Pretty disappointed that Mercenaries is getting delayed. I was actually looking forward to it, while hoping it's not just a gacha game as some people speculate. And to be honest, that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Part of the reason why I was looking forward to Mercenaries is that Battlegrounds has really become stale. There were so few meaningful updates this year, Quillboars aside, and several issues have still not been addressed at all. Instead of doing some big experiments or events like Darkmoon Prizes, it's just been microadjustments with adding/removing one or two heroes and minor card changes for months.
Also, what happened to "seasonal events"? Midsummer Fire Festival should come up soon, I guess, but no Taverns of Time, Frost Festival or something similar. I might be mistaken, but I think there have been 0 legendary quests since Winter's Veil, not even something promotional for Barrens or Wailing Caverns. Tavern Brawl has been repeats for how many months now? Has Duels seen major updates since Darkmoon, new card sets for deckbuilding and a few new passives aside?
I get that they are working on many different things right now and that all takes time and effort. But lately, it feels like half the game is just running on "business as usual", and It's not very exciting,
Oh well... looking forward to the new expansion regardless. Even though I'm out pretty much out of Standard since Scholomance, I'm always curious about new cards.
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.
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.
Agree on the suggestions for droprates. I think those would be fair numbers.
To put things in perspective: The number of legendaries per set increased quite a bit over the years. Before Un'goro it was around 21, I think. In Un'goro, they established 23, then went up to 25 with Demon Hunter, and now 29 with the mini-sets, where you can get the extra 4 guaranteed, but only for a limited time.
The quality of legendaries increased significantly as well. Older sets (GVG, TGT, MSG) rarely had more than 4 or 5 good legendaries, while newer sets frequently have 5-10 and more. Scholomance was so insane that almost all of them were good at some point, some of them to this day, and quite a few were nerfed.
In the meantime, Blizzard has substantially increased their efforts to sell cosmetics. Not sure how much they make with cosmetics now, or in comparison with packs, but maybe they are less dependent on big pack spendings by now. Not that it really matters, because with these suggested changes, people who want to get a full collection would still need to spend a lot, as would players who like golden cards. A better droprate wouldn't mean that you can get 20 legendaries within 100 packs, but maybe 7 instead of 5.
As for all the money-talk: I remember the heated debate here because someone suggested that Classic should be free. Lots of people said that it's never gonna happen, not even possible for financial reasons, and some blabla about "greedy F2P leeches". And here we are with the Core Set, completely free for everyone, legendaries included. Just because the developers thought it would make the game better.
I think a better droprate for legendaries is adequate, would make the game more enjoyable, and I could imagine that at least some devs would agree.
1. Sorry, but you are still, for the most part, just stating your opinions, not "truth" by a common understanding, no matter how much you believe in the things you say. For starters, this "golden rule", this idea of how the format (or the game) should be, is your idea. Based on how things were handled so far, sure, but rules can change and they are allowed to change when necessary.
It's not a "fact" that Wild is completely and irrevocably ruined, just your opinion, based on what you expect the mode to be. When you say that ALL cards should be unnerfed, it never even was like that.
Fact is: You can still use any collectible card in Ranked (Standard and Wild), with the exception of one single card that will be nerfed (and free to use again) eventually. Saying that the entire format is pointless because one card is temporarily banned instead of nerfed to oblivion (like getting a Naga Sea Witch treatment) is more than a little exaggerated, I think. And I can't overstate this enough: The temporary ban is, as far as we know, a nerf waiting to happen, nothing else. Put that in relation to your reaction.
Your one point is that, banning the card temporarily is probably easier to do than coming up with a nerf immediately, or changing game mechanics (as you suggested in other comments). So, how bad is it that they did not put more (visible) effort into this decision? For now, people just want to see the related deck removed, so the solution is adequate enough. More substantial changes might be a better long term solution, but they are, at this point, not excluded either.
