent f2p players -- who never intend to spend any money, no matter what -- are not important for the game. There is literally no reason for Blizzard to care what they think if there's nothing Blizzard can do to squeeze money out of them. On the other hand, new f2p players who can be converted into paying customers are very important. But the way to do that is -- as I said in my earlier post -- to make the game **almost** fun for f2p, and actually fun as soon as you buy some packs.
2. I have never seen anyone argue that the current cost of the game is acceptable. It is acceptable that the game is more fun when you pay, but I think most everyone agrees that the traditional pricing model is way too expensive. There has been a small amount of progress on this front, with the way mini-sets work, the rewards track, the duplicates rule, etc -- incremental improvements, to be sure, but improvements nonetheless.
I personally think the whole concept of random packs needs to be thrown out the window, but for some reason some people still get some kind of weird rush by opening packs and get upset when it's suggested that randomized packs are bad. A fair number of those people are f2p players, who are harmed the most by random packs! That, i will never understand, except when I remind myself that a lot of people are bad with numbers and money.
I honestly think packs can be fun, just because it is a cool moment when you open something you really wanted. But opening 15 or 20 packs of "dust" copies is not so much fun, especially in combination with spending a lot of money or saved up gold. Then you feel like it wasn't worth it and regret your purchase.
But since you mentioned it: What would be a good alternative to random packs? Not saying that packs need to stay in the game, but I wonder what would be a better system, and what we'd actually gain from it. The purpose of packs is essentially to get cards without crafting. And since the pack update, you can reliably open packs up to a point where you have all commons and rares x2, with the small chance to get epics and legendaries you want. Otherwise, Gold is used on packs, packs generate dust, and dust allows you to craft the epics and legendaries you want.
So, we could throw out gold and packs and just farm/purchase dust directly, but then we'd have to discuss what would be fair amounts, and how we could compensate for that odd chance to randomly obtain (golden) legendaries we would like. A lucky pull can be worth 1600 or even 3200 dust. And even if the numbers are fair, I think it's still debatable whether that makes the game more fun.
I personally think packs are still fine if they just feel a bit more rewarding on average, and not worthless half the time. But I don't really have the creativity to think of great ways how packs could be eliminated without losing anything. I think an entirely predictable system of resource acquisition and spending just lacks some excitement. It also pushes you more into safe crafts and playing the game like everyone else does. When you open a weird card with fringe utility you never would have crafted, you might still use it at least once or twice, even if it's just in a Tavern Brawl that comes up once every two years.
f2p is important without these people to slap around how will the people that dump money into this thing feel superior otherwise?
f2p u need to give them an ILLUSION of having a chance when they don't that's the best trick in these games.
LOL anyways i'm f2p LOL and mate i tell you what my lives don't matter i don't pay $$$ so my voice means nothing companies need to cater to the $$$$ that's not shilling that's just pure business sure can be better f2p experience could be improved but i ain't holding my breathe when corporations want the dollar dollar billz
Just wanted to share my F2P experience after its first foray into free-to-play effort.
So after having opened 90 packs, 3000+ gold on day-one of Barrens release in addition to the 59.5 packs purchased/(unlocked via rewards track)--I got 3 legendaries. The first was within the proverbial "first ten packs," the second was around 50-ish, and the third on pack 78 (meaning, I went 67 packs netting a single legendary (give-or-take, since I can't recall which pack within the first ten delivered the first).
I'd say that's pretty lousy, if somebody asked. 3 legendaries inside of nearly 100 packs is pretty deflating...I know the game doesn't depend on them but deck archetypes do so that means some real monotonous game play.
I can't think of another way to give the finger without actually lifting a finger right now--so thanks, Blizzard! Really took the joy out of playing this expansion.
That's all--dismissed!
Hope others aren't as miserly and their luck is far better than mine.
Cheers and happy gaming!
Literally impossible. You are guaranteed a legendary every 40 packs. That means in pack 10-50, you would have gotten at least one legendary.
