-
- Nefiret
- Registered User
-
Member for 7 years and 1 month
Last active Thu, Apr, 25 2024 12:00:26 -
- 5
- 27
- 67
- 0 Followers
- 230 Total Posts
- 354 Thanks
⚙
Learn More
Cosmetics
Related Cards
Card Pools
✕
×
PopCard Settings
Click on the buttons to change the PopCard background.
Elements settings
Click on the button to hide or unhide popcard elements.
0
Uhm it seems there is no more packs to give away... anyone can confirm this?
0
Error 503 backend read error
-1
Balance? Are you really talking about balance?
The question is, how many Tradeable cards are you going to have in your deck? 3? 5 maximum?
If for something I have suggested that the "Start of Game" tag could be used here, it's because currently this card hardly offers any value, it does not even deserve to be a legendary...
So overpowered would it be to lose a slot in your deck to place this card in exchange for "upgrading" the few Tradeable cards you may Trade in you game?
Anyway if you still insist that using "Start of Game" on this card would break the game, in my initial suggestion I said "Battlecry" ...
-7
By all that is holy! Another useless "legendary" ...
Well, let's go again with my fix:
-8
OMG, another stupid and useless legendary card ... You guys are definitely devaluing the concept of legendary cards by leaps and bounds ...
My suggestion:
(or even changing the Battlecry for Start of Game)
1
Indeed, you are right, my points may not be as explicit as I saw them at first, let me comment on these three:
I politely disagree. It is an undeniable fact that who wants too much doesn't catch anything, or in other words, Blizzard should not bite off more than they can chew. Let me explain.
It is obvious that if they divide their resources to cover more and more different game modes, the quality will inevitably suffer (after all, their resources are not infinite), and to top it off, the playerbase is also being segregated as a consequence, which is disastrous for a multiplayer game (see for yourself how most of the streamers are barely playing the main mode of the game).
In addition, when Blizzard keeps adding new game modes, they really only think about increasing their potential customers and thereby increasing their profits (with the consequent ways to monetize those new modes). Pure greed.
Honestly, I would rather they stop adding new game modes that NOTHING have to do with a collectable card game (which is the main premise of Hearthstone, I have to remind you) and instead they dedicate themselves to perfecting and polishing the many problems the main game mode has.
As for this point, I was referring to the fact that it is a chimera to think that Blizzard has become very generous because it "seems" that we get more gold than before ... it is all a smokescreen.
The real goal of the Reward Track was to monetize the new XP-based system, not to increase our free income. In fact, it was only after a monumental public outcry and fiery mobilizations and accusations against Blizzard that we recovered the free resources that were stolen from us with this new system.
It is possible that we get more gold (in exchange for investing even more time in the game) but nevertheless the possibilities of spending it have increased even more so, which inevitably makes it devalues (it is pure market economy).
I will try to explain it: I am not saying that the game is more expensive as a result of having more places to spend our gold (either in cosmetics or gold sinks for example) but that its value is devalued as long as you can do more and more things with him.
An example: you get more gold, okay, but suddenly some cosmetics appear that really make you drool, what are you going to do? Spend your gold on those suggestive cosmetics? Or maybe buy the packs you need? Blizzard wants you to spend your gold on whatever, as long as sooner or later you have to spend real money to get what you didn't buy with gold.
Leaving aside whether we have more gold or not, the reality is that the real cost of the game is astronomical: you can spend several hundred dollars a year and still not have the complete collection (which is what the game is about). Not even other games in the same category are that expensive, which shows Blizzard's greed.
Well in my case I am a wild player so maybe my point of view is not the same. In any case, by "loan" I mean that Blizzard has once again fooled us with another smokescreen.
It could seem that Blizzard is magnanimous and super generous in giving us an entire set at no cost, but in reality it is a vile deception. It is very cruel to give someone a gift, and when they are used to it and they like it, take it from them and tell them that if they want to have it again they will have to pay for it. Where is the magnanimity? What about the generosity?
It is useless a whole set is gifted to us if in a year it will expire and will disappear from our collection, having to spend resources to regain something we already had (remember that the main objective of a collectibles game is to get the complete collection).
The only way that Blizzard would prove not to be a greedy rat is that instead of lending us the set, they give it to us permanently forever. But I think that's not going to happen, I have the intuition that Blizzard's greed really has no limits.
2
I shouldn't answer to the fanboys’ provocations, but hey, whatever it takes to expose their stupidity and sectarianism...
OBVIOUSLY, a company or business has the right and the obligation to obtain economic benefits for its services, we are not talking about a charitable organization after all.
The problem arises when creating a quality product is no longer the priority, but getting as much economic profit as possible becomes the main motivation.
When the ways to monetize the game and obtain profits do not stop increasing exponentially while the quality of the game leaves more and more to be desired... there is an obvious problem: pure greed (a situation radically different from a few years ago).
When instead of concentrating on a single game mode and improving and developing it to satisfy their customers, they dedicate themselves to creating more and more additional game modes with the sole intention of catching more people (and their money) ... that shows that they are desperate to increase their profits.