Your other point is that this is that this would have severe consequences for the format or the entire game. But you just create a slippery slope where the format gets more and more restrictive and decks are just removed, and you can't even play your favorite decks anymore, and this the end of Hearthstone (basically). Not only does that seem unlikely, but even if, it's debatable how problematic that would actually be. For instance, I don't see the drastic and frequent nerf suggestions in the forums going in any other direction than effectively deleting cards and decks outright, and banning lists are basically just another tool to change the meta. When people are so allergic to decks they don't like, I think it's quite debatable whether format-specific bans really are a red line never to be crossed. Speaking of which...
2. This "precedent" isn't even new. We've had banned cards in Tavern Brawl for more than a year, and we currently have banned cards in Duels. We've had a lot of banned cards in Arena over the years. We even had specific cards banned in tournaments. Was that "very, very harmful"? Probably not, because all these modes still exist and are still played. I don't even recall anyone complaing much about these cases. I actually think temporary bans in specific formats are a better tool to change metas than nerfing them globally. If a card is only problematic in Duels, Tavern Brawl, Arena, or Wild in this case, I think it's better to take it out in that respective format than making it worse in every other. Especially when it is, again, only for a short time.
3. It's entirely your decision whether you want to spend money on the game or not. 100% your choice, and you don't need to justify your reasons. You are also free to complain as much as you want. But if you put on the hat of the self-centered angry customer who just wants everything done their way while calling people incompetent, lazy, and demand them to be fired, you are still childish in my opinion. Even dissatisfied customers can have a different attitude and choose reasonable criticism over shouting complaints.
You are throwing a temper tantrum over something relatively meaningless. It's a card game, and a recently released card gets banned/changed within two weeks, and probably not because of the winrate, but more because of the playstyle and how people respond to it, not unlike Darkest Hour. That's all, and that's fine.
If you think the card should not have been released or an immediate nerf would be better than a temporary ban, fair enough. I personally don't mind this approach. I prefer seeing new cards too strong and changed later than too weak and never played. And if they want some more time to think about what would be the best nerf (or mechanical change), that's fine by me. But ok, different people have different opinions.
But raging over this being an "atrocity" and "insult", and saying that Wild "no longer has a reason to be" because of a single temporarily banned card, and insisting on people getting fired, is just childish. I personally find your comment more embarassing than this incident.
Anyone able to confirm already whether the "first 10 packs" rule actually exists for these pack types as well? I ask because it took me more than 10 with Year of the Phoenix packs, and heard someone saying that the Class packs don't have that rule either.
Care to elaborate what you actually want to complain about? I'm not even sure if you want to say that the format changes too much with new cards or too little with existing decks staying on top.
And as it was pointed out already, Wild does get balance patches, but only when it's actually necessary, and not for the sake of it like in Standard. Developers even explained before, that a lot of designs are scrapped during development because they would cause trouble in Wild. If they really didn't care, I'm sure we'd see even crazier things than Naga Giants or infinite 0 mana Snip-Snaps (which were both nerfed).
Either way, I don't really see a need to "fix" Wild right now either, since it is mostly fine. Maybe Paladin gets nerfed further, but it will probably be because of Standard, if Conviction and/or Samuro are deemed too strong. Few things in Wild are really "broken", and those oftentimes require some spectacular highrolling. The top tier decks are, just like in Standard, simply harder to beat.
My only real issue with Wild is that I've grown sick of Reno decks, particularly Priest. But I have to accept that some people will, for all eternity, force Reno and Zephrys in every conceivable combination of 30 cards in any of the 10 classes. And I will always hate Priest until the day comes when Priests finally plays a deck that aren't 75% (discovered) removal, so probably forever. But it's not like Priest is unbeatable, either.
At this point, I wouldn't even ask for a nerf if I could, only less support for archetypes that are over 3 years old.
First of all not complaining. Don't know why if anyone has a point about anything in this forum they are almost always labeled as a salty complainer.
I am making the point that wild is ignored with new cards coming in and leads to shorts metas where the game mode is warped into one or two crazy hyper broken decks which leads to emergency nerfs which does not feel healthy.
Never once in my posts did I complain about old cards needing nerfs right now.
