Hearthstone 19: Patches In All The Wrong Places

[Zevox]

It occurred to me today that with the new rotation announcement, Dragon decks are actually getting even more screwed than before, because they're losing Azure Drake. The one generally-solid Classic Dragon card we could always count on having, gone. That means they'll need even more good, new Dragon cards to make the archetype at all viable again than they already did...

Yeah, I'm thinking Dragon decks are dead for at least the first set of the new rotation, if not the whole year. Which would be very sad, since it means that great cards like Netherspite Historian, Book Wyrm, Drakonid Operative, and Nightbane Templar could spend most of their Standard lifespan as useless due to lack of enough cards to make a Dragon deck...

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Hello, I'd like to be added to the list of HS players here. I'm on the American server and my battle tag is Jaxzan#1878.

New announcement certainly looks interesting, especially with the Hall of Fame. I think it's nice that those cards will still be available for Wild play, but not obvious standard problems anymore. If only I had some of the legendaries so I could grab more dust.

Also, does anyone know if there will be a price for the single-player content that's coming with the expansions? I'm f2p and trying to decide if I should spend my gold on packs that are rotating out, or saving for Mammoth stuff.

[Zevox]

Hello, I'd like to be added to the list of HS players here. I'm on the American server and my battle tag is Jaxzan#1878.

Added.

And I don't think anyone has any details on the next expansion's single-player content at this time.

[Seerow]

Yeah right now it's all speculation, unfortunately.

Right now the impression I've gotten is that the single player content will be free and give the sorts of rewards we've been getting free from the last few expansions (ie a few free packs). Personally I'm hoping for something more involved than that. But what I would like is basically asking them to develop a full adventure and a full card set every 4 months simultaneously, and that is probably a bit much to ask.

Either way we do know for sure the first set this year won't have the single player content, so it's probably a solid 4-5 months before we'll know more about it.



I will say though, whatever reward structure they go with, if I can't reasonably expect to collect all the cards on a reasonable budget before they rotate out, I'll probably be done with the game. It's fun to watch streamers buying hundreds of packs on day one and open them all at once, but that's definitely not a reasonable expectation for most of us.

I mentioned it in the last thread, but my general budget is around 20 bucks a month. I'm willing to splurge an extra 20-30 or so with an expansion release. But on the new release cycle if nothing else changes, that lets me buy roughly 85 packs per expansion, plus what I can earn from daily quests (generally going to be around 1 per 2 days on average, so another 60 packs over 4 months give or take). 145 packs is a fair chunk, but the average amount of packs needed to get everything in an expansion is a bit more than double that, hovering around 300 packs required for all pack based expansions.

Conveniently, when we had an adventure as every other expansion, that gave an extra 4 months to collect cards from that set. In 8 months you can get 290 packs on that budget, which is reasonably close to getting everything you need.

But now with new card packs coming out twice as often, it's literally impossible without buying an extra 160 packs every 4 months. Which means buying 40 more packs per month, or spending basically an extra 50 dollars per month, increasing the necessary budget to get a full set from 20 bucks a month to 70 bucks a month.

It could be the new log-in rewards (they said they'll be temporary, but it may need to stay long term), it could be new single player adventures, it could be new structure decks you can purchase to get a head start. Don't know or particularly care. But they will need to change something, otherwise only whales and people who grind arena nonstop will be able to have a full collection. And that's a very sad state for the game.

[Gandariel]

My 2 cents on the Expansion cost debate.

This expansion I crafted Kazakus, Patches, one Dirty Rat, one Unlicensed Apotechary, two Dragon fire Potions, plus a few rares. 4.8k in epics and legendaries, let's say 5k/5.5k in total.

(Sadly I didn't get any of these cards in packs, that would have saved me some dust.)

this 5k dust expenditure allowed me to play Reno Mage/warlock, dragon Priest, miracle rogue, pirate warrior and shaman, which is most of the meta.
The only notable things I didn't craft were Aya Blackpaw and Raza the Chained. Didn't feel like blowing more dust on them.

