Hearthstone 19: Patches In All The Wrong Places

[Togath]

So with the news that they're doing away with the card-reward-pay-to-play adventures...
I'm in a sort of odd spot.
Like, if they're gonna do some sort of free adventures now... I mean, free is nice, but the adventures have been the only things I've spent any money on in Hearthstone.
I'm just not super interested in paying for extra packs.
I wonder if they'll release more non-card stuff? Like extra portraits, card backs, etc.

[Gandariel]

I am very surprised by Hearthstone's pricing scheme and microtransactions.

They give out card backs like candy, when we can only use one at a time, and frankly I haven't changed mine in years.

They sell alternate heroes *suuper* rarely, when a lot of people would be happy to buy them.

But, they announce the 3-expansions year thing.
And, now they raise pack price for all non-dollar currencies?

-----
A way more fair way to do that would have been to raise the prices 1 month after the expansion.
(Also they'd get a sales spike since many people would be still missing ungoro cards)
------

Anyways, if they want to make more money out of this game, just produce more alternate heroes for cash! Give out way less card backs but only for money/preorders etc.!

I also read that many other competitors are rising in popularity (Shadowverse making 100 million dollars in 6 months, to name one).

so just increasing pack prices (and the 3-expansion year thing) without offering anyrhing back (more gold/packs, etc) seems very weird.

I'm no expert and don't want to call their actions stupid, but I really have no explaination.

(Personally, nothing changes with me. I'll still stay f2p, and the "competitor" card games all look like crap in comparison, so I don't plan to go anywhere)

[Joran]

I am very surprised by Hearthstone's pricing scheme and microtransactions.

They give out card backs like candy, when we can only use one at a time, and frankly I haven't changed mine in years.

They sell alternate heroes *suuper* rarely, when a lot of people would be happy to buy them.

But, they announce the 3-expansions year thing.
And, now they raise pack price for all non-dollar currencies?

-----
A way more fair way to do that would have been to raise the prices 1 month after the expansion.
(Also they'd get a sales spike since many people would be still missing ungoro cards)
------

Anyways, if they want to make more money out of this game, just produce more alternate heroes for cash! Give out way less card backs but only for money/preorders etc.!

I also read that many other competitors are rising in popularity (Shadowverse making 100 million dollars in 6 months, to name one).

so just increasing pack prices (and the 3-expansion year thing) without offering anyrhing back (more gold/packs, etc) seems very weird.

I'm no expert and don't want to call their actions stupid, but I really have no explaination.

(Personally, nothing changes with me. I'll still stay f2p, and the "competitor" card games all look like crap in comparison, so I don't plan to go anywhere)

It's supposedly to align the prices more to the dollar prices; EU prices are still cheaper than US prices if you take out VAT. The Euro and the Pound have lost ground against the dollar the last two years, so a price increase was bound to happen since Blizzard's employees are paid in dollars (and their revenue is also measured in dollars).

The price increase might persuade more people to pre-purchase the 50 pack deal, since that isn't going up in price.

I don't think the alternate hero portraits were that big of a hit; a lot of people seemed to think they were overpriced at $10. Instead, Blizzard has started to tailor those more towards promotions (like the WoW one, or the refer a friend).

[Divayth Fyr]

I don't think the alternate hero portraits were that big of a hit; a lot of people seemed to think they were overpriced at $10. Instead, Blizzard has started to tailor those more towards promotions (like the WoW one, or the refer a friend).

So sell them for 7,5$ or even 5$ - you'll still make a profit, possibly an even bigger one, since more will be inclined to buy them.

[Mando Knight]

It's supposedly to align the prices more to the dollar prices; EU prices are still cheaper than US prices if you take out VAT. The Euro and the Pound have lost ground against the dollar the last two years, so a price increase was bound to happen since Blizzard's employees are paid in dollars (and their revenue is also measured in dollars).

The odd thing about it is that Hearthstone is the only Blizzard game affected by this.

[Togath]

Hearthstone is in a weird spot. I mean, I like the game, but the only thing I'd be tempted to spend money on so far is the hunter hero. But I mostly play rogue.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I don't think the alternate hero portraits were that big of a hit; a lot of people seemed to think they were overpriced at $10. Instead, Blizzard has started to tailor those more towards promotions (like the WoW one, or the refer a friend).

