Hearthpwn

I tried to not reply to the negative posts of shipmen for quite some time, but this is it for me and I will step on the boat too. This is again another example of having a point of view and searching the internet for pictures or articles as long as needed until you find something, *anything*, that even remotely supports your point of view.

The image in the first post is comparing apples with pears. First of all it compares the more broader search term Marvel Snap with the game  hearthstone and the game diablo immortal. This causes the image to have a higher interest for marvel snap and a lower for the other two. (There is also a pretty big note in the middle of the screen explaining this, which is conveniently ignored)
If I run the same comparison but filter the search on ‘games’ this effect will be somewhat mitigated and you’ll see that marvel is around the same interest as hearthstone and still below Diablo immortal. (See picture, I applied the same terms, but they are in Dutch)

Secondly, if you are really interested in comparing the two games (so this is not relevant for you Shipmen, because you are only trying to bash hearthstone) you should compare how the games did during launch (see other pictures, one for last 5 years, one for 2004 - now), because everybody knows that during launch people search a lot more for information on the game (I also searched how to best spend my gold, credits, etc..) You will see that marvel snap has a very, very long way to go. If the interest of marvel snap keeps growing and retains for a period you’ll have a point, but the conclusions in the first post are just nonsense. 

Personally, regarding snap itself, I really like the ‘snap’ mechanism in the game to double the cubes I can understand that people who are interested in shorter, simpler, games are interested in marvel snap. For me, after playing hearthstone and snap for the last couple of days, I notice that my interest in snap is already declining because of its simplicity and estimate that in a couple of weeks it will be off my radar entirely, but you’ll never know…

We play Hearthstone with three people in our household and we noticed that whoever logged in first on a particular device that day did get the quest and the others not. It looks like the 'trigger' that keeps track of whether it is a new day and you should receive new quests was only triggered for the first person and the somehow it is considered already triggered for the next person on the same device (therefore not leading to new quests)...

We had this issue several days in the past. But after we did the following the last three days we all got our quests: 

We play on EU on iPad or iPhone and the last couple of days each of us switched the region to Asia, America and then back to EU again BEFORE we logged in and we have gotten quests for several days now... It does not give back lost quests unfortunately, but it does prevent the issue in the future (at least, that seems to be the case for us...)

I seriously hope that shadowstep is (finally) going to be Hall-of-Famed or nerfed seriously the moment this card is released. Facing two shadowsteps and this card is so strong and really annoying to play against.

Seems to be fixed now... 

Same here.. playing on iOS...

I have more than one account and it looks like (when playing a friend) some quests do complete, while others do not.. 

I was able to complete play 3 games as class1/class2/class3 and watch a friend, but completing Draw 30 cards or play six 7+ Cards was not possible.. 

Quote from HanseManse >>

Once your star multiplier runs out/reaches 1, you're matched by rank, not by MMR, according to the FAQ

That solves everything! Thank you! Where is this FAQ you are referring to?

Quote from Marega >>

If a bad player can easily reach legend then you are golden mate

 Thank you for your well-structured feedback.

So, I had some more thought about the new ranking system where match-making will be solely based on MMR. Please see my points below and tell me if there is any flaw in my logic anywhere (or if I misinterpreted any information)... If not, after a couple of months, everybody, no matter how skilled, will reach legend with the same amount of effort, because:

• All players will be matched against players with similar MMR. (Independent of their current rank, or star multiplier; you can check HSReplay and various comments on this site regarding matches between legend rank and as low as platinum ranks)
• That means that eventually all players will have around 50% winrate, ‘good’ players and ‘bad’ players. 
• (If you win more than 50%, your MMR will rise, and you will be paired against other players with higher MMR, which will lower your winrate. If you win less, your MMR will drop, you will be matched against other players with lower MMR and you will win more... in a couple of months, everybody will be player at their MMR level and will win 50% of their games.)
• If everybody wins around 50% of their games, they will easily reach diamond5. Because of a) the star multiplier and b) the win streak bonus.
• (In the first months the ‘good’ players will reach diamond5 way quicker than the ‘bad’ players, because of the star multiplier they start with, but since the win streak bonus lasts until diamond5 and everybody will have a 50% winrate independent of their rank or MMR, you will reach diamond5 by simply playing games).
• This is the big difference between the new and the old system. In the old system RANK meant something. If you could not reach rank 5 even with the winstreak bonus, it was probably because the other players in the same rank were better than you (and you reached your skill-limit). Now you will be matched against other players with your MMR and you will eventually get to any rank up to diamond5, because of your 50% win rate + winstreak bonus. (even without starbonus)
• From diamond5 to legend you will need to achieve a 50%+ winrate (unless you have a very high MMR and have a star bonus even there) and since you will still play against people with your MMR this is just as hard for ‘bad’ players as for ‘good’ players.