Ok, let's go through this:
You speak of Wild "only getting worse and worse" and getting "broken" by "problematic cards". Wild getting "worse and worse" and "problematic cards" are not facts, those are claims or opinions. When there is a meta change, it needs to be assessed whether there actually is a "crazy hyper broken deck", one that is actually suppressive in power and popularity. Also, calling a card "problematic" heavily implies that you personally think it is a problem that needs to get addressed (i.e. nerfed). Even saying that Wild is "ignored" is your own impression, and factually not true.
You say that "alot of players are frustrated". Again, you present this to us as a fact, not as an impression you have gained, not something you'd distance yourself from. For example, you could have said "I don't think that Wild is unbalanced, but I get the impression that a lot of people are frustrated with it".
See, when I see someone open a topic like this, I will ask myself what's behind it. And going by your language, I'd have to assume that you are one of those frustrated players you speak of, and that you actually think that everything is getting worse and worse and that there are problematic cards. Those seem to be your opinions, not opinions you just want to present as part of the debate.
Whether or not you actually think that Wild is unbalanced or certain cards need to be nerfed, you suggest as much with your language. If you don't want to be seen as a "complainer", then don't talk like one. That's as simple as I can put it.
If you merely want to ask whether Wild should see more frequent changes or not, or if you want to hear opinions on card design or balance approaches, or whatever, without being suggestive, then don't be suggestive. SImple as that. But when you are speaking of "broken decks", "problematic cards", "frustrated players" and an "Ignored" format getting "worse and worse", you are suggestive. If you just want to bring in sentiments that are not your own, you'd have to distance yourself from them. Otherwise, they are (predictably) interpreted as your own opinions. Heck, your very title is "anyone else feels sad", as in "anyone besides me". How else am I supposed to interpret that?
And when someone asks something in a suggestive manner by stressing their own opinion, I have to assume, based on my experiences online, that it's less about the question itself and more about the opinion; in this case your dissatisfaction, thus complaining.
If I was asking "Is Hearthstone the worst game of all time?", it would be the same thing. People would interpret it as me just calling Hearthstone the worst game of all time, because that's what I would effectively do in that case, even if I actually just wanted to know whether they know any worse games. There are many ways to ask whether Hearthstone is a good or a bad game, or whether other games are better or worse, but when I ask it like this, I turned my question into a statement.
People who want to "merely ask" or "just say" something controversial either need to consider how they aks or say something, what motive they reveal (or choose to keep ambiguous), or deal with being labeled unfavorably.
TL;DR: You are using the language of someone who just wants to complain, and thus invite people to assume that you just want to complain. That's how language works.
Care to elaborate what you actually want to complain about? I'm not even sure if you want to say that the format changes too much with new cards or too little with existing decks staying on top.
And as it was pointed out already, Wild does get balance patches, but only when it's actually necessary, and not for the sake of it like in Standard. Developers even explained before, that a lot of designs are scrapped during development because they would cause trouble in Wild. If they really didn't care, I'm sure we'd see even crazier things than Naga Giants or infinite 0 mana Snip-Snaps (which were both nerfed).
Either way, I don't really see a need to "fix" Wild right now either, since it is mostly fine. Maybe Paladin gets nerfed further, but it will probably be because of Standard, if Conviction and/or Samuro are deemed too strong. Few things in Wild are really "broken", and those oftentimes require some spectacular highrolling. The top tier decks are, just like in Standard, simply harder to beat.
My only real issue with Wild is that I've grown sick of Reno decks, particularly Priest. But I have to accept that some people will, for all eternity, force Reno and Zephrys in every conceivable combination of 30 cards in any of the 10 classes. And I will always hate Priest until the day comes when Priests finally plays a deck that aren't 75% (discovered) removal, so probably forever. But it's not like Priest is unbeatable, either.
At this point, I wouldn't even ask for a nerf if I could, only less support for archetypes that are over 3 years old.
Good draws and plain RNG cards oftentimes have a significant impact on who will win. On the other hand, you can make mistakes, such as missing lethal, taking extra damage, missing damage, trading too much or too little, using your resources inefficiently, burning your answers too early, not anticipating taunts etc. etc.