Still, my "keep up with the meta" expenditure was 5k dust, and it allowed me to play, I'd say, 3/4ths of the meta, which is more than enough for me.

Don't quote me on this, but I'm given to understand one pack is, on average, 100-110 dust? And that's assuming you never find what you actually want in the pack.

In short, my expenses for this expansion amounted to around 50 packs.

Given the brawl packs, the welcome packs, the gold from quests, Arena rewards and so on my impression is that it's still not that impossible to keep up.

A decent amount of my packs came from Arena, true, but if you're willing to spend money the 50 packs bundle they always offer is already enough to hit the 5k dust I mentioned, and then you get all the free stuff.

I don't have a full collection and I never will, but honestly I don't care. I can keep up with the game without spending money or feel like I'm grinding.
As long as it stays like this, I'm perfectly fine.

[Zevox]

But they will need to change something, otherwise only whales and people who grind arena nonstop will be able to have a full collection. And that's a very sad state for the game.

Honestly, in my mind that's how things have always been. I've never been anywhere near having a full collection, and feel like I'd either need to play constantly or spend a bunch of money to get there. Fortunately, I'm not interested in getting there - as long as I can amass all of the cards that are good for decks I enjoy from a given set, that's enough for me.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

But they will need to change something, otherwise only whales and people who grind arena nonstop will be able to have a full collection. And that's a very sad state for the game.

I'm wondering if that really IS a sad state. Fewer full collections means a likelihood of fewer power cards in every player's collections, which also means fewer players able to be able to build the meta-deck of the moment. That in turn leads to greater deck diversity outside the top of the ladder. And THAT actually makes it easier for newer players to get into the game, as they'll be up against fewer pro-perfected meta decks and more "I took a pro deck and made the best one I could with the cards I have available" decks.

[Kish]

...which does actually go with the multiple floors model they're switching to. Someone whose collection is only good enough to get to rank 15 will see all the people who are going to rank 10 or 5 or Legend leave their opponent pool fairly early in the month, and not fall back into it until next month.

I suspect from Blizzard's perspective, what's a sad state is when people have full collections without giving Blizzard $$$. Whether this will ultimately benefit them or hurt them, well, we'll see.

[Zevox]

I'm wondering if that really IS a sad state. Fewer full collections means a likelihood of fewer power cards in every player's collections, which also means fewer players able to be able to build the meta-deck of the moment. That in turn leads to greater deck diversity outside the top of the ladder. And THAT actually makes it easier for newer players to get into the game, as they'll be up against fewer pro-perfected meta decks and more "I took a pro deck and made the best one I could with the cards I have available" decks.

Nah, that won't happen. Having a large enough collection to be able to field most or all meta decks has never been that hard for longtime players.

[Anarion]

My 2 cents on the Expansion cost debate.

This expansion I crafted Kazakus, Patches, one Dirty Rat, one Unlicensed Apotechary, two Dragon fire Potions, plus a few rares. 4.8k in epics and legendaries, let's say 5k/5.5k in total.

(Sadly I didn't get any of these cards in packs, that would have saved me some dust.)

this 5k dust expenditure allowed me to play Reno Mage/warlock, dragon Priest, miracle rogue, pirate warrior and shaman, which is most of the meta.
The only notable things I didn't craft were Aya Blackpaw and Raza the Chained. Didn't feel like blowing more dust on them.

Still, my "keep up with the meta" expenditure was 5k dust, and it allowed me to play, I'd say, 3/4ths of the meta, which is more than enough for me.

Don't quote me on this, but I'm given to understand one pack is, on average, 100-110 dust? And that's assuming you never find what you actually want in the pack.

In short, my expenses for this expansion amounted to around 50 packs.

Given the brawl packs, the welcome packs, the gold from quests, Arena rewards and so on my impression is that it's still not that impossible to keep up.

