-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Hearthstone |OT2| Created by Unstable Portal
- Thread starter ZealousD
- Start date
- Status
I agree. It kind of throws off the value evaluation for arena if you can't pick which pack. A lot of people say "always do arena and never buy packs with gold" but that starts making less sense when you are forced into the latest expansion only.
Some kind of voucher or "pack converter" would be the way to go I think.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
I don't think so. You're gonna need way fewer cards from the old set than the new set I suspect.
It depends on that, I believe. Also, since naxx is its own separate thing, that leaves even less importance on the original set.
As they should of course.
But new players are going to need lots and lots and lots of cards from the old set. You're now forcing them to get them in a much more inefficient way. Established players aren't the ones hit hardest by this.
ehhhh not really, the best f2p model is the one that makes you say "I don't have to pay but I want to"
Dota 2 did it right
LoL kinda did it right
Hearthstone does a decent job but it could turn bad with the expansion
RumblingRosco
Member
I agree with this, but I'm not sure what the best way to handle it is besides allowing players to choose which pack they get as a reward. Maybe give a "pack voucher" as an reward which can be used on any pack instead of just giving away a pack outright?
As for me... how far will 8,000 dust take me into this new expansion? I feel like that'll get me a solid amount of the must-haves, especially since I main Shaman/Priest only so I have just a few class cards I'll want/need. I mostly play Arena anyway though... but man, I cannot wait to see the new Arena meta with all the new cards coming out.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
Define lots and lots, because even the best decks will still only require 30 cards. You'll never need every single card.
If someone is really thinking about starting the game with the intention of collecting every card, they shouldn't be expecting an easy ride without paying into the game.
But a f2per who is trying to play constructed at a reasonable degree, it really doesn't change much. Most of the cards in competitive decks will likely come from the new packs anyway. And I'm sure there will be many viable competitive decks using mostly if not all cards just from GVG.
I miss Control Pally being viable
i'm guessing you could make it work outside of legend, just like every character is playable in fighting games even though the tier lists are so strict
It's going to severely cut down on the number of people playing Arena after a bit. It's not about collecting every card- it's about letting people have the chance to open the cards they need in a booster. GvG will go to dust very quickly for a lot of people, and then what. What's there to look forward to? What's there to hope to open? Look at D3 and the disastrous effect of a loot economy where everything is measured by the gold you get from it. They're in serious danger of doing this. It's going to exponentially increase the number of boosters needed to craft Vanilla cards for those who mono-Arena.
partyphone
Banned
yeah I hope this gets clarified. arena should award both types of packs.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
I don't see the parallel to d3 at all.
This mainly changes one thing, makes it difficult to collect every original card from the original set by doing arena only. Competitive decks are probably barely even affected due to crafting.
It depends on what your goal is. And collecting every card... after naxx and gvg come out? Why should it be easy still? If that is your goal, it is not unreasonable to pay in.
It makes opening packs > Arena, which has never been true for the entirety of the games' existence. Why change it?
New players are either going to buy packs or play constructed. Arena can be very intimidating at first and you don't get a clear gold advantage until you start averaging 5 wins or more. I think it would be better if you got to choose your packs but its not game killing.
Speaking of Arena, Murloc Tidehunter may secretly be very good: http://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comments/2lvs1k/analysis_of_win_rate_by_copies_of_cards_for_72195/
According to this 2/3s are better than 3/2s. That doesn't make any sense.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
I think GVG packs will offer the most value because they'll have the best cards anyway. Some cards from the old set will still be required, but likely far fewer than the new set to the point that even new players will want to mainly focus on GVG packs.
Getting old cards via arena will definitely be impacted, but not to the point that you can't play the game, build competitive decks, and do well as a f2p account.
"They'll have the best cards anyway" is not something that's traditionally true in TCGs (that survive.) Permanently upwards power creep tends to kill games.
2/3s tend to be much better at receiving buffs and surviving an additional turn. The data's not "wrong" here- our thinking might be, however. Murloc buying tempo time against a mage might be a real side effect, for example.
2/3s tend to be much better at receiving buffs and surviving an additional turn. The data's not "wrong" here- our thinking might be, however. Murloc buying tempo time against a mage might be a real side effect, for example.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
There is always gonna be a set of cards that are simply better, whether they are stronger or more versatile. My main point though is that new players can build decks without using many original set cards, so it won't be a huge deal if only one avenue of getting the original cards is closed off.
