I'll wait it out and see how it goes. but making the levels 20% better sounds like an executive move
"They make the system originally, some exec says "Looks good but make the xp 50% grindier to get" They do it, people complain, the team shows the exec they say "Ehh, make it 20% better, they'll stop""
Sorry i'm not supposed to complain about this obvious ploy that corporations use because POTENTIALLY i will receive more gold?
It will still take about 4-5 quests to receive a level up to receive gold, wheras before you would get twice as much for half as many quests.
if blizzard came out and said they released a deadly disease as a plague on humanity, claimed they did it on accident and then released a vaccine for that plague people would forgive them too.
People talk about the "We're sorry" clip from south park:
but they don't remember what it was about. BP knew they disaster could happen they knew there was a chance for it, but they kept going anyway. This is the battlepass(in a less destructive manner) How many controversies does activision blizzard need for people to realize they're not "accidentally" screwing their playerbase over.
I am not "quitting the game", it's still fun to me, despite the meta being pure aggro forever, this isn't a reddit report. You people and your goat analogy. It would be a much better analogy if it was a different kind of grazing animal, because the community is full of sheep.
Sounds like the changes won't go into effect until the 15th which is next week.
And I'd bet dollars to donuts they'll have another bundle with a character portrait up too, they usually have those around this time of year (lookin at you Hazel bark)
Here's a table based on 50,000 XP increments to judge your current progress, and the system as a whole.
Remember to account for achievements XP you may have gotten but won't for the rest of the expac cycle. Also we likely have more time on this track than what will normally be the case.
Gold per 1000 XP averages are based on the XP for that actual level, not what's in the table which is just the nearest level to the 50K XP milestone.
Following the 8 Dec 2020 announcement by Blizzard with upcoming changes to the rewards track, I've made a new graph to give an indication of how much Gold 1000 XP is worth based on where you finish. I think one of the main problems we've had is de-obfuscating XP into gold.
This contrasts with the previous graph (level 100 is same as level 200 above):
So whereas level old level 100 would equal 31.1 gold per 1000 XP
the equivalent level 200 in the new system is 34.7 gold per 1000 XP
I'm posting this without trying to infer the system is good or bad. Just the data for you to decide for yourself.
Notes:
- I've reduced the XP requirements by 19.2 % approx (1-(37000/192200)) for levels 1-50. And added the 50 gold to levels 27 and 30. Changed the 50+ levels by splitting each level into 3.
- They will have more even numbers than I used in new graph, but won't make much meaningful difference to this graph, and no difference at all if you are looking past level 50.
- Non-gold rewards are subjective and not factored in to this gold only graph. It's for you to decide their worth to you.
- if they keep the same slightly lower XP requirements for current level 50-60 I'll need to make a new graph, it won't make much difference to the takeaway average though (total 7200 XP).
- Kept the same max scale at 80g per 1000 XP even though it cuts the top off. I'm a crazy rebel
Mmy central point is that they solved mostly problems they introduced instead of solving the main issue (long lasting pain), they do this a lot of times introducing issues then FINALLY solving them.. like with Patches the Pirate and Baku the Mooneater they introduced so many problems with those that were complained for ages.. and then getting the praise for solving them.
sure you can also get the other analogy from this tale which is also a legit one that people complain about stuff that are not so bad, I like this tale cause it can got both ways:
the doctor is introduced a problem that didn't exist and solved it and then got the praise.
OR
The person is complaining about pain but it's not so bad in the end.
Which are both stances about the battle pass, that's why I posted it.
Of course I am on the patient side but I am also looking at the other side of the coin, did Blizzard did this kind of thing just to get praises about them fixing the problem and making us forget about the long time pain?
The first interpretation you've offered - that the doctor has caused harm simply to later get praise for it - is a misinterpretation of the "get rid of the goat" parable. This is made plain by the historical context of the story. It is a traditional Jewish story in which a poor (but faithful) man calls on God to alleviate his misery, and God (depending on the retelling) either tells him to get a goat or gives him a goat, and then the story proceeds basically as you've written it. Over time, God would be replaced in the story with a rabbi, or a wiseman, or (today) with a doctor.
