Hearthpwn

Is it possible to refine the data to those with 6k+ ELO perhaps? That would be interesting.

Maybe a weighted average based on something like: Max((ELO - 5000)^3, 0)

That would mean someone under 5k ELO wouldn't be counted at all, while someone at 7k would count for 8 times as much as someone at 6k, and 1/8 as much as someone at 9k.

This list is reasonable for those who don't have a great handle on Battlegrounds strategy, but better players will be misled if they rely on it. For example, Dancin' Deryl is easily in the top 5 (probably top 2) for the best players, but he's relatively difficult to play. Meanwhile, Lord Jaraxxus provides a very straight-forward strategy for novice players but is average at best for very strong players.

In case it's not clear why, Jaraxxus forces a specific strategy for the hero power to do much which reduces flexibility, plus demons are the weakest tribe in the end-game, especially without the two non-demon helper minions which the hero power doesn't buff. On top of that, the hero power costs two mana but does half as much as Brann Bronzebeard + Crystalweaver, or one fourth as much as Brann Bronzebeard + Strongshell Scavenger if you've taunted them all up. Basically, it's a decent mid-game power, but demons generally get massacred in the late game at higher ranks by poison and/or Lightfang Enforcer and/or Zapp Slywick, and it doesn't do enough to prevent that.

I wish Blizzard would stop with these Fireside things and just give us a brawl with the new deck recipes or something which everyone could try.

Currently, 3905 gold and, if I press the button, 71,150 dust. Is that  a lot?

Quote from Anatak89 >>

I just think it's peculiar they added the $1,200 after declaring the contest.  I'm not a tax lawyer though, and I know less about taxes outside of Canada.

I'm not a tax professional either, but I wouldn't expect to owe taxes on the cards because you don't actually own them. Blizzard owns them and lets you use them on their server. They have no cash value. You can't sell them. You can't turn them in for other things you could trade or sell for value. Therefor, it seems to me they wouldn't actually qualify as income since they don't increase your total assets. This is specifically different from digital goods such as cryptocurrency which can be traded for money.

Obviously you'd still owe taxes on the helm and $1200 should you win.

Jade Golem is either going to be terrible, good or completely broken.

Quote from CheeseEatingSurrenderMonkey >>

What I'd like to know is the grammar rule used to determine which one between "Imp of Malchezzar" or "Malchezzar's Imp" is correct (if such a rule exists).

I haven't tested it, but it should be extremely good in the right deck. Yes it hits your own creatures, but it's an amazing come-back card. Compare it to Flamestrike where the problem is you only have 3 or less mana left to take over the board if you don't already have one. Elemental destruction still leaves you up to 7 mana to establish board presence afterward. Yes you only get up to 5 mana next turn, but hopefully that's enough to hold on given flipping the board on the previous turn.

The problem is most people are playing totem decks right now and are afraid of not getting value out of Thunderbluff Valiant, etc. Elemental Destruction makes more sense in a more controllish deck, like maybe Ancestor's Call if that's ever a thing. Still, it might work in totem Shaman if the board clear has value in the meta once it settles a bit.

Kezan is way too strong. Destroy a random enemy secret on a 3/4 would be reasonable, but destroy it, draw a card and play it for free, plus gain a 4/3 body AND know a secret your opponent is playing without triggering it is crazy. Any game where you get that off and don't win is a fluke, and that's just too strong for 1 card at 4 mana by itself which works against 3 / 9 classes.

Quote from WarmasterCly jump

• Cards feeling less real is a matter of opinion. I could say that Soulfire feels less real because I was so used to it being 0 mana, even though I have accepted that it has been nerfed to the ground.
• The Ben Brode mantra of "tons of testing" is a weak excuse to keep old cards the same. Magma Rager, buffed to Ice Rager stats could have been tested in a few games to quickly find out that most 1 drops trade into it, and nearly every 2 drop trades into it, and yes, some games it might hit the enemy face for 5 if the opponent has a very bad start and no small minion removal. Tons of testing is reserved to the game changers, cards like Dr. Boom, Mad Scientist, etc.
• Money is absolutely the reason why they do it. They don't make a dime for buffing an existing card, and then they'd have to think up more unique ideas instead of just copying and powercreeping an existing card.
• Although having those bad cards makes the collection larger, the collection could easily be as large if Blizzard used some creativity and made some decent cards in the place of the power crept cards. It's not much of a learning opportunity to realize that a 5/1 is worse than a 5/2, once they learn what health and attack are, they will never play the fiery rager again.