All contingent on what cards are released of course. We'll have to see how things play out.
All contingent on what cards are released of course. We'll have to see how things play out.
partyphone
Banned
3/2's don't trade favorably with common 1 drops and don't get too much value trading into the popular 3 drops. so unless that 3/2 has a battlcry it's probably better of being a 2/3.
Especially if you're a mage/rogue where your hero power can help make more favorable trades.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
Have you checked out prismata? That game is just way different than any card game I've played at least.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
Isn't undertaker coin leper gnome basically the modern day 2/3 + 2/1 defias ringleader before it was nerfed to 2/2 + 2/1? It would make a lot of sense to nerf undertaker to 1/1, making that a 2/2 + 2/1, with still the ability to grow past that as it often does if unanswered.
The main difference is that it's still two cards instead of one card, so undertaker+leper gnome means you don't have quite the card advantage.
The real problem with undertaker isn't necessarily that it opens 2/3+2/1, it's that you basically need an immediate answer for the 2/3. If you don't have a removal spell or can't force the undertaker to attack a minion instead, then it becomes a 3/4 on its next powerup, and then you lose. Nearly every response to undertaker costs 2 mana, so your opponent forces you to answer a 1 mana card with a 2 mana card, and that just wrecks your tempo.
partyphone
Banned
omg using this card with bouncing blade
Professor Lich
Member
omg using this card with bouncing blade
Even better if you have a lot of minions with an Armor Smith and / or Acolyte of Pain.
Interesting scenario, if the Acolyte continues to get hit, will its till draw cards? I would assume yes.
partyphone
Banned
also good with enrage minions
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
If defias ringleader was still a 2/3 + 2/1, I think you're right.
But that 1 hp difference is huge, plus since undertaker can keep growing... and leper gnome has a deathrattle whereas the defias 2/1 doesn't.
This makes sense in theory, but it ignores two things about the game:
1) No one plays unconditional 1 mana answers anyway, Undertaker or no, because they're just too inefficient for the pace of the game. Only exception is Rockbiter and that's an equal trade.
2) Any deck that is able to remove Undertaker so quickly (Mage, Rogue, Shaman, Druid, Warrior) don't have super important turn 2 plays they could be spending their mana on. No tempo is being "wrecked" because they don't care about tempo on turn 2.
I think 1) is part of the problem here. There are just not enough good 1 cost cards worth playing.
There's a real trade-off you get by eliminating dedicated resource cards as a mechanic, however. When you have a system like Hearthstone's, there's no longer variance in resource availability. Other games like VS System have crashed and burned because the game turned into "who can curve out the best!", which isn't really a fun gameplay pattern. And you can see the issues with that with Undertaker right now- when you curve out with him correctly, he's nigh-unbeatable. This is also why they're adding so many RNG cards coming in - they have to make up for the variance being lost by having an automatic mana system.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
People have claimed owl is such a good answer to undertaker. But all I see it doing is stopping you from losing a few more rounds, not helping you win really.
I don't mind running owl in rogue since it helps vs despised sludge belchers at least, so I'll give it a try.
I don't mind running owl in rogue since it helps vs despised sludge belchers at least, so I'll give it a try.
poppedcollar69
Member
I don't think it will, cause in a similar case, damage to minions at 1hp that are invulnerable with commanding shout does not proc frothing berserker.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
Right, it shouldn't proc on a minion who is immune due to commanding shout.
I thought about it idly and I like this solution as well.
Honestly, I wish 1 cost cards were more viable in Hearthstone. It's sad that it takes something as blatantly strong as as Undertaker to get people to play 1 drops. Most 1 cost cards might as well not exist at all.
partyphone
Banned
or just a 1/3 whose attack grows. it's power just seems out of balance for the cost.
like you mana wyrm which is a 1/3 for 1 that doesn't gain health and you have mana addict as a 1/3 for 2 and the attack buff doesn't persist
and they'll presumably be adding more 1 and 2 mana deathrattle minions as time goes on.
Mana Wyrm is bad.
Mana Addict is bad.
Lightwarden is bad.
Secretkeeper is bad.
Flesheating Ghoul is bad.
Questing Adventurer is largely bad except as a budget VanCleef and still way suboptimal.
