• 1

    posted a message on F2P Lives Matter too...
    Quote from Andrei2007 >>

     

    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.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Pokemon quests! (LoL, Pokemon, Smite, HoTS, Dota2)

    Many cool designs for different paladin decks. The first two are really nice design-wise. Ao and Artanis are cool too. Ao in a Descent of Dragons 2 expansion seems like an awesome idea.

    Posted in: Fan Creations
  • 1

    posted a message on Pokemon quests! (LoL, Pokemon, Smite, HoTS, Dota2)

    You could coin the Marowak and discard a Silverware Golem on turn 1 in the best case scenario. That's a very strong 2 card combo, even for wild standards. Maybe as a legendary for reduced consistency.

    The Shadowstep potential for Anti-Mage is too much for it to be balanced in standard. The -2 Spell Damage makes several cards pointless (especially any damage-based board clear like Rancor, etc.). It's some nice anti-burn OTK tech, though, so 5 mana is probably justified.

    Ooze destroys, or at least delays weapon rogue anyway, but Akali drastically increases your burst potential, so drawing the Ooze becomes even less consistent because you lack time.

    Regarding your mage cards, Raichu is scary as soon as spell-only mage can run minions (Font of Power breaks this). Aggron is a lot of fun, but wouldn't see much play for consistency reasons. Deckard could easily be a 1/4 that shuffles 2 scrolls. The card is too weak. I assume that your hero keeps Ahri's Spell Damage for the rest of the game? A cool concept in general, but also very dangerous. 2 damage isn't much, so probably fine. Get it randomly from Font of Power and finish your opponent next turn. Agni is difficult to assess. Probably a bit on the strong side, sometimes a Nether with a body, but sometimes it deals 3-4, which is where this would be fine. Gets a lot worse the longer the game goes. Difficult to see this in any mage deck right now.

    Posted in: Fan Creations
  • 1

    posted a message on F2P Lives Matter too...
    Quote from Andrei2007 >>
    Quote from HatShapedHat >>

    I get what you're saying but I really never understand the point of complaining about the value one receives for something they dont financially contribute to.

    An argument regarding the value one receives on a per dollar spent basis is something we can talk about but I'm sorry, you can't be ripped off if you've lost nothing.

     

    Dumb comment. You cannot attack f2p players for choosing not to spend money. They contribute with their time, mouth to mouth advertisement, and in matchmaking to usually lose against players with full sets. He is not wrong, the game is darn expensive, and it's probably impossible for a f2p player to keep up with 10 classes.

     I can tell you that we f2p players do not usually lose to players with full sets because they have more cards. We usually have the same decks and often more experience with them because we couldn't pay much dust to build many other decks, so if we lose, it's because we are worse players than our non-f2p opponents. The game is definitely not pay 2 win and you don't suddenly win because you have more % of a full collection.

    Before we end up in a f2p players vs. playing players discussion, I think we can all agree that it would be nicer for both types of players to have slightly less punishing pity timers and averages for opening legendaries. In the end, paying players also benefit from lower pity timers. And that is basically what OP complains about.

    Complaining about f2ps or paying players is completely pointless. Both will exist and both will be important for the future of the game. If you can't understand why, you are just being ignorant.

    HS isn't cheap, even for a card game, but there are many freemium games out there that are a lot worse.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on F2P Lives Matter too...

    I guess I am pretty lucky with my packs and quite successful in Arena since my return when the rewards track launched, but I am only missing 7 legs and 9 epics from the current set as f2p. I can also play every standard deck except for clown druid and rush/control warrior. Another 5k dust and I could even craft them if I wanted. But I remember a time where I opened 1/40 followed by 1/39 and that was extremely frustrating.

    I think that the leg pity timer should be reduced to 1 in 30 and the average to 1 in 15, but Blizzard wants to make that sweet money. If you opened 67 packs, chances are that you got a lot of dust. Do you recall how much dust you got from destroying cards you had more than 2 copies of? I would assume that this should be enough for roughly 2 more legs given that these were new set packs. You also got a full set of commons and rares from the new set on day one, so you could try to see the good side of things. It's still not great, but you spent no money on it and can't expect too much as a consequence. As much as I would like to say that Blizzard is greedy, card games in general are expensive.

    For the record, 1/5 is an average for epics that was mentioned by Blizzard (whatever that means). The pity timer for epics should be 1/10.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on Mutanus
    Quote from Amaranthus >>
    Quote from D_Lord >>

    The problem is that you can't (or should I say shouldn't) create non-random hand disruption at a halfway competitive mana cost because that's even more of a problem. Just as an example, look at your last three scenarios and imagine Mutanus being a Discover ability. Yes, it's less random and thus less frustrating to play against, but that would have been a lot stronger because in two of your three scenarios, it's pretty likely that your highest cost minion gets rekt. Disruption is honestly fine at this power level and mana cost, and I am quite happy that it exists. There should be counterplay to more stuff.

     No objection to that. A Mutanus with a discover effect would be absolutely horrible design. Still, something like Dirty Rat is valueable counterplay with less variance. I for one would like that better, but I can see your point.

     I fail to see how DIrty Rat has less variance. It literally has the same chance of pulling a minion. Sure, if your opponent pulls a Rattlegore with their Dirty Rat and can't deal with it, that's awesome for you. But if they pull a Mozaki and clear it, it's literally the same thing (plus the card itself costs 5 less, so you can spend quite a lot of mana for the 2nd card and still remain efficient). In that sense, Dirty Rat has a much higher potential to f..k up the player who plays it, so the range of results is even bigger.