I'm rather wondering if Maiev et al are intended to pave the way for more paid portraits. The overall logic of the "overpriced" objection has to do with players not feeling like portraits give enough value compared to their price. Maiev, Liadrin, and Morgl show players what having a custom hero portrait is like, making it more obvious what kind of value they'll get out of it. Trying something out is generally more convincing than watching a YouTube clip of it.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a new hero skin a few months after Maiev, possibly with a slight price drop, for just that reason.

[Zevox]

So sell them for 7,5$ or even 5$ - you'll still make a profit, possibly an even bigger one, since more will be inclined to buy them.

Yeah, I'm surprised they've never done this. Even if the initial three did poorly, you'd think they might guess the price point was a big part of the reason why - $10 for a single cosmetic change to the game definitely seems high. Honestly, I don't think I'd consider buying something like that until it was down under $5, unless it was one I really liked far more than the default, and even then $5 or so would be my max - but I know there's likely a lot of people out there willing to spend more on this type of thing than I am.

Of course, I'm not going to complain about getting them as free promotions, either. I do like having Liadrin and Tyrande, and I likely wouldn't if they'd been released for money instead.

[Gandariel]

My point is, I'd be happy if they sold 20 hero skins for each class for any amount of money.

I'd be happy if they stopped giving out card backs every month, and instead only gave them for specific stuff like pre-orders.

I wouldn't buy any of them, but I'd be happy that Blizzard is earning money from those that do.

And in general, if Blizzard decides they want to squeeze more money out of this game, I'd be happier if they did so by releasing more cosmetics instead of increasing this be cost to play the game.

[PsyBomb]

Had an interesting moment today playing Renolock versus Renomage. Played out Dark Peddler and Kabal Courier earlier, taking picks for the long haul (he went first and played a total of one secret by then), then proceeded to spar for the board for a while. Never found Reno, though I got Brann-Kazakus, staying around 8-9 cards in hand all game. Got him down to 14 around turn 14, when he left a single imp up after killing my Gang Boss. The same secret from turn 3 was still up, certainly an Ice Block. No reno seen.

Cue PO-PO(Peddler)-Hellfire bringing him to 2, and Curse of Rafaam for the kill after picking it up from Courier on turn 3.

Niche cards that are amazing in one (AND PRECICELY ONE) matchup is why I love playing Courier. Still would even if it got changed to be three cards from your class.

[Kish]

My point is, I'd be happy if they sold 20 hero skins for each class for any amount of money.

I'd be happy if they stopped giving out card backs every month, and instead only gave them for specific stuff like pre-orders.

I wouldn't buy any of them, but I'd be happy that Blizzard is earning money from those that do.

And in general, if Blizzard decides they want to squeeze more money out of this game, I'd be happier if they did so by releasing more cosmetics instead of increasing this be cost to play the game.

I'm not generally a defender of Blizzard's business decisions, but this is amazingly ironic. You just said, in so many words, "I wish they'd concentrate their efforts to get more money in areas where I won't spend any no matter what they do."

They give out card backs for nothing precisely because that's what they're worth to most of their players: nothing.

[Spore]

I'm no expert and don't want to call their actions stupid, but I really have no explaination.

This feels like something is going on. This feels like a holding pattern (with minimal time investment) - much like World of Warcraft felt to me. Maybe they feel like they don't have to excite people to play anymore? Maybe Activision has told them to focus on other projects? Maybe adventures are too pricey to make for the impact they have on the game?

But it feels like they are running out of ideas to keep the game fresh. Sure, new card mechanics like adapt are good, but every card game does that. They finally made the step towards legendary spells but they are still too afraid to print neutral spells. I would love to see new card types: Similar to artifacts in MTG (cards like Dorothy, aura buff cards that cannot be attacked) or enchantment cards (cards like Blessing of Kings only that you get them back after the minion is destroyed because that is the reason why buffs generally suck).