Is there a flaw in this reasoning? I very much hope so, because if the above is true, your rank does not mean anything at all.. The only thing that tells anything about how good you are is your (hidden) MMR or your legend rank number... 

Quote from serotoninronin >>

It's been said a million times before but I always find that it bears repeating, and I have to often remind myself about it, but it's basically a pure numbers game. Unless you're really struggling with a deck or making big mistakes in your play, it literally is just about the number of games you play. As someone said earlier, 51% will get you there, it'll just take about 300 games from rank 5, where allike a 63% winrate will get you there in about 75.

Indeed. You really need time unless your winrate is pretty high.

51% is not high enough.. You will gain you 2 stars every 100 games you play (51 wins, 49 losses), so to get 25 stars you will need to play 1250 games. That’s about 40 games per day for a month. So I would say 51% does not get you to legend.. ;)

60% gives you 20 stars per 100 games, so you’ll still need to play 125 games, which is like 4 games per day in a month..

Even when you would have 70% you’ll still need to play 2 games per day for a month...

it depends on the time you have and the winrate...

Brann in play?

Quote from Shipmen >>

Quote from Sherman1986 >>

Quote from Shipmen >>

Are you joking? Hideo Kojima is a terrible example. He designed the history of the games. Brode is a random guy who managed a card game with an overall mediocre success. 

Wait, what?

 Yes. It has been a good card game, but it is very far to be a pillar in the games like Metal Gear :). I mean, if you write a list with the most important games in the history, I am quite certain that you would not include HS. Metal Gear instead will be inside the list, definitely. 

Anyway, this is off-topic. 

Eh, you're severely understating the impact Hearthstone has had. If you're playing Digital card games, the average person is going to think about Hearthstone and Slay the Spire. MTG is more influential overall, but not within this space. Nothing even comes close to Hearthstone's success in the digital CCG market, actually. And as for influencing the industry? Yeah, it did that too... Why else do you think *digital* card games exploded in popularity around 2015? It was mostly because of HS. Now, everybody is making one. 

Hearthstone is certainly tapering off, and it's not gonna sustain that dominant position, that much is probably true. But it's also undeniable that Hearthstone was as impactful for the digital ccg genre as Metal Gear was for stealth action games. 

Would you rather pay for the game? What is even your problem with optional cosmetic items?

Quote from Shipmen >>

My prediction: Leave constructed as it is and not even open the expansion. Don't you guys are not bored and full of these vulgar reprints?

Don't Stand in the Fire! is more or less Volcano

Lightmaw Netherdrake is Duskbreaker

Onyxian Drake is Shield Slam on a drake

Mi'da, Pure Light is somehow Waxadred

Raid Boss Onyxia third Onyxia with similar effect, we will wait the forth Onyxia now. We already had Onyxia and Onyxia the Broodmother

Haleh, Matron Protectorate is a very costly Flamewaker

Scale of Onyxia there are a lot of similar cards, Command the Illidari for example

Dragonbane Shot is Rapid Fire

Lack of creativity is really a major concern. This game is really boring with these vulgar reprints.

 

 none of these are reprints. They have different uses, have different keywords, are in different classes, or have different costs that change how they are built into archetypes. Reprints are 1:1.

Wild is crying in the corner….

Quote from Pr1ncipe4i20

 

Hope they address this kind of shit, lose to shit cheap AOE removal is just stupid since the creation of this game

 Yes absolutely right, losing to savage roar/bloodlust because I couldn't contest a board of tokens for the fifth turn in a row is still fun even after all these years, but losing to aoe sucks :( hope they remove all aoe and introduce more token generators and board buffs.