A decent amount of my packs came from Arena, true, but if you're willing to spend money the 50 packs bundle they always offer is already enough to hit the 5k dust I mentioned, and then you get all the free stuff.

I don't have a full collection and I never will, but honestly I don't care. I can keep up with the game without spending money or feel like I'm grinding.
As long as it stays like this, I'm perfectly fine.

Nah, that won't happen. Having a large enough collection to be able to field most or all meta decks has never been that hard for longtime players.

Yeah, Zevox is right on that. Here's mine.

I spent $40 on the expansion, buying the presale bonus packs. I haven't spent any more money since then. I've pulled Knuckles, White Eyes, Kazakus, Finja, and Aya.
I also crafted Solia, Burnbristel, Raza, Hobart, and Patches.

So that's 8k dust value in pulls, and 8k spent on crafting. I've got another 7k dust in the bank ready for the next expansion. I spend 100% of my gold on arena and play it close to eternally (I think I'm a little worse than Gandariel, I tend to not really make or lose gold, I just hold steady enough with arena and quests to never have to pay real money for my arena runs while having a constant flow of packs and random cards).

I think Blizzard's goal is likely that a free only player who's good at the game can play a competitive deck in the meta, including the necessary legendaries, but not every single competitive meta deck. At least, not without an extreme amount of time put into the game. Complete collections are definitely not on their radar though. I think I've spent ~$200 on Hearthstone so far (I bought the preorder for every expansion starting with grand tournament and the adventures with real money and I don't spend during a season). I've been playing since release, and with that investment, I'm nowhere near a complete collection. Not even close.

But, I feel like if everyone had a complete set, that would actually discourage a lot of people from playing. Not everyone is interested in grinding the ranked ladder, and the game is better for people messing around having fun because they want to earn gold and dust and work towards particular cards they think are fun.

[Seerow]

I'll reply on more detail tonight when I'm home instead of on a smartphone, but the main problem is if you only have enough resources for a few good cards, you're going to have basically one meta deck you can play and nothing else. This is where things like pirate warrior become overwhelming because they are cheap and good. Individual player card diversity is necessary if you want to see experimentation. If only top ranked players can afford to experiment beyond the top meta decks the meta gets stale that much faster.

I also disagree with the premise that 5k dust will get you every card you really need for the meta, but that is an argument I will save for later.

[Zevox]

I'll reply on more detail tonight when I'm home instead of on a smartphone, but the main problem is if you only have enough resources for a few good cards, you're going to have basically one meta deck you can play and nothing else. This is where things like pirate warrior become overwhelming because they are cheap and good. Individual player card diversity is necessary if you want to see experimentation. If only top ranked players can afford to experiment beyond the top meta decks the meta gets stale that much faster.

I also disagree with the premise that 5k dust will get you every card you really need for the meta, but that is an argument I will save for later.

There's a vast difference between having a full collection and having only enough resources for a single deck. I'd be more than happy to wager that most players who spend much time on the game fall squarely between the two, and that this shift to having extra expansions this year won't change that meaningfully.

[Anarion]

I'll reply on more detail tonight when I'm home instead of on a smartphone, but the main problem is if you only have enough resources for a few good cards, you're going to have basically one meta deck you can play and nothing else. This is where things like pirate warrior become overwhelming because they are cheap and good. Individual player card diversity is necessary if you want to see experimentation. If only top ranked players can afford to experiment beyond the top meta decks the meta gets stale that much faster.

I also disagree with the premise that 5k dust will get you every card you really need for the meta, but that is an argument I will save for later.

It gets better over time, actually. Once you've got the cards you want from classic, they stick with you (and note that with the rotation now, they're giving a full dust refund so you can make something to replace your lost Ragnaros et al). I made Bloodmage Thalnos back in GvG and just slot him in every time something comes up where he's relevant for a deck.

