Karsticles
Member
All you play in TCGs is standard, but you don't want your cards to ever become obsolete?
-
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 |OT6| C'THUN for President! Why pick the lesser evil?
- Thread starter ZealousD
- Start date
The latter.
You can still play with them, just not in standard.
You can try to think of the money and time you spent unlocking those cards as a sunk cost with the experience you gained while playing as the payoff.
I think it sucks and that you should be given the option to dust cards rotating out of the set for full dust value since a lot of people crafted golden cards from the adventures / past sets thinking they'd be able to play them forever.
I'm ready to dust Boom, but what if they implement some kind of PvE / co-op multiplayer mode...am I going to regret it? Knowing that everything in LoE and TGT is going to rotate out next year makes it extremely hard to craft anything from those two sets this year...
Yeah Blackrock Mountain and League of Explorers will leave Standard in 2017 just like The Grand Tournament.
You can now dust your Naxxramas cards if you don't intend to play Wild, they added the possibility in a recent patch.
Karsticles
Member
If they let people dust all of GvG and Naxx for full dust, people would just buy the entire next set with dust. Rinse and repeat.
That's not my problem. It's up to the game designers to come up with incentives that are enticing enough to keep me playing Wild. I'm not a "competitive" player. I'm probably never going to reach Legend. I'll never play competitively in a "real tournament." I don't need to get all the cards to play. I'll sink in some cash for packs in the beginning and grind the rest.
Right now, I feel little incentive to craft new legendaries / epics, let alone buy them because they'll be obsolete in a year (Blackrock, TGT, LoE) or two (WoG). Actually, I'm probably still fine crafting WoG, though I haven't seen much that interests me. Sure, Standard is (hopefully) going to be good for players by mixing environment, but looks pretty shitty for consumers. I'm sold on that, but their business model is going to look less-and-less appealing especially since there's little point in having a "collection" since it's all digital.
Karsticles
Member
My only point was that your idea doesn't make sense.
I agree 100%. Once you start the "your purchase won't matter in a year" trend, the incentive to pay out of pocket is lost. I think this is going to end up having a negative effect on financial transactions. People like me are going to just grind/de stuff that we will never use anymore to build our top decks from this point on.
My desire to shell out my traditional $100 every expansion is no longer there. While I just represent only one buyer's opinion, how many more feel the same?
Karsticles
Member
How do the cards no longer matter?
My point makes sense. Just because it leads to an unfavorable development for Blizzard doesn't make it non-nonsensical.
Digital cards (that we've purchased with time / money) have lost utility. While the developers have the right to make such changes (just like we, as consumers, have the right not to give them our cash), they can acknowledge the negative affect it has on their customers. In other games, I can sell or trade off cards that have become obsolete. At the very least, they appreciate in value as collector items. In this game, there is little incentive to play in Wild (at this point.) Cash, as well as time, invested in getting my cards will be "lost" when cards rotate out of the set (since I'm not interested in Wild.) The only real "gain" I get will be the amount of time that I have to use said cards (until they become obsolete again.)
Edit: One example of how they can incentivize Wild would be to allow rank rewards for each format--with Wild offering more lucrative rewards (legendaries, alternate art versions of cards or heroes, etc.) Players who have played longer (or spent more money on their collections) will be more competitive on the Wild ladder and would have greater access to said rewards. Newer players (or F2Pers) would focus more on Standard. Tournaments would primarily be in Standard. (This is just one example on how to increase incentive and utility. I think the ladder system needs work in general though.)
Karsticles
Member
Why is there little incentive to play in Wild? Standard doesn't have anything special going on unless you're a tournament player.
If the new mode becomes the dominant mode and the only mode my friends want to play the cards no longer have a purpose. The way things appear to be going/being pushed based on interviews, leads to the idea that I have a full set of cards that simply will never matter. On top of that, if wild isn't fully supported it will become so unbalanced it will not even be an enjoyable experience if you find yourself using one of the upcoming broken decks.