I paid money, but I opened 80 packs at the start of the xpac. So, I got the two free legs, and the same amount of packs as you.
I am currently at 27/29 Barrens legendaries. I started the xpac with about 2300 gold and am at about 800 now. So that means that, if I had not spent money, and had the same amount of gold saved for packs as you, I would currently be at 24/29 Barrens legendaries. I'm subtracting the two I got from the preorder, and the one I got since I saved 2000 gold by buying the mini set.
I'd say getting 80-85% of a set as F2P is a pretty good deal honestly
f2p is important without these people to slap around how will the people that dump money into this thing feel superior otherwise?
f2p u need to give them an ILLUSION of having a chance when they don't that's the best trick in these games.
LOL anyways i'm f2p LOL and mate i tell you what my lives don't matter i don't pay $$$ so my voice means nothing companies need to cater to the $$$$ that's not shilling that's just pure business sure can be better f2p experience could be improved but i ain't holding my breathe when corporations want the dollar dollar billz
Yet on the first page of this thread there is a guy who climbed to legend on the first day of creating a new F2P account.
Again, it’s baffling to me why people keep telling these blatant lies, like “F2P players don’t have a chance” despite there being vast amounts of proof to the contrary.
The reason you ‘don’t have a chance’ is because you are bad at the game. Having a full collection is not going to change that.
The last sentence is just completely mental. Why would companies priorities people who openly will never put money into their games? Blizzard never created Hearthstone as a gift to humanity. It was to make money. Therefore people are encouraged to spend money.
With that said, Hearthstone whales are those who want full collections without putting in the time, not competitive players. Competitive players naturally put time into the game so spending money isn’t necessary.
Just wanted to share my F2P experience after its first foray into free-to-play effort.
So after having opened 90 packs, 3000+ gold on day-one of Barrens release in addition to the 59.5 packs purchased/(unlocked via rewards track)--I got 3 legendaries. The first was within the proverbial "first ten packs," the second was around 50-ish, and the third on pack 78 (meaning, I went 67 packs netting a single legendary (give-or-take, since I can't recall which pack within the first ten delivered the first).
I'd say that's pretty lousy, if somebody asked. 3 legendaries inside of nearly 100 packs is pretty deflating...I know the game doesn't depend on them but deck archetypes do so that means some real monotonous game play.
I can't think of another way to give the finger without actually lifting a finger right now--so thanks, Blizzard! Really took the joy out of playing this expansion.
That's all--dismissed!
Hope others aren't as miserly and their luck is far better than mine.
Cheers and happy gaming!
Literally impossible. You are guaranteed a legendary every 40 packs. That means in pack 10-50, you would have gotten at least one legendary.
I paid money, but I opened 80 packs at the start of the xpac. So, I got the two free legs, and the same amount of packs as you.
I am currently at 27/29 Barrens legendaries. I started the xpac with about 2300 gold and am at about 800 now. So that means that, if I had not spent money, and had the same amount of gold saved for packs as you, I would currently be at 24/29 Barrens legendaries. I'm subtracting the two I got from the preorder, and the one I got since I saved 2000 gold by buying the mini set.
I'd say getting 80-85% of a set as F2P is a pretty good deal honestly
What he’s saying isn’t impossible he just got unlucky. He opened 90 packs.
1-10 / 1st pack
11-50 / 2nd pack
51-90 / 3rd pack
The OP is more of a salt thread post but it’s not even a F2P issue, pity timers effect everyone. Opening 3 legendaries in 90 packs would feel a lot worse if you’d paid for them.
Why should they be able to go competitive, with a wide range of decks across all classes? What's the point of the business in that case? Do you work? If so, what job do you do?