And no, let's not be delusional: the Reward Track for instance was created with the intention of monetizing the game even more, let's not kid ourselves: it is useless to have more gold if the options to spend it have been multiplied by a thousand (the real value of gold has been devalued).
Another example: Core set is a loan ... it has been loaned to us for a year so that we believe that it belongs to us, but then, if we want to own it for real, we will have to spend resources on getting something what we already "had".
It is all a whole system to trap people and tempt them to spend more and more. Blizzard's greed is rampant, they don't know what else to do to try to earn more money.
Finally, to reflect on all this, you can check by yourselves how the frequency with which new bundles or products appear in the shop has increased exponentially in recent times ... they do not stop selling us things, the store is overflowing.
1
Blizzard's greed unleashed, that's all
6
Tell that, for example, to The Thunder King, Dame Hazelbark or Sylvanas Windrunner, as all of them (along with their respective card backs) originally went on sale in their own limited-time special bundles for 10 bucks... the very same bundles you can now get for just 1800 gold (1500 gold initially).
Paying real money for this bundle is an eccentricity typical of whales that have too much money to spare and/or do not know how to control their spending... because I remind you, this video game company does not deserve your money at all.
0
Thanks god we now can buy Ragnaros hero and its cardback for 1500 gold, we only have to wait :D
0
Yep, it seems like there has been a last minute change ...
The Ragnaros shaman hero was supposed to be the reward for the legendary quest-chain (for free), while the Eternal Flame bundle contained "flamish" skins for 3 classic heroes and a cardback.
I wonder if Blizzard changed their mind knowing that giving away an alternate hero of the importance of Ragnaros for free would make them not earn a large amount of money, since no one would pay a buck for another 3 pathetic skins of the basic heroes of always.
Anyway, they have clear priorities, always thinking about how to squeeze their customers to get as much money as possible...
0
Thanks for the info.
I hope that because of all this evidence, many of the fanboys that swarm around here can open their eyes once and for all.
Thank you for trying to show the truth once more, however, unfortunately there is no more blind than the one who does not want to see...
0
Obviously changing the mana cost would also have been a clumsy and lazy solution to a problem, which I insist, they themselves have created due to their own stupidity (and it is not the first time).
So what would have been the ideal solution? Well, the ideal thing would be for them to think and test the consequences of a new card before publishing it, but since that seems to be impossible for a small indie company, I will propose a more suitable solution.
If I were a developer of the game, I wouldn't change the concept of immunity (which is quite obvious and self-explanatory) not even this specific card, because that would be a mere band-aid that would only serve to hide the real problem.
Make no mistake, the problem with this card is the same as always: the cost cheating problem. We must avoid trivializing the cost of cards, either in mana or health, as in this case.
The concept of PAYING in health instead of mana is interesting, especially in the thematic philosophy of warlocks. But paying means paying, if you don't give what is asked of you, you get nothing.
If you are immune and CANNOT lose health, then it should be impossible to make any health payments, therefore it is as when you have no mana to pay and therefore cannot play any more cards. Remember that the game already prevents you from playing cards for life if you don't have enough life to pay the cost! There is already a precedent.
Taking damage would be a different thing, since an immunity would prevent it, but if in the upper left corner of a card where its mana cost is usually shown inside a blue gem, there is now a drop of blood, that means that you have to give health as payment for playing it...
Practical example: imagine that a card is published whose text reads: "Battlecry: During the next turn, your opponent cannot spend mana". Then, even if your opponent has 10 mana crystals, or even if he has ways to recharge them, he could only play cards whose mana cost is zero on that turn, because he could not consume mana no matter how much he had.
I hope that it has been clear. Honestly, it would be the most elegant solution, and also, it would not only solve the problem of this card but it would have corrected the underlying problem at its roots, that is, it would have fixed the problem forever, even for future cards, as it would not be a simple patch or temporary solution.
1
Please, do not be deluded, if Blizzard has banned this card is precisely because they wanted to "hide their shame":
They had no idea how to solve a problem that they themselves had created thanks to their irresponsibility and carelessness, so they opted for the easiest and fastest solution, solution which, to make matters worse, completely destroys the premise of the wild mode.
And mark my words, this will not be the first time we see a card banned from Wild: a dangerous precedent has been set... From now on, every time Blizzard consider a card to be somewhat problematic, they will not hesitate to ban it, hiding it under the rug as if it did not exist.
The first shot has already been fired, so it does not surprise me at all that a multitude of people have already started requesting bans left and right.
0
... is because they are the laziest and stupidest game developers of the entire world!
Instead of taking the bull by the horns and solving the root problem (cost-cheating shenanigans), they prefer to hide their shame (as they themselves created a card that anyone with some intelligence, common sense and basic knowledge of the game would see the problems it would create) under the rug, destroying the premise of one of the game modes (Wild: "You can play with any card you have in your collection") in the process.