Hearthpwn

*laughs at those who were whining that Bolvar is worse than Flame Leviathan*

Lots of people are complaining about the server issues and how Blizzard seems incapable of learning from problems that have plagued previous launches. But the root of the problem is that there is no financial incentive for Blizzard to upgrade their servers just to accommodate the increased traffic on launch day, since there is no evidence that players spend less cash because of server troubles.

So I thought it would be nice to start a poll exploring whether players' purchasing decisions are actually affected by such server issues. Please pick the option that represents what you will ACTUALLY do rather than what you want Blizzard to hear.

Quote from Blasphe »

Actually the "Bosses" at blizzard don't care.  They know even if it's down for another 3 days people are still going to throw money at them for GvG packs. They will sleep like babies tonight.  You or us as customers don't mean a whole lot to them. They have a product they know you want and doesn't matter how badly they treat the customers, like crack addicts they know you'll still come back to them.  IT will take a life changing experience for you to turn your nose up at them and slap their hands of advances towards your wallet away.  They know this and it's sad that they exploit it. But hey, it's a business.

That's too true. The solution is for players to actually cut back the cash they had intended to spend on GvG to punish Blizzard for the delay. But will players do that? Of course not. If anything, they might buy MORE packs because things appear more desirable the harder they are to attain. Blizzard knows this, so they have zero incentive to improve the servers.

Quote from SecretGenius »

I personally can understand how the servers can't handle it. What bugs me is how it always takes Blizzard by surprise - hourly updates are like Chinese water torture.

Who says Blizzard is surprised? They probably foresaw it but thought, "Meh, we're not going to upgrade our servers just for a couple of days of extra load, the players will just have to suck it up. But of course we cannot tell them that this was a calculated commercial decision and must act all surprised and regretful at the server issues and look like we are trying to do something about it. In reality we are just waiting out the storm."

I find that for a lot of the F2P games I play, once I spend money to give myself too much of an in-game advantage, I get bored of the game. So although I can afford to buy 100+ packs, I will probably buy a smaller amount (perhaps 40) to get myself started and then earn the rest through grinding. I think the game would be more satisfying that way, and give myself something to aim towards.

Damn, I saw this thread and for a moment thought that GvG dropped early and the three packs were already available...

Cenarius.

We are talking about ranked play here, not casual. No one is saying that players should be barred from only playing one class or even from climbing the ladder with only one class. You just do so more slowly. Which should be perfectly fine if you really are just "playing for fun".  What's wrong with encouraging players to be adept in more than one classes in ranked play, which is supposed to be a test of skill?

Edit: To be clear, this was in response to Unforgiven's post two posts above.

People often complain that the meta is saturated with players of one or two particular classes. Currently the flavour of the season are aggro decks, so people are screaming for aggro to be nerfed. But IMO this doesn't solve the root of the problem, because if the meta changes and another deck archetype becomes more efficient/dominant, then the same problem arises again.

Here's a modest suggestion: Make it so that players do not gain bonus stars in ranked play if they have won using that particular class more than twice in 4 consecutive games (including the current one they just won).  Thus:

Example 1
Game 1: Hunter win
Game 2: Hunter win
Game 3: Hunter win (no bonus star)

Example 2
Game 1: Hunter win
Game 2: Hunter win
Game 3: Warlock win (bonus star)
Game 4: Hunter win (no bonus star because this is the third Hunter win in four games)

Example 3
Game 1: Hunter win
Game 2: Hunter win
Game 3: Warlock win (bonus star)
Game 4: Warlock win (bonus star)
Game 5: Hunter win (bonus star)

This will dissuade players from just spamming the same deck to quickly climb the ladder - they will have an incentive to switch it up every two games in order to climb the ladder more efficiently. This rewards players who can use at least two classes effectively, while not overly penalising players who wish to specialise in one class or do not have enough cards to form more than one competitive deck. You still get a star for winning; you just don't get the bonus star. This is perfectly fair because players who can use more than one deck effectively ought to be rewarded accordingly, and it does not make the game "pay to win" since you are still winning games if you only have one competitive deck; you just rank more slowly as a result.