You don't need to spend the amount of 2 triple aaa games, man stop lying, it doesn't make your point seem more sound, it's transparent as fuck and just makes everything you say lack credibility. I have only ever ordered the small pre order bundle, one time I ordered the higher priced one. I don't do it every single expansion either. I have over 30k dust, a very wide collection and for the last year/year and a half have been able to play every deck I've wanted to. Included multiple decks where I've created a legendary or two, played the deck a handful of times and then just stopped. Not a chance I spend anything close to 6 aaa games in a year. Some people will be utter morons and spunk gold into stupid shit or have no real idea how to manage resources.
I'll end it there, pretty much everything you've said is either a lie, hyperbole or just naive.
Honestly I've never seen another (non political) forum that comes close to HearthPwn for this, it's actually pretty intriguing.
In most cases when someone lies, or tries to misguide people, they do so in an obfuscating way. On HearthPwn however, posters, on a regular basis, just flat out make absurd, objectively false, and easily debunked statements. Then despite other posters showing them clear and verifiable evidence that what they are saying is 100% fabricated, they just ignore it and repeat what they were saying anyway.
Yeah I honestly visit this site less and less, it's still a great place for news, so I'll check in to it for that but the standard of the forum and community is so, so poor. There are some good posters and along with the news it's the only reason I come back but I don't really browse or look to engage too much. For the reasons you listed, it's just pointless, even when people take the time to respond and break things down they just ignore it and carry on peddling the same bullshit.
Never known such a negative, conspiracy centric, mindless community. Its a shame for the 25% who are decent posters or people who will have an actual conversation. I'd stick to out of cards permanently because that seems better but the website format and design isn't all that great, sadly. It does seem a decent amount of the good users migrated over there though.
I just love how passionately some users here defend two points:
1. F2P players are not very important for the game.
2. The game is expensive and it is fine as it is.
Remember that the game must absolutely be fun for F2P players to have any amount of success. Everyone starts as F2P, and needs to be convinced that the game is worth paying for before they do so. They have the right to be unhappy about certain things and they have the right to voice it. What is reasonable request is up to debate, but the thread started with a guy asking for a lowered pity timer to 30 packs which seems very reasonable. They didn't even ask for a lowered average of open legendaries.
I will skip over all the personal attacks, because they are fallacies (read ad hominem to understand why) and they don't contribute to the arguments you are making, they are even making your position worse. Then there is another user who said two things: 1. why should f2p players deserve to be able to get competitive and 2. you don't need to spend the equivalent of two triple A games per expansion.
I will answer both again with arguments (maybe you can do the same this time around). To be at the top of competitive (playing official tournaments), you really do need to have a full collection on day one of a first expansion, and if you have 12k gold from a rewards track, that means 120 packs. That, for some people, can mean 3-5 legendaries, but on average it will be 6. The game gives you one or two for free, but you still need a wild 18 legendaries toi complete your collection. They are not all playable, but what if you happen to open the bad ones? Usually with a preorder you can save this problem and craft the rest with dust, then you want the pass for the rewards track because it is the most valuable expenditure of money you can do in the game. And again, HSReplay is very useful, unless you will just copy the lineup of yesterday's winner.
So yeah, the top of competitive needs to pay to stay on top. Here you can argue that that is fair, and you should pay to get to the top, but that is just proof that the game is not f2p at all, and there are many other examples of games in which only cosmetics need to be paid for, and the rest of the playing field is very level. Hearthstone has been focusing on cosmetics a lot recently, so why can't the players open more legendaries, or have a less frustrating pity timer at the very least?
I am not interested in politics or how politicians argue (I find the comparisons funny), but I think it's very reasonable to defend f2p players, if Blizzard does not please them, they will never spend a dime. And how you can defend Blizzard's greed (packs getting more expensive, 3 expansions and 3 minisets per year thus more cards to collect, more cosmetics but not making it easier to get the in-game stuff) is beyond me.
FWIW - a couple months ago, when Barrens launched, TrumpSC started a new F2P account, hitting Legend by the end of the month. He ended up playing one of the most expensive decks on ladder (Control Warlock.) By the end of the month, the deck had seven Legendaries and four Epics. Seven years ago, his first F2P deck ran a single Epic, and no Legendaries.