[PsyBomb]

Huh, anyone else notice the new keyword? As of 7.1.1, the keyword Poisonous replaced "destroy any Minion damaged by this one"

[Kish]

It's in the patch notes.

[Spore]

Huh, anyone else notice the new keyword? As of 7.1.1, the keyword Poisonous replaced "destroy any Minion damaged by this one"

Yes I did as I saw a Emperor Cobra while playing Jeweled Scarab. I hope the keyword will heavily involve Rogues - along with stealth. Things like: "Poisonous, Stealth - if this minion destroys another minion, do something awesome"

[Gandariel]

I'm not generally a defender of Blizzard's business decisions, but this is amazingly ironic. You just said, in so many words, "I wish they'd concentrate their efforts to get more money in areas where I won't spend any no matter what they do."

They give out card backs for nothing precisely because that's what they're worth to most of their players: nothing.

I may have not spelled my point clearly.

Focusing a bit more on cosmetics would be, IMO, good for everyone: those who enjoy them get new content and feel special, and the game earns more without turning into pay2win, which would alienate non-paying users.

While this is true in general, it is doubly true for Hearthstone since they've put out so few cosmetic stuff, even though it would be fairly easy for them.

Welp, it turns out that I did use too many words last time :P

[Mando Knight]

Thanks to another live action teaser video, we now know the names and mana cost of the Paladin quest and its reward: the quest is "The Last Kaleidosaur" and the reward is a 5 mana beast known as Galvadon. Besides that and the artwork, though, the card is blank.

[Haruspex_Pariah]

That's not a well-received video. I wonder if that's due to the current sentiment in general, or that these live action skits aren't all that good. Or that we didn't even get a full card revealed.

[Hamste]

That's not a well-received video. I wonder if that's due to the current sentiment in general, or that these live action skits aren't all that good. Or that we didn't even get a full card revealed.

It opens with "Hello Children" and multiple references to youth...it isn't surprising that it isn't well received (Presumably the video is for the kids in Elise's group but it comes off as an insult to the teen player base when you a open a video for them with an introduction to children). The lack of actual card reveal also seems annoying. As for the jokes itself, they seem decent but a few of them just kind of missed their mark. I can see why it was poorly received.

[Mando Knight]

It opens with "Hello Children" and multiple references to youth...it isn't surprising that it isn't well received (Presumably the video is for the kids in Elise's group but it comes off as an insult to the teen player base when you a open a video for them with an introduction to children). The lack of actual card reveal also seems annoying. As for the jokes itself, they seem decent but a few of them just kind of missed their mark. I can see why it was poorly received.

Personally, I kinda saw it as a tongue-in-cheek reference to children's "wilderness explorer" shows, and that the character's assumption of Un'goro being a light-hearted adventure locale suited for such a video was part of the setup for his comedic failures.

But yes, I'd be more interested in the content of the video if it was more about Galvadon and the rest of Un'goro's Paladin cards and less about the skit used to introduce the setting.

[Gandariel]

So, thought about the Quests.

You always play it on turn one, and it always starts in your hand, so this leaves two/three ways of deck building:
- play a quest deck
- play aggro
- play a "regular deck". This is only if the class quest ends up sucking

Basically, if you're not Aggro you usually have nothing to do with your first turn, which means you might as well put that quest card in your deck and play it.

The only drawback of quests is the deck making restriction.

In short, unless the restriction/condition/effect is *really* bad, there is really no drawback to playing it.

This doesn't bode well for our Dust banks.

It also doesn't Bode well for us.
Hah, Control theory jokes never get old.

[Anarion]

So, thought about the Quests.

You always play it on turn one, and it always starts in your hand, so this leaves two/three ways of deck building:
- play a quest deck
- play aggro
- play a "regular deck". This is only if the class quest ends up sucking

Basically, if you're not Aggro you usually have nothing to do with your first turn, which means you might as well put that quest card in your deck and play it.

The only drawback of quests is the deck making restriction.

In short, unless the restriction/condition/effect is *really* bad, there is really no drawback to playing it.