There are times when it comes down to luck, and times when it doesn't. But from my experience with the Hearthstone community, everyone has a different idea about what "skill" means and how much it matters. It's a contentious topic and the debates never get anywhere. And as far as the developers' intent is concerned, they said they wanted to reduce randomness a little bit with this year's expansions, but they certainly don't mean to eliminate it from the game altogether.
Because everyone has a different idea about skill, boasting with it rings hollow to me. But if you want to attribute your perfect opening hand, perfect draws and that gamewinning Fireball in Arena coming from an Evocation generated by a Steward of Scrolls generated by a Primordial Studies generated by a Wandmaker all to your "skill", be my guest.
I don't know how your game went, but the player you talked to was either ironic or an idiot provoking you. In some cases, you can probably say that you won because you made the right decision, but it will also matter how lucky or unlucky your opponent was. So, no win is 100% based on skill, and certainly not in a lopsided matchup (yet another factor).
@ OP: For how long have you been playing Hearthstone?
If you started 4+ years ago and never had and still have 0 interest to ever play Wild, Duels or the occasional Wild-inclusive collection-based Tavern Brawls, then there's really not much of a reason to hold on to cards you never want to use again, and I wouldn't tell you otherwise.
However, if you've started playing Hearthstone like a year or two ago, I'd recommend you to postpone your decision. Wild is definitely a mode that doesn't seem interesting at first but gets more and more interesting as time passes.
Just consider that you might grow attached to a specific card or deck you want to keep playing beyond its time in Standard. Or you might open a new Standard card and want to try it out with cards that have rotated already. For example, Firemancer Flurgl is not very impressive in Standard, but pushed Murloc Shaman in a good position in Wild. Or you might get bored/annoyed by Standard one day and want to try something different. In that case, you'll feel much better having at least a small number of decent cards in Wild you can use for deckbuilding.
If you've played the game long enough to know that you'll never look back, go for it. Otherwise, I think there's a possibility that you might get regret your decision someday.
My thought exactly. And I hope we'll see cards in the future that let you choose 2 or more targets. It might still be random at times for balance concerns, but cards like Cleave or Twin Tyrant would feel better without the random element.
Not to say that nothing should be done to make Wild more accessible, but I am confused about this idea that WIld is so much harder to get into.
Most good Wild decks are relatively cheap, Reno decks aside. Almost every Wild deck makes use of some Standard cards, as new cards are frequently stronger, or at least comparable to older cards. Most of the legendaries that used to be good (already a small amount) have become outdated over time. There are a few that still seem intriguing, but are only necessary for archetypes that don't do particularly well either, like Aviana or Shudderwock. It's not like you really need them, even if they are cool.
I also want to add that with the new reward system, you make enough Gold that you can reasonably invest in Wild as well, given some patience. I started Hearthstone shortly before Wild started. I had close to no cards for GvG (one single pack from Arena), the first wing of Naxx and a handful TGT packs before, I chose to focus on Old Gods. This month, I could buy enough packs with Gold to get every Common and Rare in the game. I bought a lot of GVG, quite a lot of TGT, and I still had gaps to fill in every other expansion that came out before Rise of Shadows. And STILL, I am currently at over 10k gold. I bought less for Barrens, sure, but I'll get those cards through events and ladder rewards anyway, sooner or later. In the meantime, I can play Wild, Classic, Battlegrounds etc., and I could even play some Standard decks if I wanted. So, if you really want to fill up your Wild collection, you can get there eventually.
That being said, this WILL get harder and harder with every passing year. While every deck will ultimately consist of 30 cards, the ever increasing list of Wild sets makes the mode less and less attractive for newcomers who want to try it out. So, I do support the idea that there could be some discount or other bonuses that help and encourage people to try it out.
But if you want to play Wild and think there's too many cards you don't have: Just get started. Save some gold here and there for packs, and craft some of those key legendaries that really stood the test of time. Crafting Loatheb is a lot more worthwhile and feels better to craft than some craze of the month Standard legendary that might become irrelevant with the next expansion or balance patch.