It seems fair to say that things have improved considerably for F2Ps.
create multiple accounts and play only a few classes on each, problem solved
F2P players are important for the game. The problem is that it just looks completely ridiculous when F2P players claim that things aren't fair, despite the fact that they have no intention of ever putting money into the game. It's just a mad view point to have.
This isn't to say a F2P player cannot have an opinion on how the monetisation of the game is, just putting it forward in a manner which suggests they are being hard done by is completely laughable. And that's what you see all the time on this forum, the Blizzard forums, and probably Reddit too.
Putting forward arguments in a reasonable manner is vital for getting any point across, and is the difference between someone looking silly or looking correct, even if they are essentially saying the same thing. Exaggerating and fabricating points to strengthen you position doesn't help.
I will answer both again with arguments (maybe you can do the same this time around). To be at the top of competitive (playing official tournaments), you really do need to have a full collection on day one of a first expansion, and if you have 12k gold from a rewards track, that means 120 packs. That, for some people, can mean 3-5 legendaries, but on average it will be 6. The game gives you one or two for free, but you still need a wild 18 legendaries toi complete your collection. They are not all playable, but what if you happen to open the bad ones? Usually with a preorder you can save this problem and craft the rest with dust, then you want the pass for the rewards track because it is the most valuable expenditure of money you can do in the game.
This is an exaggeration at best and a lie at worst, claim ad hominem all you want.
Anyone playing the game consistently will earn enough to be able to craft any meta deck at any point. If they are short then they can dust Wild sets.
A player starting the game literally today will have to put some time in before they get to that point, where playing the game pays for itself. But so what? What do they expect?
So yeah, the top of competitive needs to pay to stay on top. Here you can argue that that is fair, and you should pay to get to the top, but that is just proof that the game is not f2p at all, and there are many other examples of games in which only cosmetics need to be paid for, and the rest of the playing field is very level. Hearthstone has been focusing on cosmetics a lot recently, so why can't the players open more legendaries, or have a less frustrating pity timer at the very least?
How does any of this prove that 'Hearthstone is not F2P at all'? At best you have made a good claim that playing Hearthstone at the very, very highest level is not F2P as a HSReplay account is very beneficial. However that has nothing to do with Blizzard, and also isn't necessary as there are other ways to get relevant live info on the meta (one of which is to just ask someone who has an account).
You can also claim that somebody starting the game today will have a bit of a grind to play the game at the highest level. But again, this can be mitigated with tactics such as creating multiple accounts and focusing on only a few classes for each account. Or getting good at and playing Arena/Duels.
I am not interested in politics or how politicians argue (I find the comparisons funny), but I think it's very reasonable to defend f2p players, if Blizzard does not please them, they will never spend a dime. And how you can defend Blizzard's greed (packs getting more expensive, 3 expansions and 3 minisets per year thus more cards to collect, more cosmetics but not making it easier to get the in-game stuff) is beyond me.
I find the game vastly overpriced. I don't think I've ever defended Blizzards pricing model beyond me expecting them to what is best for their wallets. I actually find the price of packs to be pretty disgusting.
I am not going to defend either group of players here but I would like to point out a few things:
1. It's honestly good to see that someone still believes that the main driver for buying into a game in 2021 is fun, but the reality looks a lot worse. In fact, most people who spend money on a game like Hearthstone do it because of addiction and fear of missing out. This is an increasing trend in the entire gaming industry and you can easily see this literally in every category of game at the moment. Fun would be great, but the strategy behind freemium games is to tell people that the fun only begins after they spend money and to offer them just enough resources so that they can get used to the game (notice the difference between getting used to it or having fun playing it). The player then decides whether they want to invest more money or time or nothing and quit eventually. Hearthstone does that by keeping legendaries/epics behind a certain paywall, which is not very high if you play a lot though.
