Hearthpwn

Thanks, I appreciate you guys. Currently I think it's pretty useless, BUT I have enough dust to create a deck. So I'm gonna keep it because like you guys said, you never know. If I make a deck and desperately need to, I'll dust it. Until then, I guess I'll be a wuss :3

Stupid of me to assume someone was being positive...

Hey everyone.

So with the new expansion coming, I'm sure we've all seen the threads and discussion about the real-money cost of cards. I've seen tons of people saying the game is "pay-to-win" and that the packs and preorders are too expensive. You'll see it on reviews and discussion boards alike. I actually really disagree here.

I will give my thoughts on this and I want to know what you guys think. I don't believe the game is pay to win at all. You just gotta grind...you know actually play the game. I feel like people are too impatient and want gold/packs/dust just to move along quickly. Now I'll admit, I have made a few purchases (really just some adventures), but without that, I would still be in a similar position. I've been playing off and on for about 3 years and I'm at a point where I have lots of legendaries, can craft most of what I want, and have a few golden heroes. I could have gotten just about everything I have without paying.

What do you guys think?? I think there are definitely ways to improve the speed of the game and help new players get a larger collection, however, I don't think Hearthstone is pay-to-win, it just takes time.

Another quick point is that I've been saving gold for about a month and a half. I have about 2000 gold which is 20 packs in the next expansion. It didn't take very long, I maybe play 5 games a day or less. It's fairly easy to save and get packs if you put in some work. Doing the math, say, on the low end, you get a 50-coin quest every day. One month, say 30 days, times a 50-coin quest is 1500 coins (15 packs) a month. I think that is reasonable.

QUESTIONS:

1. Do you guys think Hearthstone is pay-to-win or does it just require dedication?

2. How much gold have you guys saved for the new expansion and how difficult do you think it was? Should it be easier/harder?

But I have a golden priest....I don't think it will work

Quote from Pullaa >>

Scrub using the meta decks... You don't need a meta deck to climb. All those decks are quite cancer. I use an even warrior deck and I'm at rank 5

Sorry for wanting to do well....Why is using good decks bad? I use lots of other decks in casual, but in ranked I use ones I can win with. Don't call it cancer just cause you lose to it.

Quote from Ertai87 >>

Been playing Kibler's Quest Priest, it's pretty good and a lot of fun if you like long interactive games.  Be aware though that the mirror almost always goes to a forced draw (if you take too many turns the game ends in a draw).  Otherwise I've been having success with it, losing mostly to Aggro Mage and losing to my own deck not feeding me deathrattle cards.

Cool, I may try out quest priest! Also, I had no idea the game would tie. Thanks for the comment.

If you have the card at the time that it's nerfed, you'll receive the full dust cost of the card back. If you have golden versions, you'll only get the dust for those, the most expensive version of the card.

As of now, we don't know which cards will be nerfed in the next update.

So many players seem to only want the good decks to be nerfed. They lose against a good deck and it's all "That deck is OP, NERF IT NOW."

In my opinion, the game would benefit more from buffing the Witchwood expansion. We all know the power level of WW is fairly low, of course that being amplified in our minds since Kobolds was so influential. Whether they're planning a new start for Hearthstone or something, a little increase in power could go a long way. Instead of nerfing the top tier decks, what if we had better WW cards that could just add more competition to the meta?

To me at least, it would be great to just buff some cards and allow more decks to be made that can compete against Cubelock, Aggro Pally, etc. Now I'm not saying I have the perfect solution but just off the top of my head, how about make Emeriss cost 9 mana? It could buff a charging boar hit with Dire Frenzy and attack the same turn.

I'm not even sure lol I just wish more thought was put into buffs rather than just nerfing everything. Now nothing is set in stone yet so I'm hoping they don't kill everything, but add some power for new decks, who knows!

Agreed. People complain too much. How about instead of "I lost to this OP deck, NERF IT!" we see some "How about buff this Witchwood card to help this new deck compete with other good decks."

I'm wondering if there's anyone else out there who thinks the "this is unfair, *insert current top tier deck here* is SO overpowered" threads are bullshit. I think more threads should be thinking of solutions. There are good decks in the meta and there are bad ones. Yes, decks like Cubelock, Odd/Even Pally, and Spiteful Druid are very good. I'm kind of tired of people saying how these decks are "cancerous" and need to be nerfed. Just stop playing if you want to. 

Think about this, if the top tier contained a ton of decks that were pretty good and none that were great, how would we climb? It would be a continuous cycle of win-lose-win-lose. I think the focus should be on maybe buffing other cards and thinking of combos to help combat the great decks in the meta, rather than whining about decks that are winning.

Also, in my opinion, there are a pretty good amount of decks to climb with. Cube, Odd hunter/rogue/Pally, quest rogue, Spiteful Priest/Druid, even decks, zoolock, quest warrior, and I even used all-spell Hunter and elemental mage a bit

Quote from SinAscendant >>

Quote from Yonas11 >>

Quote from Poghy >>

Quote from SinAscendant >>

Quote from Yonas11 >>

Iksar said: Assuming you play the same amount and have the same quest completion rate, you shouldn't earn less gold or non-gold in the new system. In nearly all circumstances you should be earning slightly more gold and more non-gold (packs, etc).

source

In reality: https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/general-discussion/245719-math-old-vs-new-reward-system

 

 You realize that you just linked a thread that says their final verdict is that the new system is BETTER for most players right?

 My conclusion was that the new system gives more reward overall, but I have also mentioned that you get less gold, which proves that Blizzard actually lied. I like the new system but I dont try to defend Blizz, they just lied, period.