Given that God is the original adviser in the story, and that God is good in the Abrahamic traditions, the point was never to suggest that God has maliciously ruined the man's life for the sake of praise. In fact, he already has the man's praise, as he is faithful when he originally calls on God. God in the story is teaching the man perspective and gratitude for what he has. So, the second interpretation has always been the actual meaning of the story. That's plain to see even in the modern, secular retelling of the story you're offering. Doctors swear a Hippocratic Oath, which first says to do no harm. The purpose of replacing God or a rabbi with a doctor is to make the story connect more effectively to secular audiences while maintaining the notion that the adviser in the story has the man's best interests at heart. That the secular version is now open to such misinterpretations as you've offered today is probably a reflection of a broader, modern distrust in institutions. But at this point I've probably spent more time than necessary on religion, history, and politics, as this is a space for discussing CCGs.
So, to go back to the argument about Hearthstone, Blizzard does not benefit from alienating its fans, and it was clear from the start that they weren't trying to. Looking back to the earliest announcements of this new system in August, Dean Ayala was quoted on Reddit as saying "Our intent with the system is for it to be upside for all players. We've done many checks on different player segments to try and make sure that is the case no matter how you play. Despite all this, we're making XP per level and XP bonuses as tuning knobs in case our predictions were incorrect. We can push legendary quests or give out additional rewards during events as well." As I argued in a separate forum post, we have seen these good faith efforts to make the game better for everyone over the course of the entire year.
There's no question that they were wrong in their assumptions, but it seems clear that they acted in good faith, and that they have made major changes to address the cases where they missed the mark. You can feel that the system doesn't go far enough to address the cost of the game, but that really has nothing to do with whether or not Blizzard is trying to make the game more rewarding than it has been in the past.
And frankly, I think the arguments about slow fixes to cards like Patches the Pirate and Baku the Mooneater are an unreasonable comparison to the rewards track. There were (and still are) a lot of players who enjoyed both of those cards in their original states. For that reason, any change would inevitably have a negative impact on some player segments, and therefore required a lot more consideration before they could proceed. But the rewards track change was intended from the start to simply offer more stuff to everyone. Again, you can say it's not enough, but by the end of the adjustments no one will be getting less, making these changes easier to roll out from a community PR standpoint.
Honestly, at this point, would that even destroy the class? I get that the cheaper hero power is kind of its gimmick but considering their cards are usually just better version than what other classes can do, would it even be that far off of a change to consider?
We have warlock getting weaker cards because their hero power is so good - so why not apply the reverse to Demon Hunter?
Seeing how every expansion cycle that class finds a way to be oppressive in its aggression, I just want to stop having to wish for nerfs on it.
Some numbers were dropped in the past, like was it 400/hr for ranked? Casual mode should be worth the same.
I don't know about any mode for 7 games, but I'd say, Arena, Duels, Tavern Brawl, Casual and Ranked. Maybe Battlegrounds, but I think it should require more effort than just queueing up 7 games against the Innkeeper and collecting your 2000 exp.
They dropped those numbers, 400XP for Ranked/Arena/Duels and 300XP for BG iirc. But I believe that's not enough: you don't play one hour worth of games for one hour, there's waiting periods between games, there's deck making/tweaking, there's accessing menus, there's bucket selections in Duels and so on. So, i believe simply showing how much XP you gain each game should add extra clarity. And you're right, Casual should give similar numbers.
And regarding the last paragraph, yes, I meant 7 wins in any PvP mode, forgot PvE and Practice aganst Innkeeper existed lol.
Of course I am on the patient side but I am also looking at the other side of the coin, did Blizzard did this kind of thing just to get praises about them fixing the problem and making us forget about the long time pain?
If they were aiming for that they clearly didn't reckon on the scale of the anger it triggered, and there is no way the frankly limited praise they are getting now overturns those effects.
I'm leaning towards not thinking that was their plan. If it was they wouldn't have spent 3 weeks being silent about it. They would have put out the improvements much sooner to both stem the bleeding and probably get more praise out of it. No, the timescale screams of the issues big corporations face when having to work out changes, agree on them, pass them by other departments, agree on when to implement them, and finally make an announcement about it. This was likely compounded by the challenges of the pandemic.
There is absolutely no doubt Blizz could have handled this whole thing much better, but I don't think their stated intent is quite as far from the truth as many believe.
So why were they? You knew exactly what you were doing and did it anyway. You're only changing things now because people called you out on your bullshit.