2. The thread didn't start with someone suggesting anything (that was me, btw). The thread started with someone complaining about their unlucky legendary rate. It's fair and normal to be frustrated about this and of course, everyone is allowed to voice this frustration. I don't understand the "you paid nothing, so you shouldn't complain" players, but it's true that "you paid nothing, so you shouldn't expect 100% collection". There is a pretty big difference between these two, which many paying players don't seem to understand.
3. You don't need to have all legendaries from each expansion and the 120 packs will also give you a considerable amount of dust. You should keep that in mind. So even if you open a bunch of terrible legendaries, you will still be able to craft a considerable amount of good ones. And don't forget the amount of dust you get between expansions that you can use on day 1, as well as the free core set. I am not saying that 120 packs is enough to get everything you need (it probably isn't), but the dust you can acquire between expansions helps a lot. A full collection really isn't important for anyone, you just need to craft the cards you need and didn't open. Some legendaries and epics are obviously not worth a craft and a top competitive player will have at least some ability to predict those.
4. Do f2p players have to be on the top of the competitive scene? In theory, they can play every mode in the game and climb their way to the top ranks. Do you need to play tournaments as f2p? Also, most competitive top players of any game had to spend money on their career. I don't really see the problem here. On a sidenote, nobody needs a golden collection.
5. Is the rewards track the most efficient way to spend your money on the game? I really don't know and am at least doubtful.
6. There are enough free resources on the Internet to learn everything you need to know about the meta (in theory). And nothing beats experience anyway.
7. The fact that top players have to pay to stay on top is not proof that the game is not f2p. It's called free to play, not free to win the world championships. And on another sidenote, the term "f2p" is kind of awkward in itself because a) freemium is a much more realistic term and b) f2p as a term is often perceived as "you can play, win, get world champion, gain everything within the game, etc. for free" when the actual meaning is "you can play this game without paying a cost upfront". Freemium, on the other hand, implies that the game can be played for free, but isn't really free.
8. I wouldn't defend whiny f2p players (most of them aren't crying all the time, btw, or the forums would be A LOT fuller with complaints) and I wouldn't defend Blizzard's greed either. I just try to make some sense of both and my interpretation of Blizzard's recent behaviour is that they were scared that the Rewards Track would provide players with too many resources because they would farm/play more (this system is a lot more addictive than the original one). For me, this is actually true because I did quite a lot of farming when I was on my PC and had to do other stuff.
9. In your first comment, you say that there are games that don't punish you for not playing. That is definitely not true for freemium games. If you don't invest time or money, you will eventually fall behind. It happens faster for some freemium games and slower for others, but it happens.
10. As I already mentioned before, players who disrespect non-paying players or call their existence meaningless for the game are just ignorant. They should either learn a little more about psychology, games, and current trends in gaming design and monetisation models, or stop posting mindless, unhealthy, and unhelpful stuff. Complaining about people complaining is also complaining, by the way. No reason to look down on others.
My issue with f2p players isn't that they aren't important or shouldn't have a voice but it's the manner they do it.
A f2p player absolutely should be able to put forward ideas, be unhappy with a nerf etc but it's when they make demands or act entitled about a product they not only don't contribute to but openly say they never will do. It's the ones who take pride in that they will never pay a penny and the lack of gratitude that a game such as this. The free to play model wasn't always around and it stuns me that people can be so venomous and personally insulting to the development team. It tends to be free players who seem to complain about greed the most, which is just ironic to me because you're complaining you aren't getting enough free shit. Businesses have to make money, it's the people who can't get on board with it and treat a business like a charity, it's dumb.
Sure is a lot of stuff being said in this topic.
In case anyone cares, here's my hot take:
F2Players are important, and the game has improved for F2Players a lot in recent changes. But...
The game is too expensive to keep up with competitively (for me), even when I was buying preorder bundles, I still never got all all the cards in a set, so I stopped buying bundles. This forces me to play sub optimal decks or just ignore some classes altogether so I can dust cards to craft things for one class. I'm fine with this.