 Exactly. Blizzard clearly said we should earn slightly more gold, and also get non-gold, in almost all cases. The only one in the scenario in the linked thread that earns more gold is the streamer.

 Except that isn't true at all. Number one, the other thread says "two weekly quests" when there are three, so you're already missing 1750 xp a week.

 

Number two, he somehow averages 1000, 800, and 1500 for dailies out to 1000, when it should be ~1100.

 

Number 3, he gives an estimate for game times but fails to factor in the amount of time you spend waiting for each match. His estimate for gametime is also inaccurate, just a second on HSReplay shows the average game time for Face Hunter is 5.8 minutes, not 5, which adds an extra 48 minutes to the total time. 

 

He then uses that same incorrect number to extrapolate for "normal" players despite starting from an incorrect premise, meaning his numbers are completely off by that point.

 

Number 4, he assumes that the average player plays 1 hour every day and 2-5 hours both weekend days. That's idiotic, the vast majority of players only log in 3-4 days a week. Looking at my Samsung Galaxy play app, the average Galaxy player plays an average of 1.08 hours on any given day. If a player were to play 1 hour each day and 2 hours on the weekend days, that would be 1.28 hours average. So, were he to be using REALISTIC time numbers, it would be about 7.5 hours a week average, not 10; which means that BY HIS MATH a REAL average player would be making about 6950 gold under the old system.  If you adjust the new system to 7.5 instead of 10, then they would be making around 265k xp instead of 289 (as the daily and weekly xp wouldnt change) so it would come out to 6650, meaning that you get a whole 300 gold less than the old system. That's pretty damn close to me, and again, that isnt taking into account the extra weekly that he didnt take into account. When you add 1750x12, that brings you back up to 7500, meaning the average player is making MORE gold in addition to the added bonuses.

 1. I have calculated with 3 weekly quests, or 6000 xp / week (2500 +1750 + 1750) so my math is correct.

2. (800 + 1000 + 1500)/3 = 1100 BUT as I have mentioned in the analisys, 50 of the new 66 quests are worth 1000 xp. There are 10 for 800 xp and 6 for 1500. So the real math seems like this: (10*800 + 50*1000 + 6*1500)/66 = 1015. So I missed an extra 1.5% not 10%,

3. The waiting time is negligible (unless you play duels but I was talking about ranked play). I wasnt specifically said face hunter, I was talking about "a very fast aggro deck", which can be face hunter OR something like the much faster aggro druid in wild. Since I wasnt talking about a specific deck, I allowed myself to estimate it at 5 minutes.

4. Maybe I had a misconception about how many hours plays the average player, so you can call my 4. category "competitive player" and use my 1. category the "questing adventurer". And again, I didnt miss the weekly quest xp.

So yeah, nice try but Im prepared to answer these kind of nitpickings. I guess its easier to criticise someone who makes an actual contribution to the community than do the contributing yourself, but next time try to do a better job because Im not offended.

Quote from Pizzacats >>

Quote from Shadowrisen >>

That's not control rogue.  Which is unsurprising, since there has never been a successful control Rogue in the history of this game.

 "Wrong". I have lots of removal and stall the early and midgame till i can make a wall of big minions. That is the definition of control.  Rez priest plays similarly, big minion control warrior plays similarly.  The only thing that makes it different is lack of bard clears and instead just blocking the way with taunt.

 No, if your win condition involves a Lorekeeper ordering your deck to then render three huge creatures free via Heistbaron, as was the suggestion in the post I responded to, you are playing a combo deck.  A control deck's win condition is based on value generation.  Yours is surviving long enough to play a sequence of cards (A "combination" if you will) that swings tempo in an irrecoverable fashion.

That's a combo rogue.  Shudderwock had lots of removal too, and Shudderwock wasn't a control deck.

The distinction is in the win condition.  As an easy comparison, consider current Galakrond priest.  That's a control deck.  The deck is basically unconcerned with which creatures come off the Galakrond hero power, it simply knows that sooner or later, the opponent will run out of answers if things go according to plan.

There has never been a successful control rogue.  I seriously doubt there will be the first this expansion, but if there is, it's not the deck you described.  There's really not a lot of grey area in the definitions of control and combo decks.  In fact, the only deck I can think of that has ever blurred the line was the pre-nerf Raza/Anduin Priest.

The only reason that blurs the line is that sometimes it was necessary to combo Prophet Velen, Radiant Elemental, Mind Blast, Lyra the Sunshard, etc. in order to blitz the opponent down in combo fashion, whereas many games one was content to sit back and slowly chip away two life at a time with every card played.

But, again, the mention of having lots of removal demonstrates a clear and present misunderstanding of the distinction between control and combo.  And no, before the centrists come in to take up this argument, it is NOT the case that all combo decks are a subset of control.  I named the one deck I can think of that sort of falls into both categories; the vast majority do not.

Nice job keyboard fighters, report humour. You are the true heroes we need. 

it is a card for specific archetype it might be core card of a strong deck or it might never see play until rotation. If you need another legendary more versatile one than you can dust this. 

Right now I have enough dust I would keep it but if I need I would dust it.

Same

Read your intro. Laughed so hard I felt obligated to up vote.  

Boooo, my tier 1 deck is overpowered by albatross, boooo, blizzard nerf!

Ever heard about tech cards?

Well that is exactly what they are supposed to do...

I wanna cry... priest is my fav and main hero and i just cant win against rogue and warrior..... and the meta is full of them.. 5 warriors in a row all of them the same....so.. how we counter warrior?