The problem I have is this just seems like a cop out solution for using power creep as the incentive to encourage sales over good design. The power creep got to high, a reset had to be made, and the consumer suffered.
toddhunter
Member
I never had the desire to spend any money on Hearthstone, so I'm not really the best judge.
But I also never think I have the need to do so anyway. When the expansion hits, I'll have about 40 packs saved up. From this, I expect to get every card worth getting in the set and maybe some change to pick up some fun ones.
So why would a player like me shell out $50? Well you wouldn't and I didn't. I'm not a particularly heavy player either, so I don't think I'm the exception to the rule.
But new players? That is where the cash is. Blizzard are going to get their cash out of people thinking they can compete in standard, dropping some money to build up a starting point rather than grinding and then joining the jaded money hoarding club.
So expect most of the decisions going forward to be about attracting new people (fun esports cards) rather than anything to keep people hanging around.
Karsticles
Member
It sounds like you should talk with your friends about what they want to play. I don't see how one mode can be a "dominant mode" in online play - you pick what you want to play, and you play there.
The general consensus with my friends is they will be switching over to the mode that has the highest tournament support exclusively, as that mode will have the best support/player base as a result.
toddhunter
Member
If the nerfs are done properly, wild will be dead in a week.
If not, wild will be the tournament standard moving forward, outside of some official Blizzard events. Seeing the same two exact decks over and over will never work long term, there needs to be at least four decks like we have now.
If not, wild will be the tournament standard moving forward, outside of some official Blizzard events. Seeing the same two exact decks over and over will never work long term, there needs to be at least four decks like we have now.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
Wild is going to be heavily played. Not sure why people think it will just die off. I know I plan on playing both formats.
I think it's based on the past-precedence associated with similar games such as Magic the Gathering. I doubt Hearthstone is somehow going to break the trend, especially when everything they have stated conforms to the trend.
Hearthstone you have a wild deck with you at all times and there's people to play wild with at all times.
Like every other game of this type, I see wild mode dying out in 6 months. Even less given that you can no longer buy the adventures....etc. New players have no incentive to play it; however, they now have unnecessary barriers to prevent them from enjoying Wild to the fullest.
It's definitely interesting to see where the divide between hours played of wild/standard will fall. I think in the long term Wild might see more play for the simple fact that games are faster, so for the people on mobile devices it's easier to squeeze a game in.
Wild is going to be more powerful but also faster. I don't mean that it's going to be aggro only but decks are able to execute their gameplan faster (a ramp druid will be able to ramp up faster in Wild than in Standard).
But I'm going to play both. It's nice to hop into an eternal format at ground level and can't wait to see how it shapes up in the years to come.
Uhm, the eternal formats in MTG are bigger than they've ever been. Especially modern which is still way more expensive to buy into than standard. It's still only 30 cards per deck and you can craft every card. So if a player wants to play wild it's not going to be a way bigger investment compared to standard.
Wild is going to be more powerful but also faster. I don't mean that it's going to be aggro only but decks are able to execute their gameplan faster (a ramp druid will be able to ramp up faster in Wild than in Standard).
But I'm going to play both. It's nice to hop into an eternal format at ground level and can't wait to see how it shapes up in the years to come.
Uhm, the eternal formats in MTG are bigger than they've ever been. Especially modern which is still way more expensive to buy into than standard. It's still only 30 cards per deck and you can craft every card. So if a player wants to play wild it's not going to be a way bigger investment compared to standard.
I'm talking the digital game. Not the physical game.
Trust me. In 6 months wild will be dead with the combination of veteran players leaving, veteran players switching formats, no new players joining, and the official tournaments only supporting standard.
We'll see. They should make half price wild packs with half de dust, and half cost enchants. But they're probably too money hungry and optimistic to do so, which could kill wild in the long run. The large player base and convenience of finding other players makes it different from physical card games though.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
You're comparing digital MTG to hearthstone? Why? Whatever precedence MTG sets in the digital space is irrelevant.
Plus new players will come to wild as sets are rotated out of standard. And hearthstone already has millions of accounts before the transition to formats.