In the end, perfect deck or not, I'll get win streaks and loss streaks, sometimes getting to legend, sometimes not. I feel like I'm probably still somewhere above average. Maybe?
Opinion: the game should be cheaper, for a digital product that has no value outside of your own entertainment, it's too expensive, but I've accepted it for what it is and enjoy it at my pace, and it's fine.
This seems perfectly reasonable and I think they agree, at least to a degree. The game has gotten cheaper, I have a free account and whilst I don't have the access to cards that I do on my main, it's so much easier these days to have at least one or two good decks. Between freebies, tavern brawl packs, the reward tracks etc, you get an OK amount of cards for nothing. When you then add in things like new/returning player decks, if you jump back in now after a couple of years out, I would imagine you'll notice quite a shift in how much you can realistically access. I think they will continue to build on that and I suspect that they are feeling out how much response comes from cosmetic purchases and I don't see why it won't have a knock on effect, it already has done.
I don't buy the 'greedy' thing. Its really strange to me. A company makes a product and prices it at what they feel it is worth, their goal is to make money. I'm sure Ferrari could charge a lot less for their cars than they do, but they have a set target audience and objectives in terms of profit etc that they want to make. I don't know a company that doesn't value profit, even if its a very people focused business, it needs to profit to stay afloat, pay its staff, continue making its products etc.
The 'greed' thing just seems like a very childish accusation to make and to me it is similar to when a 7 year old wants things and has zero appreciation for the fact that their parents just can't buy it or have to prioritise other things. So the child has a strop because their naivety and ignorance means they can't understand it. I see nothing greedy about this game, I see a team that has made efforts to make it cheaper and more accessible. Promoting packs and bundles isn't greed, without that they will go under and there will be no game to complain about. If that happens with enough places then your options are narrowed further and further. There are a ton of games you can realistically play without spending money on. Sure it will be slower from a progression stand point but if that surprises someone then that's on that person for being greedy themselves. There are games I play and don't pay into but I don't go on twitter and abuse the dev team because I'm not getting enough stuff. I appreciate the very fact that I can play and not pay. I grew up in the 90s and that sort of thing was just inconceivable. You paid 40 quid for sonic the hedgehog and couldn't even save your run.
That is a gross misstatement of both points.
1. The truth is that permanent f2p players -- who never intend to spend any money, no matter what -- are not important for the game. There is literally no reason for Blizzard to care what they think if there's nothing Blizzard can do to squeeze money out of them. On the other hand, new f2p players who can be converted into paying customers are very important. But the way to do that is -- as I said in my earlier post -- to make the game **almost** fun for f2p, and actually fun as soon as you buy some packs.
2. I have never seen anyone argue that the current cost of the game is acceptable. It is acceptable that the game is more fun when you pay, but I think most everyone agrees that the traditional pricing model is way too expensive. There has been a small amount of progress on this front, with the way mini-sets work, the rewards track, the duplicates rule, etc -- incremental improvements, to be sure, but improvements nonetheless.
I personally think the whole concept of random packs needs to be thrown out the window, but for some reason some people still get some kind of weird rush by opening packs and get upset when it's suggested that randomized packs are bad. A fair number of those people are f2p players, who are harmed the most by random packs! That, i will never understand, except when I remind myself that a lot of people are bad with numbers and money.
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
I do think the current cost of the game is acceptable, actually. I spend roughly $75/ year on this game (I buy the $50 bundle about every other expansion), which works out to about $0.21/ day. I enjoy the game, so play pretty much every day, usually in the evenings. So I get an hour or two of fun for less than a quarter.
By playing consistently and being smart about what cards I craft, I'm sitting on about 25k dust. And, keep in mind, I'm a long-time player, so much of that dust was accumulated during a time when it was much harder to come by. With the implementation of duplicate protection and other perks, newer players should be able to accumulate dust more quickly than I did.