If you're completely new now, then yes, you're gonna have a rough time collecting everything, although the standard rotation actually helps that out by making the set of cards you need smaller. And I'd encourage new players to craft their preferred class legendaries and useful dragon legends from classic first because those stick around. But, I think that should be intended. It's not a game where you just automatically get all the cards by signing up, it's a CCG model, the whole point is that you play to get new and better cards over time.

[tonberrian]

Yeah, I'm starting to feel like switching over to Elder Scrolls Legends was for the best. Questing is much less of a pain, the gold you get from matches is randomized between 15 and like 35 or something, you get a free card with every 3rd win as well, and it's just more tactically interesting.

[Seerow]

There's a vast difference between having a full collection and having only enough resources for a single deck. I'd be more than happy to wager that most players who spend much time on the game fall squarely between the two, and that this shift to having extra expansions this year won't change that meaningfully.

Yeah, I can understand that.

But the main issue is that people are going to beeline for the cards that are in the "best" meta decks as long as cards are very hard to get. Basically this sort of design leads directly to a lack of deck diversity. Top level players do a bunch of experimentation in the first week or two, they determine what the best decks are, then everyone else goes out and crafts the cards for 1-2 of those decks, and that takes up pretty much all of their resources. If over the next few months they get more resources, they'll go towards getting more of the cards for other meta decks.

I mean just given the 5000 dust example that Gandariel gave, ignoring the fact that it wasn't actually covering all of the cards needed for the decks he specified (just as a quick example, Draconid OP was missing from the list. No dragon priest is running without that), if 5000 dust actually was enough to get you the cards you need for 2-3 meta decks you're expected to buy 50 packs, dust everything in those packs that you will not be using in those decks (rather than hold onto anything you don't have more than 2 of) in order to craft those cards.

As far as I know most players don't play like that, but to get the "50 packs = all you need for your decks" that's what's expected. So either stuff like that becomes the norm, and the average player has much lower potential deck diversity that they are able to play, or players end up missing out on a lot more key cards because they don't have the guaranteed expansion cards to fall back on.

It gets better over time, actually. Once you've got the cards you want from classic, they stick with you (and note that with the rotation now, they're giving a full dust refund so you can make something to replace your lost Ragnaros et al). I made Bloodmage Thalnos back in GvG and just slot him in every time something comes up where he's relevant for a deck.

The full dust refund is nice, but keep in mind their reasoning for moving those cards to Hall of Fame. It's because they fit into so many decks. Say now you can have Sylvanas in 3 completely different decks. When patch rolls around she's gone, you have dust to craft a new legendary, hooray! But now there's 3 new legendaries into those 3 decks for different reasons. Because they don't want one card that gets included everywhere, they want multiple cards that get put in for different reasons. This makes for a more interesting meta because you have more different cards in the game, but it is a net loss to a player who doesn't have the resources to get all 3 of the new cards, since now they can only run one of the decks where they used to have 3.

Now this example is hypothetical, but it is about the design principles behind their change. I don't expect we'll ever see a card as universally useful as Azure Drake again. Whatever you craft with that dust you get back is going to fit into far fewer decks than the Azure Drake you lost. The same goes for most of the other hall of famers. The dust is nice, and I wouldn't expect anything more from that. And the design goal of seeing more different cards in different decks is also good. The problem only comes in when the method of actually gaining cards is restrictive to most players playing the game.

If you're completely new now, then yes, you're gonna have a rough time collecting everything, although the standard rotation actually helps that out by making the set of cards you need smaller. And I'd encourage new players to craft their preferred class legendaries and useful dragon legends from classic first because those stick around. But, I think that should be intended. It's not a game where you just automatically get all the cards by signing up, it's a CCG model, the whole point is that you play to get new and better cards over time.

The rotation helps out new players, yes. But the point is having card pack based expansions twice as frequently means a typical player ends a given expansion with half as many cards to work with.

