Hearthpwn

Zola next diamond to copy your diamonds. Remorina would be amazing

Out of my jungle!

Quote from Poghy >>

Quote from x0chipilli >>

We already know that mercs PvE exp will = Duels, BGs, and Arena and PVP will = Ranked Standard/Wild

 We already know? Source?

What we could see in some YT videos is that mercs PVE exp = current PVE xp (according to HS Mathematics 170 xp/hour but it seems to me that its closer to 100-120 xp/hour) and about mercs PVP we dont know anything but its safe to assume that its gonna be equal to duels/bgs/arena xp.

Iskar is my source:
https://twitter.com/IksarHS/status/1433826071263137800?s=20 

Lastly as much as I agree with the argument about price point, I think that will only happen if the whole thing flops. 
I mean they stealth-nerfed arena rewards and haven’t even made an attempt at making the mode better (arena specific cards, in-game menu to explain what cards or sets are in, etc.) Instead they are thinking of adding ranks to arena, likely causing arena to be even less profitable. 

I know businesses need to be profitable, but sometimes it really seems like straight greed :/

We already know that mercs PvE exp will = Duels, BGs, and Arena and PVP will = Ranked Standard/Wild
(https://twitter.com/IksarHS/status/1433826071263137800?s=20)

I agree with most of your points, if they are going to make a new stand-alone game, it needs the rewards to be able to support that. It would be massively unfair to require gold from a game that doesn’t have its own separate quests and methods of earning gold. (I agree with the below point as well, personally I just don’t understand the need to make people play gold to play. Sure buy packs and the rest, but why should I use the gold I’ve saved for a year to upgrade some buildings? I feel like they’re anxious of all the gold hoarding for some reason.)

The fact that we have so many questions and not even a demo, yet 3 bundles at 130 is disappointing. My excitement has definitely changed since before the reveal, and I hope more info comes out so that I can justify spending money on a mode that was meant to be released back in March.

I only have one complaint so far, leapfrogger (but not why you might think)

It’s an anti-apm minion. It’s promoting DC to have a full buy/sell turn (can you do this or is it considered cheating?)

Otherwise I’ve been having fun :)

Quote from FortyDust >>

Quote from MvonTzeskagrad >>

Quote from FortyDust >>

Quote from b1ak1ce >>

the game mode isnt pay2win, its pay2progress. Representing the worst elements of gachi gameplay loops.

 You cannot accelerate a mercenary's XP gain (leveling up) with cash. You can only upgrade Abilities and Equipment that way. There has to be some reason to buy packs, so I don't know what you expect.

We've already seen how many Mercenary Coins you get from low-level Bounties, and it's safe to assume those numbers increase at higher levels. We also know roughly how much it costs to upgrade things. It's not going to be that hard to upgrade your stuff without paying.

 Do we? I'd like to know what's the rough eestimation, because I've had that concern for a while and I somewhat consider that the main thing that will say if it's really wworth giving much time or not.

 If you watch the videos, you can see them upgrading some things. The upgrades I've seen all cost less than 200 coins, and that includes a higher-tier upgrade on a legendary unit. The smallest stack of Coins for a low-level Bounty is 20 coins; 50 seems average for PvP. And you get several stacks (for different mercs) every time you earn them.

So it looks like rares will be super easy to upgrade, while epics and legendaries are a bit (to a lot) harder because their specific coins will drop less often (even in purchased packs). Maxing out a legendary will be a big undertaking for anyone, whether you're paying or not.

What happens if you fully upgrade a hero and have extra coins left over?

Quote from Red1 >>

How many hearthstone modes are there?

wild, standard, casual, classic 

Could be a barrens map surprise for every mode?

 

also, duels/battlegrounds/arena/regular HS

 But neither duels, BGs, or classic use the Barrens board. Might not be board related but based on Hearthstone tweets and Facebook posts I think it means there are 4 Easter eggs on the Barrens board

 Another good point that I didn’t consider. Part of the point of experimental in OW is community feedback. HS is a 1v1 experience, so speaking about fair vs unfair turns into he said she said essentially. It would be extremely anecdotal.

If there was a fair way to incentive it, the information received from this mode would have to be purely statistical and devs would have to explicitly state they won’t take “advice.” This is probably close to the truth with game balance right now, but it would seem almost cruel if devs said that right now.