The pricing on the game is fair: either spend money or spend time. If you're not willing to do either, you don't deserve a huge collection. The more you pay or play, the more dust/ cards/ deck options you get. But if people have gotten it in their heads that they should be able to play any deck they want whenever they want to for free, well they're (to put it kindly) delusional.
Waiting to hear the justification as to why they matter
Because it's a product sold by a company with the intention of generating profit (pretty much the norm since commerce was invented) so that means its nothing more than a greedy cash grab
I honestly think packs can be fun, just because it is a cool moment when you open something you really wanted. But opening 15 or 20 packs of "dust" copies is not so much fun, especially in combination with spending a lot of money or saved up gold. Then you feel like it wasn't worth it and regret your purchase.
But since you mentioned it: What would be a good alternative to random packs? Not saying that packs need to stay in the game, but I wonder what would be a better system, and what we'd actually gain from it. The purpose of packs is essentially to get cards without crafting. And since the pack update, you can reliably open packs up to a point where you have all commons and rares x2, with the small chance to get epics and legendaries you want. Otherwise, Gold is used on packs, packs generate dust, and dust allows you to craft the epics and legendaries you want.
So, we could throw out gold and packs and just farm/purchase dust directly, but then we'd have to discuss what would be fair amounts, and how we could compensate for that odd chance to randomly obtain (golden) legendaries we would like. A lucky pull can be worth 1600 or even 3200 dust. And even if the numbers are fair, I think it's still debatable whether that makes the game more fun.
I personally think packs are still fine if they just feel a bit more rewarding on average, and not worthless half the time. But I don't really have the creativity to think of great ways how packs could be eliminated without losing anything. I think an entirely predictable system of resource acquisition and spending just lacks some excitement. It also pushes you more into safe crafts and playing the game like everyone else does. When you open a weird card with fringe utility you never would have crafted, you might still use it at least once or twice, even if it's just in a Tavern Brawl that comes up once every two years.
f2p is important without these people to slap around how will the people that dump money into this thing feel superior otherwise?
f2p u need to give them an ILLUSION of having a chance when they don't that's the best trick in these games.
LOL anyways i'm f2p LOL and mate i tell you what my lives don't matter i don't pay $$$ so my voice means nothing companies need to cater to the $$$$ that's not shilling that's just pure business sure can be better f2p experience could be improved but i ain't holding my breathe when corporations want the dollar dollar billz
Literally impossible. You are guaranteed a legendary every 40 packs. That means in pack 10-50, you would have gotten at least one legendary.
I paid money, but I opened 80 packs at the start of the xpac. So, I got the two free legs, and the same amount of packs as you.
I am currently at 27/29 Barrens legendaries. I started the xpac with about 2300 gold and am at about 800 now. So that means that, if I had not spent money, and had the same amount of gold saved for packs as you, I would currently be at 24/29 Barrens legendaries. I'm subtracting the two I got from the preorder, and the one I got since I saved 2000 gold by buying the mini set.
I'd say getting 80-85% of a set as F2P is a pretty good deal honestly
Yet on the first page of this thread there is a guy who climbed to legend on the first day of creating a new F2P account.
Again, it’s baffling to me why people keep telling these blatant lies, like “F2P players don’t have a chance” despite there being vast amounts of proof to the contrary.
The reason you ‘don’t have a chance’ is because you are bad at the game. Having a full collection is not going to change that.
The last sentence is just completely mental. Why would companies priorities people who openly will never put money into their games? Blizzard never created Hearthstone as a gift to humanity. It was to make money. Therefore people are encouraged to spend money.
With that said, Hearthstone whales are those who want full collections without putting in the time, not competitive players. Competitive players naturally put time into the game so spending money isn’t necessary.
What he’s saying isn’t impossible he just got unlucky. He opened 90 packs.
1-10 / 1st pack
11-50 / 2nd pack
51-90 / 3rd pack
The OP is more of a salt thread post but it’s not even a F2P issue, pity timers effect everyone. Opening 3 legendaries in 90 packs would feel a lot worse if you’d paid for them.