The mini-set isn't actually a unique set but a bundle of cards that was added to the Darkmoon set.
Purchasing the mini-set would allow you to get all the new cards instantly. But these cards would otherwise be part of the Darkmoon set and can appear in Darkmoon and Year of Phoenix packs.
The cards are not gone, they just have rotated. They are now in the Legacy set, along with all the other old Classic cards you might have. Just search your collection and make sure to switch to Wild cards, and you'll find them.
You can still use them in Wild and perhaps more importantly in Classic Mode. Of course, you can also disenchant them again, if you want. But keep in mind that in case of Tirion, only your copy in the Legacy set counts for Classic mode, and that the copy in the Core set is only temporary.
12
Pretty disappointed that Mercenaries is getting delayed. I was actually looking forward to it, while hoping it's not just a gacha game as some people speculate. And to be honest, that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Part of the reason why I was looking forward to Mercenaries is that Battlegrounds has really become stale. There were so few meaningful updates this year, Quillboars aside, and several issues have still not been addressed at all. Instead of doing some big experiments or events like Darkmoon Prizes, it's just been microadjustments with adding/removing one or two heroes and minor card changes for months.
Also, what happened to "seasonal events"? Midsummer Fire Festival should come up soon, I guess, but no Taverns of Time, Frost Festival or something similar. I might be mistaken, but I think there have been 0 legendary quests since Winter's Veil, not even something promotional for Barrens or Wailing Caverns. Tavern Brawl has been repeats for how many months now? Has Duels seen major updates since Darkmoon, new card sets for deckbuilding and a few new passives aside?
I get that they are working on many different things right now and that all takes time and effort. But lately, it feels like half the game is just running on "business as usual", and It's not very exciting,
Oh well... looking forward to the new expansion regardless. Even though I'm out pretty much out of Standard since Scholomance, I'm always curious about new cards.
0
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.
1
Agree on the suggestions for droprates. I think those would be fair numbers.
To put things in perspective: The number of legendaries per set increased quite a bit over the years. Before Un'goro it was around 21, I think. In Un'goro, they established 23, then went up to 25 with Demon Hunter, and now 29 with the mini-sets, where you can get the extra 4 guaranteed, but only for a limited time.
The quality of legendaries increased significantly as well. Older sets (GVG, TGT, MSG) rarely had more than 4 or 5 good legendaries, while newer sets frequently have 5-10 and more. Scholomance was so insane that almost all of them were good at some point, some of them to this day, and quite a few were nerfed.
In the meantime, Blizzard has substantially increased their efforts to sell cosmetics. Not sure how much they make with cosmetics now, or in comparison with packs, but maybe they are less dependent on big pack spendings by now. Not that it really matters, because with these suggested changes, people who want to get a full collection would still need to spend a lot, as would players who like golden cards. A better droprate wouldn't mean that you can get 20 legendaries within 100 packs, but maybe 7 instead of 5.
As for all the money-talk: I remember the heated debate here because someone suggested that Classic should be free. Lots of people said that it's never gonna happen, not even possible for financial reasons, and some blabla about "greedy F2P leeches". And here we are with the Core Set, completely free for everyone, legendaries included. Just because the developers thought it would make the game better.
I think a better droprate for legendaries is adequate, would make the game more enjoyable, and I could imagine that at least some devs would agree.
1
1. Sorry, but you are still, for the most part, just stating your opinions, not "truth" by a common understanding, no matter how much you believe in the things you say. For starters, this "golden rule", this idea of how the format (or the game) should be, is your idea. Based on how things were handled so far, sure, but rules can change and they are allowed to change when necessary.
It's not a "fact" that Wild is completely and irrevocably ruined, just your opinion, based on what you expect the mode to be. When you say that ALL cards should be unnerfed, it never even was like that.
Fact is: You can still use any collectible card in Ranked (Standard and Wild), with the exception of one single card that will be nerfed (and free to use again) eventually. Saying that the entire format is pointless because one card is temporarily banned instead of nerfed to oblivion (like getting a Naga Sea Witch treatment) is more than a little exaggerated, I think. And I can't overstate this enough: The temporary ban is, as far as we know, a nerf waiting to happen, nothing else. Put that in relation to your reaction.