Quote from b1ak1ce >>

Im honestly holding my opinions of the new system until the end of expansion. If my gold is less than 5k its shit and blizzard are greedy and bad, if its more or equal its fine.

 I wish more people had your patience.

They've already announced that there will be special events to boost XP during the season, so it doesn't make sense to be judging everything until we have more info.

Im honestly holding my opinions of the new system until the end of expansion. If my gold is less than 5k its shit and blizzard are greedy and bad, if its more or equal its fine.

Quote from Anomaly98 >>

The system is really bad. The first 10-15 levels fly by quickly but getting just one daily quest a day (You wont get 3 new dailies everyday) for 800-1200 xp when the level is 1500+ is a really bad look. The xp ramps up to 4500 at level 50 and stays constant past that point for 150 gold. Meaning you have to complete 5+ dailies to get 150 gold while 5 quests with the older system would get you ~300 gold.

This system is nice till lvl 15. Then it becomes really bad because now you will be earning less gold on a daily basis from the quests. 

Now that I know the numbers, I also did the math and came to the conclusion that you are wrong. You used the math that was convenient for you and ignored it when it wasnt.

Quote from Anomaly98 >>

 Just by dailies (not counting how much you play per week) you get around 6k (weekly quest) 5.6k (dailies) per week. That means you need 16 weeks to complete the first 50 ranks. That gets you 50 ranks worth of rewards meaning 4200 gold, 16 packs, 2 legendaries and one epic card.

The weekly quests are indeed 6k xp/week, but for the dailies you used the absolute minimum value 800 while most quests worth 1000 and there are some 1500 ones, So the more realistic number is 7k xp/week instead of 5.6k. And you didnt add the 400 xp/hour gameplay xp because reasons. 4200 gold + 1600 gold (packs) + 800 gold (2 legendaries, in case you want to disenchant them and 800 dust is about 800 gold) + 100 gold (1 epic) + 200 gold (the 2 ticket which you forgot to mention) = value that is worth about 6900 gold. And thats just the first 50 levels.

Quote from Anomaly98 >>

 To put this in perspective, I have a wild account where I just do the daily quest and log out and I have 8300 gold over the 3 months between Scholomance and Today.

 So you made more than 90 gold per day just by doing daily quests? Wow you were really lucky with your dailies.

Quote from Anomaly98 >>

 I played ranked ladder for 1 hour (No bonus/less xp from wins or losses) and earned 400xp. So I assume 1 hour of ranked play is 400xp. This means that past rank 50, you have to play ranked for OVER 10 HOURS to earn 150 gold ignoring any quests.....That is awful.

As for the "free legendary" when we login for the first time after the changes is shown as a "reward" when it is something we used to get for FREE....(They re-worded something that was free to reward).

 As someone said, the new system is front-loaded, so its gonna be harder to get gold after lvl 50, but not that hard. Again with the convenient math... If you count your daily xp plus your weekly xp divided by 7 plus 1 hour gameplay per day, you get the correct picture which is 1 level up or 150 gold per 2 days. Which is still better than just doing dailies in the old system if we use average values. As for free legendary, you didnt get Silas?

Quote from Anomaly98 >>

 

TLDR: It is really bad past level 15, old system was way better.

 TLDR: The new system is better if you use the correct math.

Quote from DreamsDeferred >>

This website is 90% Positive wtf are you talking about 

If someone says anything constructive or negative about the game they get instantly downvoted in this toxic casual infested fan base. (Aside from the salt thread)

 

 

 How would you know though? Not sure who’s alt you are, but in the less than a week you have been a member, it has been 42 posts of pure negativity, you need a very odd perspective to call any of that constructive. And what’s more, what drives you to head into a thread where we are trying to spread some positivity, when your only goal is to be the opposite? Clearly this thread is not for you.

But to get the thread back on track:

Finally got 12 wins in arena with DH! It was the last class I was missing, feels great! Now to start working on Duels 12 wins and golden portraits. So hard to choose with so many great game modes!