But, I feel like if everyone had a complete set, that would actually discourage a lot of people from playing. Not everyone is interested in grinding the ranked ladder, and the game is better for people messing around having fun because they want to earn gold and dust and work towards particular cards they think are fun.

I agree that everyone shouldn't have a complete set. Just giving the cards all up front would take away a large part of the fun, and pack opening has its own intrinsic value for entertainment.

The question isn't "Should everybody get a full set of every card in the game". The question is "How much should a player have to invest to get a full set of cards?".

Right now with the current expansion model, investing around $350.00 per year give or take will cover it. Under the new model, it's closer to $1000.00 per year. Do you think that level of monetary investment to maintain a full card collection is acceptable?




Or if you don't like the argument point of "Investment for a full collection", how much of a collection do you think an average player should have? Should your typical player be disenchanting most legendaries and epics they get if they don't fit into the current meta so they can craft cards that better compete?

[Zevox]

Or if you don't like the argument point of "Investment for a full collection", how much of a collection do you think an average player should have? Should your typical player be disenchanting most legendaries and epics they get if they don't fit into the current meta so they can craft cards that better compete?

That is exactly how it's always worked for me anyway, so sure. Dust the cards that aren't good, keep or craft the ones that are, put together decks that are good - all totally standard-sounding stuff. And I don't anticipate it being that much harder to put together multiple good decks just because we get an expansion where an adventure would have been. Hell, adventures were in a way more expensive than expansions for a free-to-play player: with expansions you can get the cards via gold or dust, whereas with adventures gold is your only option.

[Seerow]

That is exactly how it's always worked for me anyway, so sure. Dust the cards that aren't good, keep or craft the ones that are, put together decks that are good - all totally standard-sounding stuff. And I don't anticipate it being that much harder to put together multiple good decks just because we get an expansion where an adventure would have been. Hell, adventures were in a way more expensive than expansions for a free-to-play player: with expansions you can get the cards via gold or dust, whereas with adventures gold is your only option.

I believe we had that discussion in the last thread, and determined the only way the adventures aren't cheaper is if you are a f2p player who also is a regular arena player with a huge stockpile of dust that you prefer to spend instead of gold. In every other situation Adventures are hugely more efficient ways to get cards, particularly a relatively high quality of cards.

[Gandariel]

I mean just given the 5000 dust example that Gandariel gave, ignoring the fact that it wasn't actually covering all of the cards needed for the decks he specified (just as a quick example, Draconid OP was missing from the list. No dragon priest is running without that), if 5000 dust actually was enough to get you the cards you need for 2-3 meta decks you're expected to buy 50 packs, dust everything in those packs that you will not be using in those decks (rather than hold onto anything you don't have more than 2 of) in order to craft those cards.

Clarification: I didn't mention the Rare cards because I was sure I'd forget some, and because I opened a few in packs (small time Buccaneer and counterfeit coin I think)

So, I only counted epic and legendary and added a bit more for the rares.
So, 5-5.5k.

Anyways, i didn't "dust everything and crafted 2-3 meta decks"
As I mentioned, I was able to build 3/4ths of the current meta decks.

Seriously, the only things I couldn't play were jade druid, jade control shaman and Reno priest (which I can still play, slightly suboptimally)

Last thing I wanna mention is, my cost was 5k dust *since I was unlucky and didn't open any useful Epic or Legendary*.
Finding a Legendary instead of crafting it is 1200 dust less, which opens for new fun uses of your dust.

The other point you make in your post is that "if everyone just dusts everything and gets a meta deck there's no fun experimentation".

This is partially true, yes, but that's a matter of player preference.

Noone is rushing you, you don't need to craft all the meta decks immediately.

The point is, this game has various 'experiences' with different price tags.
You, Seerow, are willing to pay for the 50 packs every expansion, plus maybe something extra scattered throughout the year.

That buys you:
- most meta decks on day 1
- experimentation, extra decks, or crafting old stuff with the free packs / other purchases
-overall, maybe half a full collection.