Your one point is that, banning the card temporarily is probably easier to do than coming up with a nerf immediately, or changing game mechanics (as you suggested in other comments). So, how bad is it that they did not put more (visible) effort into this decision? For now, people just want to see the related deck removed, so the solution is adequate enough. More substantial changes might be a better long term solution, but they are, at this point, not excluded either.
Your other point is that this is that this would have severe consequences for the format or the entire game. But you just create a slippery slope where the format gets more and more restrictive and decks are just removed, and you can't even play your favorite decks anymore, and this the end of Hearthstone (basically). Not only does that seem unlikely, but even if, it's debatable how problematic that would actually be. For instance, I don't see the drastic and frequent nerf suggestions in the forums going in any other direction than effectively deleting cards and decks outright, and banning lists are basically just another tool to change the meta. When people are so allergic to decks they don't like, I think it's quite debatable whether format-specific bans really are a red line never to be crossed. Speaking of which...
2. This "precedent" isn't even new. We've had banned cards in Tavern Brawl for more than a year, and we currently have banned cards in Duels. We've had a lot of banned cards in Arena over the years. We even had specific cards banned in tournaments. Was that "very, very harmful"? Probably not, because all these modes still exist and are still played. I don't even recall anyone complaing much about these cases. I actually think temporary bans in specific formats are a better tool to change metas than nerfing them globally. If a card is only problematic in Duels, Tavern Brawl, Arena, or Wild in this case, I think it's better to take it out in that respective format than making it worse in every other. Especially when it is, again, only for a short time.
3. It's entirely your decision whether you want to spend money on the game or not. 100% your choice, and you don't need to justify your reasons. You are also free to complain as much as you want. But if you put on the hat of the self-centered angry customer who just wants everything done their way while calling people incompetent, lazy, and demand them to be fired, you are still childish in my opinion. Even dissatisfied customers can have a different attitude and choose reasonable criticism over shouting complaints.
4
If you so badly want a reply:
You are throwing a temper tantrum over something relatively meaningless. It's a card game, and a recently released card gets banned/changed within two weeks, and probably not because of the winrate, but more because of the playstyle and how people respond to it, not unlike Darkest Hour. That's all, and that's fine.
If you think the card should not have been released or an immediate nerf would be better than a temporary ban, fair enough. I personally don't mind this approach. I prefer seeing new cards too strong and changed later than too weak and never played. And if they want some more time to think about what would be the best nerf (or mechanical change), that's fine by me. But ok, different people have different opinions.
But raging over this being an "atrocity" and "insult", and saying that Wild "no longer has a reason to be" because of a single temporarily banned card, and insisting on people getting fired, is just childish. I personally find your comment more embarassing than this incident.
1
Anyone able to confirm already whether the "first 10 packs" rule actually exists for these pack types as well? I ask because it took me more than 10 with Year of the Phoenix packs, and heard someone saying that the Class packs don't have that rule either.
1
Ok, let's go through this:
You speak of Wild "only getting worse and worse" and getting "broken" by "problematic cards". Wild getting "worse and worse" and "problematic cards" are not facts, those are claims or opinions. When there is a meta change, it needs to be assessed whether there actually is a "crazy hyper broken deck", one that is actually suppressive in power and popularity. Also, calling a card "problematic" heavily implies that you personally think it is a problem that needs to get addressed (i.e. nerfed). Even saying that Wild is "ignored" is your own impression, and factually not true.
You say that "alot of players are frustrated". Again, you present this to us as a fact, not as an impression you have gained, not something you'd distance yourself from. For example, you could have said "I don't think that Wild is unbalanced, but I get the impression that a lot of people are frustrated with it".
See, when I see someone open a topic like this, I will ask myself what's behind it. And going by your language, I'd have to assume that you are one of those frustrated players you speak of, and that you actually think that everything is getting worse and worse and that there are problematic cards. Those seem to be your opinions, not opinions you just want to present as part of the debate.