I appreciate  your comment. I think I just hope for a HS where things don’t matter so much to everyone. Where if they want to add a diablo/overwatch/starcraft card/hero they could. Or make a huge change that was bad, that they wouldn’t be crucified for it. To be more flexible in general.

but I think the playerbase is weary of everything that gets done, and whilst I understand why, it also slows progress and exciting change. 

KQuote from xskarma >>

The problem I see that with an experimental mode, people would treat it as a joke, and therefor not do their best to win.

With internal testing the devs do, they at least try to win with the decks they are testing, but in experimental mode players would just go "Oh I got Shaman, meh, I'll just fuck around and if it's not fun concede". And if people can choose their class, they would never pick certain classes perceived as weak. Or rumour would go out that a certain class is really strong in testing right now and people would flock to only play that class.

What an experimental mode would need is incentives to play, and play seriously. And I just don't see that being possible.

Yeah I agree with all this unfortunately. I think it would take special kinds of players to use a mode like this and yet limiting availability goes against the entire premise. It’s rare that people play seriously and yet uncompetitively. A major shortsight on my part, thank you for pointing that out. 

Quote from SinAscendant >>

Quote from PrincessKenny >>

is there anyway to know how many levels you completed for darkmoon? 

 At this point, no. Why does it matter? You can't get those levels, do you just want to feel bad about what you missed?

 Because of the new hero portraits I assume.

OP when they release the new 200 portraits I am fairly certain they will add an achievement to be able to track progress for 2000 levels or more 

Would this ever be viable in hearthstone in similar ways to the way Overwatch does?

If yes: what kind of things would you want to see done?

For me, the answer seems like it would obviously help devs and players alike understand the game, but the biggest issue I see dividing up the player base again. In an ideal world it would bring new/old players back into the game whilst making some extremely radical changes that could go live if they were useful. I also believe that players would need free access to cards or at least decks to play test the changes without an investment. There would be no ladder, and XP rewards would be akin to BG, duels, or casual.

Why do this? Well, lets see if shaman with different iterations of hero powers would help it at all (pick a totem, you cannot pick the same one for two turns) or to try buffing irrelevant cards (wild & standard) without ruining the live game.

In a game like Overwatch, balance changes don’t affect earnings the same way it does for HS (an assumption). You buy the game and have access to everything.

In hearthstone, nerfing cards might be considered equivalent to losing money. Therefore I am sure they are hesitant to buff cards, especially after the whole Pocket Galaxy  reworks.

Realistically, I can only see this happening if wild gets a huge spike in player base. Power creep has rendered many cards that were once powerful useless and reworking old cards would incentivize old packs being purchased.

Final thing: there is no place for devs to goof around in hearthstone. This mode would have to be low maintenance in order to let us try new things. Hearthstone is a great game and yet, we get no seasonal sales or april fools jokes. They must be extremely busy with all the new avenues they are exploring. But in the next 2 years I would love a testing mode that makes attempts to buff underplayed cards and nerf OP ones so the game is more complete in terms of legacy.

 Thanks for reading :)

I wouldn’t, the card is fine

I have every card relevant to duels and I still hardly ever play. I got my 12-0 with a few different classes and then just fizzled out. Even if they gave everyone the cards available for duels for free I still think it would be at the bottom.

It’s just not that fun. And Heroic duel rewards are lackluster like others said. I’d rather spend gold on Arena.

Maybe if the XP rewards were equivalent to other modes I’d spend more time on it, but since it gives less rewards than ranked I don’t much see the point. Especially when there are so few players, at higher wins you can q into the same individual 2-3 times

Quote from BlueTwo >>

Polar bear is obviously the best in terms of size, Grizzly reigns supreme in terms of raw power, and the black bear is a craftiest little bugger of the bunch. 

In conclusion, panda bears are hot garbage. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

 Whoa wtf, Pandas are literally the weirdest bears. They’re built like carnivores but eat almost exclusively bamboo. They’re like some sort of esoteric ascetic monk in bear form. 

I beg you, please read this short funny story and tell me if you feel the same after: https://fivedials.com/reportage/radical-bears-forest-delicious