Hyena is okay but not played anymore.
Unbound Elemental is the same deal as Hyena.
Frothing Berserker is the same deal as Hyena.
This is why they pushed Undertaker's power level. Because all those other "grow when things happen" are just really really awful.
Mana Addict is bad.
Lightwarden is bad.
Secretkeeper is bad.
Flesheating Ghoul is bad.
Questing Adventurer is largely bad except as a budget VanCleef and still way suboptimal.
Hyena is okay but not played anymore.
Unbound Elemental is the same deal as Hyena.
Frothing Berserker is the same deal as Hyena.
This is why they pushed Undertaker's power level. Because all those other "grow when things happen" are just really really awful.
But it isn't.
It being a Mage card is a part of its identity. The effect, when taken out of context, isn't weak, sure, but since it's a Mage card, its text might as well read "Whenever you play a Mage Spell yada yada", and that is bad. I could lump it in with Hyena/Unbound/Frothing, and it wouldn't change much. And Coin being phased out as a Spell is going to hurt it even more.
Grow effects need to be very powerful or versatile to be playable, that still stands.
It being a Mage card is a part of its identity. The effect, when taken out of context, isn't weak, sure, but since it's a Mage card, its text might as well read "Whenever you play a Mage Spell yada yada", and that is bad. I could lump it in with Hyena/Unbound/Frothing, and it wouldn't change much. And Coin being phased out as a Spell is going to hurt it even more.
Grow effects need to be very powerful or versatile to be playable, that still stands.
These three that you mentioned are all great cards, they just don't "fit" in with the current meta. If undertaker wasn't so strong, you'd probably see hyena fit into more hunter decks. You'd also see more unbounds around since shaman wouldn't need to run defender of argus as much. And Frothing Berserker is actually an extremely good card, the problem is that it's anti-synergy with Alexstrasza so it gets bumped out of control warrior decks. If aggro warrior was just a bit more viable you'd see it a lot more.
A good card, to me, is one that forces metas around themselves, or at least work in a variety of metas, not ones that rely on being able to fit neatly into one specific meta or the other.
Harvest Golem is a good card. It's inoffensively useful, and always manages to stick around regardless of how the game shifts. It's only going to get better as Mechs become a "tribe".
Azure Drake? Good card, because card advantage is almost never bad. The only time it wouldn't be "good" would be in a hyper-aggro meta where a 5 drop 4/4 is a liability. And even with Warlocks and Hunters at the top right now, it's still trucking along in a variety of decks.
Loatheb is a great card because Spells will never not be useful. The meta would have to be seriously warped for Loatheb to be as weak as those other cards are right now.
If your argument is along the lines of "X is a good card if conditions are right for it to be good", well, yeah. But that's a trivial observation. In the Spell-less meta I mentioned above, where Loatheb is a bad card, Millhouse Manastorm would be a good one.
That doesn't make Millhouse a good card overall.
Harvest Golem is a good card. It's inoffensively useful, and always manages to stick around regardless of how the game shifts. It's only going to get better as Mechs become a "tribe".
Azure Drake? Good card, because card advantage is almost never bad. The only time it wouldn't be "good" would be in a hyper-aggro meta where a 5 drop 4/4 is a liability. And even with Warlocks and Hunters at the top right now, it's still trucking along in a variety of decks.
Loatheb is a great card because Spells will never not be useful. The meta would have to be seriously warped for Loatheb to be as weak as those other cards are right now.
If your argument is along the lines of "X is a good card if conditions are right for it to be good", well, yeah. But that's a trivial observation. In the Spell-less meta I mentioned above, where Loatheb is a bad card, Millhouse Manastorm would be a good one.
That doesn't make Millhouse a good card overall.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
I want to see a new rogue weapon in GvG. Don't fail me Blizzard. I might speak harshly of your mothers.
Krol Blade
4 mana
4/2
Draw a card when you kill a minion.
And minion wise...
Greedy Bandit
1 mana
1/3
Stealth. After attacking increase attack by 1.
Krol Blade
4 mana
4/2
Draw a card when you kill a minion.
And minion wise...
Greedy Bandit
1 mana
1/3
Stealth. After attacking increase attack by 1.
Professor Lich
Member
Yeah, if Warriors are getting a new weapon, there's a good chance Rogues and Paladins are too.
- Status