If you want the full collection, Blizzard made it very clear that it costs much more than that.

I personally couldn't care less for a full collection. What do you even do with a windup burgle bot?

"Most meta decks" plus " some extra for experimentation" is pretty much everything I'll ever need.

[PsyBomb]

I again come from the POV of someone who is effectively F2P (only ever spent $5 on the welcome pack). I always looked forward to adventures, because they guaranteed card quality. 3500g, tops, and I got at least a few solid Epics and legends. 3500g on a new set... well, I dropped 4k on Gadgetzan and then got the 1/3 bonus, and I still had to craft Kaz and Patches to play meta at all, with my only actual legend pulls being Han'Cho and two copies of Kun.

I still can't play half of what I want to with any actual effectiveness, which I think is a problem. I'm average at Arena, not great but good enough to make it a hair more efficient than straight purchases when I have time, and I haven't missed a daily in over a year.

[Gandariel]

Since everyone's experience is different, how much stuff do you think is "enough" ?

For example, I gave my roundup:
Kazakus, Patches, 2x Dragonfire potion, 1x Dirty Rat, a bunch of Rares (I did also craft Unlicensed Apotechary, but it wasn't necessary and it isn't meta).

This let me play MOST of the current meta, and comes down to around 5k dust, which is in my opinion doable.

How much dust do you guys think is "enough" to play "enough" of the meta decks?

[Seerow]

The other point you make in your post is that "if everyone just dusts everything and gets a meta deck there's no fun experimentation".

This is partially true, yes, but that's a matter of player preference.

Noone is rushing you, you don't need to craft all the meta decks immediately.

The point is, this game has various 'experiences' with different price tags.
You, Seerow, are willing to pay for the 50 packs every expansion, plus maybe something extra scattered throughout the year.

That buys you:
- most meta decks on day 1
- experimentation, extra decks, or crafting old stuff with the free packs / other purchases
-overall, maybe half a full collection.

If you want the full collection, Blizzard made it very clear that it costs much more than that.

But here's the thing... I did the math. Right now my average cost of playing Hearthstone comes to $350.00 per year. And up until now that was enough to effectively be able to have everything by the time a new set was released. Not on day one, but by the time a new set rolled out I would be done (or within a couple percent) with the previous set.

By doubling the rate of release, I am being asked to effectively triple the amount I pay to keep the same relative level of completion. Because instead of 20 dollars getting me 65 cards including unique epics and legendaries, that same 20 dollars is going to get me another 15 packs, so on average one legendary and a couple epics, or possibly 2000 dust.

You say Blizzard has made it clear that a full collection costs much more. I say the cost for a full collection has held steady from the game's release up until now by them maintaining a regular release cycle. By changing that release cycle, they are upsetting that balance in a way that I suspect the majority of players aren't really considering. It feels disingenuous to say 'well you just have unrealistic expectations' when my expectations are grounded in the math of how things have worked for years, since game release. I don't think it's unreasonable to complain when a change to the release structure comes that dramatically impacts the fundamental math behind that. I also don't think it's unreasonable to expect some sort of extra avenue to earn cards to make up at least some of the difference.

For comparison, besides Hearthstone's $350.00 per year, I spend $205 per year on WoW (including the cost of an expansion every other year). No other game I own or play asks me to play a fraction that much to enjoy all of the content.



edit:

Since everyone's experience is different, how much stuff do you think is "enough" ?

For example, I gave my roundup:
Kazakus, Patches, 2x Dragonfire potion, 1x Dirty Rat, a bunch of Rares (I did also craft Unlicensed Apotechary, but it wasn't necessary and it isn't meta).

This let me play MOST of the current meta, and comes down to around 5k dust, which is in my opinion doable.

How much dust do you guys think is "enough" to play "enough" of the meta decks?

I think "enough" for a f2p player would be having a single deck. For a player investing money on a regular basis "enough" is being able to play all meta decks and having the freedom to cherry pick 'fun' legendaries to experiment with.