    Regarding Reynad's video, it feels crazy to be reminded of how coinflip Knife Juggles were winning or losing games back in the day. If you think about it, it's not just about the likelihood of something happening, it's also about the consequences this has for the match. Did these 25, 20, 11% hits make you lose the game or did you even end up winning? Did you lose because of something else and was there a better way to play around Mutanus in the 25/20% games?

    If you get frustrated by HS RNG, just remind yourself of what these likelihoods actually mean. I used to play poker a couple years ago and I can tell you that losing to 11-25% is absolutely likely compared to losing to runner/runner hands (hands where you are so far ahead that your opponent needs to hit two out of two cards; in my case, I lost quite a bit of money because I got rekt by players who hit their 2- and 1-out(s) on turn and river in a hand; happened to me 3 times within 2 weeks. Try not to freak out in such a situation). At some point, you have so many games that these unlikely scenarios will eventually happen; I also got a royal flush twice. Just accept that it happens and move on. It's a free(mium) game after all. It's not like you are playing the World Series of Poker, spent 10k to participate, and lose in your very first hand in a 99 to 1% situation.

    Regarding your initial question, I remember people talking about how the mini set is weak and how Mutanus is way too slow because of aggro....blablabla. You can always argue one way or another, but the card really doesn't feel too strong or unhealthy for the game and the poll is pretty telling.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Pokemon quests! (LoL, Pokemon, Smite, HoTS, Dota2)

    Cool cards and ideas overall. The designs also look nice.

    Alonan Marowak, as much as I like Marowak, is probably too good because of wild. Maybe as a 5/3, but 5 attack on a 2 mana minion is very scary. Akasha and Alarak are also potentially scary or at least design-limiting, probably more for standard than wild.

    Atropos is an awesome card that I would really like to see in the next set.

    Anti-Mage would probably cost 5 or 6 mana with some higher stats because it's basically a Loatheb that gets Shadowstep'ed 2-3 times in the right matchups. I personally think that the card is a little too disruptive compared to cards like the neutral 5 mana 3/7, which is pretty good design-wise.

    I would also really like to see Chen, but the card is probably too narrow to be good and another Mutanus against aggro. I would play it nonetheless.

    Akali would never ever ever see the light of day. Self-Sharpening Sword, Swinetusk, Kingsbane, and the entire poison/oil package makes this card extremely powerful. A 5-attack weapon would basically be a 6-mana Malygos and there are enough cards in both formats to exploit this as can be seen in the current weapon rogue lists. You only need 2 spells per game to break this anyway because you already have weapon damage. Plus the three most frequent damage spells in rogue that can go face are 1-2 mana, so preparation can help end the game fairly quickly even. You could remove the Stealth and change the card text to "Battlecry: The next spell you play (this turn?) gains Spell Damage equal to the Attack of your Weapon" and that would already be pretty strong (and also punish you for prepping wrongly^^).

    Azwraith + Shaw would be very cool though probably not wild level of power and consistency, but I like that. Hunter needs wild support. Could also be ok with Broom in standard.

    Posted in: Fan Creations
  • 1

    posted a message on Switching decks during a ladder run

    I am usually checking how many high-tier or fun decks I can build and switch after 5-10 games if I have more than one deck. Or, like this month, I try to farm achievements and somehow end up in D5, where I chill for the rest of the month. My deck choice then obviously depends on the achievements I want to farm.

    In general, it's good to have several options to adapt to what you are facing and to learn the strengths and weaknesses of decks by playing them yourself.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 4

    posted a message on Illidari Inquisitor
    Quote from MechBearCat >>

    DH has currently not a single tier 1/2 deck. Not in standard, not even in wild. For months now.

    And the only competetive DH deck in wild that *sometimes* hits tier 2 (Odd Demon Hunter) doesn't even use the Inquisitor.

    What am I getting at? That a card shouldn't be viewed on its own. It's a class card in a class it sees little use in, and when it's used then in decks that are inferior in the meta. When they manage to deliver a effective Control DH we can talk again, but as it's stands the Inquisitor is an OP card stuck in the wrong class.

     

     

    Lol what? Dh has 1-2 tier 1-2 decks in standard at the moment. And it's played 2x in every dh deck that isn't OTK (which is not tier 1 or 2). Are you trolling?

    That being said, despite my last 12-1 arena run that was carried heavily by Inquisitor/N'Zoth, and its high potential with several mana reductions in the class and N'Zoth resurrection, I would consider it a card that is still not overpowered. I wouldn't mind it becoming a legendary, though.

    We should rather talk about the 3 mana 2/5 elemental from shaman at this point, if we talk about any standard nerfs at all right now.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on New Cards, Old and Tired Decks. Rinse and Repeat. I give up. The players playing this game are mindless robots not humans.

    It's day 3 of a MINI(!)-set release. What the heck did you expect to happen when 30 cards are released? Every class got access to what...8 cards or something? What do you expect from a game where the entire meta has been either aggro or mana cheating? What do you expect from a large community and a small card pool? That's exactly what happens all the time.

    That being said, Shaman climbed from rank 10 to rank 2 in hsreplay. I have even met 3 different shaman decks since WC released and I didn't even know the class existed. Is that enough of a change for you? Of course, people play the most aggro deck right after set release when others experiment. It's called incresing your winrate.

    You shouldn't doubt other people's intelligence and at the same time display complete saltiness for no reason.

    I always tell people to take a break from the game because I know first hand that that's the best thing to do when you are as salty as you are. You should try that.

    Posted in: Standard Format
  • To post a comment, please login or register a new account.