Yes, players can still alternate between two aggro classes (e.g. Hunter and Zoolock), but it takes somewhat more skill to play two decks effectively (especially if you are switching every two games) and your rank is more deserved as a result.

The main problem I see with this rule is that it might be somewhat hard to explain to players (and we know how Blizzard likes to dumb down the rules to suit the casual market). But this is already a simplified version of another rule I considered which might be more effective but even harder to explain to players - no bonus star if two or more of your decks in the past four games have contained more than X number of identical cards.

Quote from GrimmRec »

Its not like anyone was really playing with the stealth though. Concealed auctioner was probably the most used one. Stealth is just meh. I would say that Rogue needs injection of new cards that make him not only playable again, but also less annoying. Lets face it, playing against miracle was about as boring as playing against a freeze mage. I dont think that he is any worse off by letting other classes get an effect.

It is not just Miracle Rogue that uses stealth. Granted, in constructed it is usually pointless to stealth anything else, but I have had good success with using Master of Disguise in Arena to stealth a minion I wanted to keep alive (e.g. something that has a useful ongoing effect, like Raid Leader, or a minion with low health but high attack that I wanted to save for face). With GvG Blizzard has reduced at the invincibility of stealthed minions greatly and made the mechanic much less valuable.

I would agree with you if they came out with a neutral minion that could give another minion stealth. But I fail to see how giving other classes a small chance of drawing the Finicky Cloakfield (which only lasts one turn, mind you) makes Rogue worse off. You still need to be a Rogue to consistently have access to stealth.

In fact, if I wanted to point out something that ruins Rogue's stealth mechanic, I would point to the numerous non-targeted RNG damage cards (e.g. Flamecannon, Madder Bomber) and the Ogre cards as effectively being a severe nerf of stealth. NOT the spare parts.

Mech decks in general. Specifically mage mech decks.

Quote from Lucidswirl »

I have no idea how to deal with a turn 3 Velen's Chosen on a 2 drop. How can you kill a 4/7 minion with a priest healing it? This card is nuts in arena.

That's what silences and removal spells are for. If you didn't manage to draft/draw any such cards, then tough.

Everyone is talking about which new cards will see the most play, but what about OLD cards that are seldom or never used currently but which might work with some of the new cards?

Off the top of my head:

- 1-attack minions like Silverback Patriach, Baron Rivendare etc might start seeing play in Hobgoblin decks

- Formerly useless cards like Dragonling Mechanic and Demolisher might now be somewhat more desirable since they add a mech body

Quote from Blasphe »

No my point here is that bloodmage is NOT legendary, or shouldn't be rather.  A 1/1 body that lets you draw a card on death with +1 spell power for 2 mana is a bit absurd.  Take this a step further.  Turn 2 you play bloodmage, then I play an owl. Now I spent 2 mana to make your 2 mana legendary a 1/1 2 drop.  For me that's worth it in value.  Because now you not only lack that spell power but you're not drawing a card.

Take  that to later game you play it anytime between turn 4 and 10 and every class has a way to handle it with a big board clear.  So I don't really think a 1/1 for 2 is worth it's tag.  I also said it should be renamed to "skeletal wizard" or something similar.  I just think a novice engineer or a loot hoarder holds more value. 

You clearly don't understand how Thalnos is supposed to be played. No player plays him expecting him to survive the opponent's next turn, and definitely no player with half a brain would play him on turn two (even if he is the only 2-drop you have). You play him immediately before you cast a spell (or two or three), and then let him die the next turn. The benefit of Thalnos is that he is cheap enough that you can cast a few spells on the same turn you play him. Kobold Geomancer has this advantage too, but he doesn't replace himself. Essentially the free card draw is why Thalnos is a legendary.

In fact, Thalnos is so useful that he was the first legendary I crafted (the only other one being Sylvannas). He has a place in decks that rely heavily on spell damage (e.g. Rogue, Mage, Shaman).