Removing wild content while making wild more expensive to new players is not sustainable. Buying Adventures from disenchanting mats is exponentially more expensive than the current/past $/Gold. That doesn't even include the addition value of the content itself that new players miss out on. This alone should make it obvious that Blizzard's intention is phasing out Wild.
toddhunter
Member
6 months? Tempo storm could put out an article day 1 to say "play standard" and that would be the end of it.
This is hearthstone, people will do as they are told.
You don't need every card to play wild. Halving the price of wild stuff would make it easily sustainable, even if you argue it won't be right now, which is arguable. You could f2p 50-60 wild packs in a month.
Wild is also going to be more complicated in the long term. More interactions that a player will need to remember, more keywords in the format etc. So it's not weird that Blizzard is upping the barrier of entry for Wild. It's not the format that a new player is supposed to be playing. But when you are more comfortable with the game, grow into. Every new player will start somewhere and every start will eventually be rotated out of standard.
So if a new player is attached to a specific deck/card(s) that are no longer standard legal and are playing in Wild they will play there.
Reynad already said that Tempo Storm will be hosting Wild tournaments and he himself is a big fan of eternal formats and will be playing Wild quite a bit. So I guess people will be playing Wild?
Blizzard made sure this wouldn't work. According to the plan we get full DE value for cards in wild format to use to create cards in standard format. If card packs became significantly cheaper for wild and the DE value remained 100% what's stopping people from buying wild card packs to enchant Standard/Gold/Platinum legendaries?
The current plan seems like it's designed in a way to ensure that wild phases out, so Blizzard can make the claim (using statistics) that wild is not popular enough to fully support while keeping the format and avoiding an outrage. From what I see, the business plan is fairly transparent when combining everything we currently know.
6 months after release isn't long to wait. For now, I'm going to move on to other Hearthstone topics.
I typed "half de dust, and half cost enchants". Of course that's just a hypothetical idea. They could announce it well enough ahead to give people a chance to de at full value. Anyways, regarding their current trajectory, I mildly disagree with you, but we'll have to wait and see.
Do you actually believe this? Some people are so weird.
New players will always have barriers preventing them from enjoying the fullest. Just look at the current meta. The amount of money and time they have to spend to be able to have a top tier deck is gigantic.
Standard will help to adress this issue. New players now will need a much smaller number of cards to have top tier decks. Even in Wild they will have an easier since it is now possible to craft adventure cards. No more buying 4 wings of Naxx only for deathbite.
Either way, entry barriers is a problem inherent to collectible card games. I think Blizzard's approach was a good one and I am happy they did it.
Just got to face an actual Aviana deck, which was fantastic fun. I didn't even realize it at the time, just thought it was cool that this dude was packing six or more legendaries in their deck. I managed to deal with Boom, Aviana, Cenarius (thrown out in the same round to protect Aviana), Rag, Nefarian and Ysera before being killed by Ysera Awakens into Swipe, lol. Although at that point quite a few card combos would have killed me.
Wish I'd see more of this type of decks on the ladder. Quite a change from combo druid.
Wish I'd see more of this type of decks on the ladder. Quite a change from combo druid.
No need for that. Just because someone thinks differently than you they're "weird"?
Standard will be just that - standard. As new players start Hearthstone, they'll be faced with two decisions: Wild and Standard.
If they start this year, they'll be missing GvG and Naxx right off the bat. Depending on thei class, that alone represents a significant barrier of entry. If they start next year, they'll be missing TGT and Blackrock and LoE as well.
So that leaves the existing player base. Of which, some will play Wild, some will concentrate on Standard and some will play both. As time progresses, players will quit Hearthstone or take longer breaks from the game. Standard will always remain relevant; Wild will slowly lose players.
So yes, Wild will always gave somea players, but Standard will be more easily accessible and always relevant because it features new cards (which is the main thrust behind the game.) Wild will be like the Legacy formats in Magic, mostly for looking time players with big collections.
At least that's my take. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.
People complaining that their old cards are becoming obsolete are kind of missing a key point anyway.... that would have already happened anyway.