If they do it right, the restrictions will be somewhat harsh. There ought to be a trade off between "I'm going to play the 30 best cards for my class in standard" and "I'm going to play the priest quest." If there isn't and the synergy cards are also just better than everything else, either that class is so terrible as to be unplayable, or we get the rise of aggro shaman all over again. Ideally, the cards support a few different archetypes for at least some classes.

[Hamste]

Personally, I kinda saw it as a tongue-in-cheek reference to children's "wilderness explorer" shows, and that the character's assumption of Un'goro being a light-hearted adventure locale suited for such a video was part of the setup for his comedic failures.

But yes, I'd be more interested in the content of the video if it was more about Galvadon and the rest of Un'goro's Paladin cards and less about the skit used to introduce the setting.

Is that an actual thing in the US? I have never seen a child's wilderness explorer show in Canada (the closest I can think of on Canadian television is Zoboomafoo).

[Weimann]

Thought that struck me: you think Lightspawn will get the Elemental tag?

[Gandariel]

No. They already showed which existing cards will get the tag.

[Kish]

No. I don't think it's supposed to be an elemental. Last I heard, all elementals are fire (ruled by Ragnaros), water (ruled by Neptulon), air (ruled by Al'Akir), or earth (ruled by Therazane).

[Fable Wright]

If they do it right, the restrictions will be somewhat harsh.

You do realize that one of the quests is literally 'play 2 Deathrattle creatures, get a better Reno Jackson', right? Having that guaranteed in my opener sounds much better than playing as most other decks in the format.

[moossabi]

You do realize that one of the quests is literally 'play 2 Deathrattle creatures, get a better Reno Jackson', right? Having that guaranteed in my opener sounds much better than playing as most other decks in the format.

I thought that quest required 7.

[Anarion]

You do realize that one of the quests is literally 'play 2 Deathrattle creatures, get a better Reno Jackson', right? Having that guaranteed in my opener sounds much better than playing as most other decks in the format.

I thought that quest required 7.

It is 7. Even running 7 deathrattle cards may lower the deck's quality: 2x shifting shade is the only standard legal priest deathrattle, so you're looking at running several neutrals, probably Thalnos and Cairn (Sylvanus will be gone), maybe Mistress of Mixtures, Loot Hoarder. You can go full N'zoth setup and run the corrupted healbots, infested Tauren, and Twilight Summoners too if you want, but that definitely would lower deck quality compared to running better neutrals or class cards in those slots. Obviously, we don't know what's in Un'goro, so maybe there will be a plethora of great deathrattles. But even if you run 10+ deathrattles (fully a third of your deck), you can't reasonably expect to play 7+ before turn 10, so you're hoping and praying that the cards will allow you to stall and control them long enough to not die and get your quest done. And even then, you don't win, you get a Reno effect. Reno is great and "better Reno" will be even better, but it won't suddenly undo a losing board position or save you from the bajillion cards that can kill a single minion no matter how big it is.

[Rodin]

It is 7. Even running 7 deathrattle cards may lower the deck's quality: 2x shifting shade is the only standard legal priest deathrattle, so you're looking at running several neutrals, probably Thalnos and Cairn (Sylvanus will be gone), maybe Mistress of Mixtures, Loot Hoarder. You can go full N'zoth setup and run the corrupted healbots, infested Tauren, and Twilight Summoners too if you want, but that definitely would lower deck quality compared to running better neutrals or class cards in those slots. Obviously, we don't know what's in Un'goro, so maybe there will be a plethora of great deathrattles. But even if you run 10+ deathrattles (fully a third of your deck), you can't reasonably expect to play 7+ before turn 10, so you're hoping and praying that the cards will allow you to stall and control them long enough to not die and get your quest done. And even then, you don't win, you get a Reno effect. Reno is great and "better Reno" will be even better, but it won't suddenly undo a losing board position or save you from the bajillion cards that can kill a single minion no matter how big it is.

The fact that it's difficult to complete the Priest quest before turn 10 is what will either balance it or destroy it. Reno is good mainly because he fulfills two conditions - lategame heal to prevent a Control deck from burning you down through attrition, and mid-game heal to make Aggro decks cry. If "new Reno" can't be played on turn 6 then that pretty much kills the archetype against Aggro.