To be clear, I said they were better reasons, and they are. They certainly aren't unassailable. That said:

• You could say that, and you'd be right according to most MMO designers I've heard discuss the issue in interviews. Now imagine if they buffed it again and then nerfed it two weeks later, and then buffed it next month. Sure, that's unlikely to happen, but it illustrates the point. Digital goods feel less real when they change, so nearly all games go out of their way to only do that when absolutely necessary. You can certainly disagree, but your argument is more with standard thought in the industry than with me.
• Say they made River Crocolisk a 3/3. Who cares? Probably no one, unless it happens to make Beast Hunter or Beast Druid too strong and they start to dominate everything. Then next month they have to start nerfing, etc. Unlikely? Sure, unless they buff a lot of cards without testing the meta. Then it's practically guaranteed to happen with at least one, probably more, possibly in combination. Blizzard has no incentive to take that risk.
• Of course. I think there'd have to be much more compelling reasons than anyone has put forward for it to make the least bit of sense monetarily for Blizzard to buff existing cards, regardless of whether the rest of the reasons I gave are valid or not. It would have to be pretty much undebatable.
• It's not about the collection being larger. It's about starting with mostly bad cards and then the power level of your collection increasing over time until you are eventually building top-level decks. If you were able to make all cards viable somehow (virtually impossible), that would be the least ideal situation from this perspective because it would mean much less of a feeling of progression. It would be like if every new character started at the level cap in an MMO with raid-ready gear instead of at level 1 with a few copper pieces. Whether or not this matters is personal opinion, but I think it matters to Ben Brode based on his statements.

None of the above should be taken to imply that I don't recognize new players are at an increasingly severe disadvantage. I've been grinding F2P on Europe for a while and it's pretty tough. New expansions will only make it tougher. I think the answer Blizzard eventually comes up with will be some sort of catch-up mechanic though, like reducing gold / money / dust costs for older sets, bundle deals for old adventures, etc. rather than buffing old cards and trying to even out power levels.

Maybe. HS made something like $115 million in 2014 though, which was before the Android launch. I think the game is moving forward just fine, and I think the F2P aspect is a major reason for that due to not having to wait a long time for matches to start, people getting their friends playing, general hype, etc.

I've put about $25 in on the US server and am considering doing the $50 preorder deal. I can craft most of what I want to play several t1 decks, sometimes with an occasional substitution. It's easy mode most of the time grinding ladder with whatever class I happen to have a quest for, etc.

I'm completely F2P on Europe though and I started that account much later. It's much harder given that my card pool is so much smaller and I don't stick to a single deck archetype. It's painful. I lose far more often there. But it's also more satisfying when you beat someone's t1 or t2 deck with River Crocolisks and Stormwind Champions.

Also, people like to brag and will often find any excuse.

Cards which spawn minions can always be nerfed later if necessary. That's not the best argument on why they shouldn't just buff old cards. They can make Piloted Shredder 3/2, or make it cost 5 mana, or whatever. Same with Sneed's or Unstable Portal.

Better arguments would be:

• Cards feel less "real" when they change a lot.
• Whenever cards are buffed, a ton of testing has to be involved to see if they are going to create a terrible meta (like a deck which goes 70+% vs. everything), which mean they'd roll them into new sets rather than buff them a few at a time. Since they are doing a new set anyway, they may as well just make them new cards.
• It's monetarily better for them to release new buffed versions of old cards instead instead of buffing cards you already own.
• Having bad cards makes more of a collection progression for new players as well as learning opportunities.

"I'll put it on your head."

"Elephants, guide me."

"You might feel a little tinkle."