If Blizzard didn't create the Standard format, Blizzard would be constantly creating new cards that make old cards virtually obsolete. Antique Healbot essentially make Earthen Ring Farseer obsolete. Piloted Shredder made Chillwind Yeti obsolete. Death's Bite made Korkron Elite virtually obsolete. Each expansion was going to make older cards increasingly less and less relevant WHILE ALSO being less and less relevant themselves. What fun is a new 120 card expansion if only 5-10 cards out of the whole set are actually playable? Without standard, Blizzard would have to constantly raise the power level of new cards to make each expansion relevant, making old cards implicitly useless rather than explicitly useless.
Formats solve a ton of problems. If you personally have psychological barriers preventing you from enjoying Wild that's something you'll need to work through yourself. But your issues aren't the only issues that matter here. Blizzard needs to make sure each new expansions are relevant and that new players don't have ridiculously huge barriers to playing the game competitively. Standard solves these problems. It's healthy for the game in so many ways.
If Blizzard didn't create the Standard format, Blizzard would be constantly creating new cards that make old cards virtually obsolete. Antique Healbot essentially make Earthen Ring Farseer obsolete. Piloted Shredder made Chillwind Yeti obsolete. Death's Bite made Korkron Elite virtually obsolete. Each expansion was going to make older cards increasingly less and less relevant WHILE ALSO being less and less relevant themselves. What fun is a new 120 card expansion if only 5-10 cards out of the whole set are actually playable? Without standard, Blizzard would have to constantly raise the power level of new cards to make each expansion relevant, making old cards implicitly useless rather than explicitly useless.
Formats solve a ton of problems. If you personally have psychological barriers preventing you from enjoying Wild that's something you'll need to work through yourself. But your issues aren't the only issues that matter here. Blizzard needs to make sure each new expansions are relevant and that new players don't have ridiculously huge barriers to playing the game competitively. Standard solves these problems. It's healthy for the game in so many ways.
Wild will be fine, but it'll be a tiny fraction of standard. The majority of its players will likely do it 'for fun' or if people come up with crazy combos they want to see. You'll have a hardcore wild player base who do try to rank up because it's less popular than standard, but I think most players will be turned off by some of the BS combos possible in Wild, especially after the next few sets come out. It'll definitely be 'niche' compared to standard, but even if 10% of the player base plays wild, that's still A LOT of people. It's not going to die, since this is still just a digital card game, but it'll be way smaller, in the long run.
toddhunter
Member
In a game as salt inducing as hearthstone? I really don't think anybody will play wild. Even the most popular online games tend to have dead modes.
Time and nerfs will tell of course.
Gentle Rodriguez
Member
At the start absolutely nobody will be playing wild, that's for sure. We'll see how many will gravitate back to it but for now seeing how miserable the streamers are playing ranked says a lot.
So you're saying it'll be the best time to rank up that ladder?!?
No because those who would be playing it would be seasoned players.
I know, it was a joke.
Wild will be the like a salt mine with only the worst decks ever conceived getting up there. Don't want to deal with any of that garbage.
Maybe not for the first month. With the lower power level of TOG so far, I think people will come around to it.. especially if they come with insane combos that synergize only with obsolete cards.
By the by, Malygos should synergize with C'thun's battlecry, right?
No, malygos is spell damage, a battlecry never takes advantage of spell damage. Spell damage only affects spells you cast from hand.
LucidMomentum
Member
The real question is, will there be a Standard Arena and a Wild Arena? Or will Arena just be Standard?
Arena is wild and as far as we know will stay that way. Wild arena is fine.
They said arena is going to be wild, just no cthun or cthun buffers
Karsticles
Member
Ditto. I might even play Wild more.
Dying out....so I will queue and there will be no response? Haha, come on.
If Blizzard were more creative, they wouldn't need to rehash. I can think of 5 new mechanics right now for sets to make them interesting and fresh without retreading.
I am a Johnny with a mean Spike streak in me. I like having more options to creatively express myself in deck creation.