One thing to keep in mind though: with the rotation they are expecting us to focus more on using new cards. They are deliberately taking away frequently used core cards with Hall of Fame. Between that and the expected rotation, I would highly expect the meta for the next couple of expansions to rely a lot more on having a lot of cards from the new sets. I honestly don't believe that crafting a Legendary and a couple of epics to slot in to an existing deck will be enough in most cases. Maybe I'm reading too much into the Hall of Fame thing, but it signals to me that they want much more card diversity, and that card diversity to be coming strictly from new cards, which means a much higher rate of investment necessary to play the deck.

[Haruspex_Pariah]

When I first started, my strategy was pick a class, then grind up the packs/dust to make a deck that gets me a solid win rate. Early on I was quite heartless about dusting Epics, Rares, and Legendaries that didn't seem useful for my needs. But that did allow me to get a pre-WOTOG Shaman deck I was happy to "main". Didn't get past rank 15 with it back then, but I was fine with that. Had I chosen Trogg aggro instead of midrange Totem I might have done better, maybe.

Now I've spent a shameful amount of money on the game so that doesn't apply anymore. I suppose I was lucky to have picked Shaman back when it was a garbage class, so at present I can build pretty much any Shaman meta deck without spending too many resources.

It'll be interesting to see if I can get away without spending too much (or any!) cash this year (gotta spend responsibly, and all). WOTOG and Mean Streets represented a massive spike in my Hearthstone expenditures, but this has allowed me to start banking gold and dust at a steady rate. If the Mammoth year proves too expensive, I may have to revert to my previous one-class strategy.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Also note that this strategy could also be Blizzard attempting to nerf the gameplay value of money a bit, rather than increase costs.

I'm pretty sure they know that the average player's spending isn't going to increase proportionally. Blizzard already HAS a ton of money, and doesn't need a blatant 100% cash grab. But there may be a perception that Hearthstone is somewhat pay-to-win, especially at the start of an expansion. By dividing your player spending over more content and lessening the percentage of new content that money gets (without, and this is important, making that money buy fewer cards), you effectively keep the +card value of money constant (good for purchasing consumers with large purchasing power) while leveling the playing field for FTP or customers with less discretionary income for Hearthstone.

Which, frankly, seems like a good way to accomplish that goal. Whether or not that IS a goal, of course, is just a guess.

[Epinephrine_Syn]

I've got some good hopes for N'zoth Jade Rogue. It worked fairly well-ish in this meta, even if not T1. Crucially, it literally only loses Earthen Raptor (I didn't play sylvanas in my version), and takes a nerf to one of the pirate drops. They said there'd be death synergizers and presumably new death rattles, so this deck archetype could wind up being "stronger" in the new meta in an absolute sense as well as a relative sense, because most of the old decks have taken heavy losses (freeze mage lost ice lance, reno is dead, shaman got tickled with a feather, most control decks lost sylvanas, emperor, and ragnaros).


Also, yesterday in the brawl I learned that if you Flare an enemy's Counterspell, you don't draw the card. Which "feels" wrong even if it's mechanically correct.

[Kish]

It's not you Flaring the enemy's Counterspell. It's the enemy Counterspelling your Flare.

Presumably it wouldn't destroy any non-triggered secrets the enemy might have, either.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

It's not you Flaring the enemy's Counterspell. It's the enemy Counterspelling your Flare.

Yep. You cast Flare. Before it resolves, the game registers that you're casting a spell, so Counterspell triggers, blocking Flare's effect.

One weird instance where Hearthstone obeys stack rules like Magic: The Gathering. It seems odd because we don't see that sort of interaction more often in the game.

[Gandariel]

snip

Ok, after reading this i do get your point.
Sorry it took me a while, we have very different views of the game.

Your point of view, if I understood correctly, is: "I've been paying X to have (and maintain) a full collection. Now that price has gone up, and this is bad"


My point of view is: "The amount of dust you can get with a bit of spending or some arena skill is enough to keep up with the game, (IE, craft most of the "good stuff", and be able to play a good part of the meta decks) ".