Whether or not you actually think that Wild is unbalanced or certain cards need to be nerfed, you suggest as much with your language. If you don't want to be seen as a "complainer", then don't talk like one. That's as simple as I can put it.
If you merely want to ask whether Wild should see more frequent changes or not, or if you want to hear opinions on card design or balance approaches, or whatever, without being suggestive, then don't be suggestive. SImple as that. But when you are speaking of "broken decks", "problematic cards", "frustrated players" and an "Ignored" format getting "worse and worse", you are suggestive. If you just want to bring in sentiments that are not your own, you'd have to distance yourself from them. Otherwise, they are (predictably) interpreted as your own opinions. Heck, your very title is "anyone else feels sad", as in "anyone besides me". How else am I supposed to interpret that?
And when someone asks something in a suggestive manner by stressing their own opinion, I have to assume, based on my experiences online, that it's less about the question itself and more about the opinion; in this case your dissatisfaction, thus complaining.
If I was asking "Is Hearthstone the worst game of all time?", it would be the same thing. People would interpret it as me just calling Hearthstone the worst game of all time, because that's what I would effectively do in that case, even if I actually just wanted to know whether they know any worse games. There are many ways to ask whether Hearthstone is a good or a bad game, or whether other games are better or worse, but when I ask it like this, I turned my question into a statement.
People who want to "merely ask" or "just say" something controversial either need to consider how they aks or say something, what motive they reveal (or choose to keep ambiguous), or deal with being labeled unfavorably.
TL;DR: You are using the language of someone who just wants to complain, and thus invite people to assume that you just want to complain. That's how language works.
1
Care to elaborate what you actually want to complain about? I'm not even sure if you want to say that the format changes too much with new cards or too little with existing decks staying on top.
And as it was pointed out already, Wild does get balance patches, but only when it's actually necessary, and not for the sake of it like in Standard. Developers even explained before, that a lot of designs are scrapped during development because they would cause trouble in Wild. If they really didn't care, I'm sure we'd see even crazier things than Naga Giants or infinite 0 mana Snip-Snaps (which were both nerfed).
Either way, I don't really see a need to "fix" Wild right now either, since it is mostly fine. Maybe Paladin gets nerfed further, but it will probably be because of Standard, if Conviction and/or Samuro are deemed too strong. Few things in Wild are really "broken", and those oftentimes require some spectacular highrolling. The top tier decks are, just like in Standard, simply harder to beat.
My only real issue with Wild is that I've grown sick of Reno decks, particularly Priest. But I have to accept that some people will, for all eternity, force Reno and Zephrys in every conceivable combination of 30 cards in any of the 10 classes. And I will always hate Priest until the day comes when Priests finally plays a deck that aren't 75% (discovered) removal, so probably forever. But it's not like Priest is unbeatable, either.
At this point, I wouldn't even ask for a nerf if I could, only less support for archetypes that are over 3 years old.
1
Good draws and plain RNG cards oftentimes have a significant impact on who will win. On the other hand, you can make mistakes, such as missing lethal, taking extra damage, missing damage, trading too much or too little, using your resources inefficiently, burning your answers too early, not anticipating taunts etc. etc.
There are times when it comes down to luck, and times when it doesn't. But from my experience with the Hearthstone community, everyone has a different idea about what "skill" means and how much it matters. It's a contentious topic and the debates never get anywhere. And as far as the developers' intent is concerned, they said they wanted to reduce randomness a little bit with this year's expansions, but they certainly don't mean to eliminate it from the game altogether.
Because everyone has a different idea about skill, boasting with it rings hollow to me. But if you want to attribute your perfect opening hand, perfect draws and that gamewinning Fireball in Arena coming from an Evocation generated by a Steward of Scrolls generated by a Primordial Studies generated by a Wandmaker all to your "skill", be my guest.
I don't know how your game went, but the player you talked to was either ironic or an idiot provoking you. In some cases, you can probably say that you won because you made the right decision, but it will also matter how lucky or unlucky your opponent was. So, no win is 100% based on skill, and certainly not in a lopsided matchup (yet another factor).