Both points of view are true.

It looks like you enjoyed the "full collection experience", but you're pissed that they've raised the price tag for it, even though the price tag for my "keep up experience" hasn't really changed.

This is why Zevox (to name one) and I aren't particularly moved about the change, but you are.

It looks like your choice now is whether to accept the price hike, or abandon the "full collection" objective and join the "keep up" group.
I mean i guess you can also quit altogether, but it's a fun game :P

Also, about the Hall of fame thing, they're giving us free dust. Whatever new legendary takes the place of Rag and Sylvanas is free.

[Anarion]

For comparison, besides Hearthstone's $350.00 per year,

I have no way to respond to this that's not some variation of "git gud" so I won't beat around the bush on it. I spend less than half the money you do on Hearthstone, and right now I can go to Tempostorm or Hearthstonetopdecks and copy any meta deck I want. I also have a bunch of dust banked, and I believe I'll break 10k when the Hall of Fame dust comes around (even if I stopped playing completely between now and then). I'm not sure what my average total arena runs per month is, but I want to say 1 per day maybe. I don't actually play once per day, but if I get a good run on a lazy weekend, I can do several in a few hours. Arena dwarfs my monetary investment in terms of packs seen.

I don't have a full collection and wouldn't waste my dust on one because Hearthstone is full of terrible cards. Don Han'Cho is a piece of crap and nobody runs it, and they won't run it unless there's some very specific hand-buffing interaction mechanic in the next set that makes it incredible. Instead, I save my dust and then decide what I want to play when a set comes out and make sure I can play the best version of that.

Further, more expansions coming out doesn't mean that the cards per deck limit is increased. It means more available cards, which means different players get to choose what sort of deck they want to run out of a wider pool of viable options. Blizzard may screw up and power creep the game at various points that necessitate a large crafting spree. But that in turn means that when they dial it back in later sets, there's less investment required and it's possible to save up (example: GvG was bonkers and Grand Tournament was mostly poor and required very little new crafting).


Edit:

Also, about the Hall of fame thing, they're giving us free dust. Whatever new legendary takes the place of Rag and Sylvanas is free.

I think the argument there is that it won't be a new legendary. It will be 3 new legendaries. Because there won't be one card that's as good as Rag in so many situations. Instead, people will use sometimes Alexstrazsa, and sometimes Ysera, and other times Onyxia and so on. Meaning that trying out new decks will be more costly as a result. That's a fair argument, but it's still a question of keeping up. Once you've crafted a few of the good neutral or class legend from classic, you're set again and can start saving for the next expansion.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

It occurred to me today that with the new rotation announcement, Dragon decks are actually getting even more screwed than before, because they're losing Azure Drake. The one generally-solid Classic Dragon card we could always count on having, gone. That means they'll need even more good, new Dragon cards to make the archetype at all viable again than they already did...

Yeah, I'm thinking Dragon decks are dead for at least the first set of the new rotation, if not the whole year. Which would be very sad, since it means that great cards like Netherspite Historian, Book Wyrm, Drakonid Operative, and Nightbane Templar could spend most of their Standard lifespan as useless due to lack of enough cards to make a Dragon deck...

I'm almost 100% positive that Dragon decks are dead indefinitely. What's likely to happen is that they may pop up as an archetype in the future, but the dev team right now seems to be pushing new archetypes with every expansion. It's the ol' Magic: the Gathering flavor treadmill. Whatever Flavor of the Month is in this year, it'll be out in a year or two and never come back until maybe it gets revived due to popular demand.

[Spore]

I take great solace in the fact that I can grind up my last 35 druid games with Beast Druid which incidentally counters Shaman and Pirate Warrior somewhat in the fact that it outtempoes them most of the time. As a smart man once said: 60% of the time it works all of the time.