1
@ OP: For how long have you been playing Hearthstone?
If you started 4+ years ago and never had and still have 0 interest to ever play Wild, Duels or the occasional Wild-inclusive collection-based Tavern Brawls, then there's really not much of a reason to hold on to cards you never want to use again, and I wouldn't tell you otherwise.
However, if you've started playing Hearthstone like a year or two ago, I'd recommend you to postpone your decision. Wild is definitely a mode that doesn't seem interesting at first but gets more and more interesting as time passes.
Just consider that you might grow attached to a specific card or deck you want to keep playing beyond its time in Standard. Or you might open a new Standard card and want to try it out with cards that have rotated already. For example, Firemancer Flurgl is not very impressive in Standard, but pushed Murloc Shaman in a good position in Wild. Or you might get bored/annoyed by Standard one day and want to try something different. In that case, you'll feel much better having at least a small number of decent cards in Wild you can use for deckbuilding.
If you've played the game long enough to know that you'll never look back, go for it. Otherwise, I think there's a possibility that you might get regret your decision someday.
-1
My thought exactly. And I hope we'll see cards in the future that let you choose 2 or more targets. It might still be random at times for balance concerns, but cards like Cleave or Twin Tyrant would feel better without the random element.
0
Not to say that nothing should be done to make Wild more accessible, but I am confused about this idea that WIld is so much harder to get into.
Most good Wild decks are relatively cheap, Reno decks aside. Almost every Wild deck makes use of some Standard cards, as new cards are frequently stronger, or at least comparable to older cards. Most of the legendaries that used to be good (already a small amount) have become outdated over time. There are a few that still seem intriguing, but are only necessary for archetypes that don't do particularly well either, like Aviana or Shudderwock. It's not like you really need them, even if they are cool.
I also want to add that with the new reward system, you make enough Gold that you can reasonably invest in Wild as well, given some patience. I started Hearthstone shortly before Wild started. I had close to no cards for GvG (one single pack from Arena), the first wing of Naxx and a handful TGT packs before, I chose to focus on Old Gods. This month, I could buy enough packs with Gold to get every Common and Rare in the game. I bought a lot of GVG, quite a lot of TGT, and I still had gaps to fill in every other expansion that came out before Rise of Shadows. And STILL, I am currently at over 10k gold. I bought less for Barrens, sure, but I'll get those cards through events and ladder rewards anyway, sooner or later. In the meantime, I can play Wild, Classic, Battlegrounds etc., and I could even play some Standard decks if I wanted. So, if you really want to fill up your Wild collection, you can get there eventually.
That being said, this WILL get harder and harder with every passing year. While every deck will ultimately consist of 30 cards, the ever increasing list of Wild sets makes the mode less and less attractive for newcomers who want to try it out. So, I do support the idea that there could be some discount or other bonuses that help and encourage people to try it out.
But if you want to play Wild and think there's too many cards you don't have: Just get started. Save some gold here and there for packs, and craft some of those key legendaries that really stood the test of time. Crafting Loatheb is a lot more worthwhile and feels better to craft than some craze of the month Standard legendary that might become irrelevant with the next expansion or balance patch.
3
The mini-set isn't actually a unique set but a bundle of cards that was added to the Darkmoon set.
Purchasing the mini-set would allow you to get all the new cards instantly. But these cards would otherwise be part of the Darkmoon set and can appear in Darkmoon and Year of Phoenix packs.
0
The cards are not gone, they just have rotated. They are now in the Legacy set, along with all the other old Classic cards you might have. Just search your collection and make sure to switch to Wild cards, and you'll find them.
You can still use them in Wild and perhaps more importantly in Classic Mode. Of course, you can also disenchant them again, if you want. But keep in mind that in case of Tirion, only your copy in the Legacy set counts for Classic mode, and that the copy in the Core set is only temporary.
11
After the 5th expansion or so, they finally took notice, and the recipe brawl comes out shortly after release, not a month or two later.
That's actually cool.