There's way too strong a desire to associate malice with the Hearthstone development team. (Apparently no one in the Hearthstone community has heard of Hanlon's Razor...)
As was already noted elsewhere on this thread, it's possible they intended to grant everyone an Old God as their "bonus legendary" and that changes were made over the course of development that threw that assumption out of whack. It's also possible they thought people would gravitate toward playing Duels to complete that quest, as it's pretty easy to get Darkmoon Faire Old Gods in that mode. Maybe they just thought adding that quest and the Play 50 Corrupt cards would get people excited about playing Darkmoon Faire cards, and that the cost of rerolling was low enough that it wouldn't matter if any individual player wanted to skip it because they'd get lots of chances to do so over the course of a week (and would be able to roll over one weekly quest to the next week if it came to that).
I don't work in the gaming industry, but I do work in software, and I've seen lots of examples of teams with the best intentions for positive user experiences making mistakes and frustrating users. It's not easy, and Blizzard has (as far back as August) been up front about how they were designing the system to be flexible so that if there were issues, they could go in and make changes. In retrospect, it feels like the biggest gap here was Blizzard thinking "rewards are a four month process, so it's okay if you have to roll over quests week to week, and it's okay if we wait until a major event to give you bonus XP, etc., because you have four months" while the community was thinking "rewards are a day-to-day event and I want to feel gratified every day I play." That gap can explain a lot of the missteps here without any need to assert malice.
It would have been nice if they had said "we hear you, we're working on it" a bit earlier, just to let people know they were listening, but I'm honestly not surprised they didn't given how incredibly toxic the Hearthstone community can be.
That's great, except if the analogy held up the man's house would be completely fine at the end of it, and maybe even benefited a little.
What I find most amusing about your stance is that your central point is that the man is oblivious to having moved the goalposts, while not-so-subtly referring to a debacle where the still-angry community has moved its goalposts, and it is the now-content members who are consistent with their original stance (namely that the Rewards Track is fine so long as players aren't worse off than they were before).
You can still fault the cost of the game, but that's a separate issue from the introduction of the Rewards Track.
Mmy central point is that they solved mostly problems they introduced instead of solving the main issue (long lasting pain), they do this a lot of times introducing issues then FINALLY solving them.. like with Patches the Pirate and Baku the Mooneater they introduced so many problems with those that were complained for ages.. and then getting the praise for solving them.
sure you can also get the other analogy from this tale which is also a legit one that people complain about stuff that are not so bad, I like this tale cause it can got both ways:
the doctor is introduced a problem that didn't exist and solved it and then got the praise.
OR
The person is complaining about pain but it's not so bad in the end.
Which are both stances about the battle pass, that's why I posted it.
Of course I am on the patient side but I am also looking at the other side of the coin, did Blizzard did this kind of thing just to get praises about them fixing the problem and making us forget about the long time pain?
The priest achievement You Ghuuna be sorry(spend 100 life as priest on cards) can, surprisingly, completed with Seadevil Stinger in wild in murloc Warlock deck.
That's great, except if the analogy held up the man's house would be completely fine at the end of it, and maybe even benefited a little.
What I find most amusing about your stance is that your central point is that the man is oblivious to having moved the goalposts, while not-so-subtly referring to a debacle where the still-angry community has moved its goalposts, and it is the now-content members who are consistent with their original stance (namely that the Rewards Track is fine so long as players aren't worse off than they were before).
You can still fault the cost of the game, but that's a separate issue from the introduction of the Rewards Track.
You can either use this to remove a minion immediately, of hold it to hit the enemy in the face at the end of your turn, bypassing Taunt.
Feedback:
Show Spoiler
anchorm4n: Balanced Blade is an interesting one, as the weapon would get weaker and weaker. I feel it's a tad strong right now, with 15 total damage for 5 mana. [Hearthstone Card (Self-Shaperinig Sword) Not Found] is 10 damage for 3, but you have to work your way up to the large damage ammount. I'd make yours a 4 mana 4/1
The second Rendition of Staff of Souls looks better, I don't think it's OP. My issue is that there's no reason for the one Durability, I prefer the blade.
Demonxz95: Worgen Fangs looks ok. I already told you my opinion on Everlast.
BloodMefist: Infusion Hammer looks ok, the most obvious design for a 1-Durability weapon. I think the uncorrupted version is Xal'atoh is actually better, since you need to pay 7 mana constantly to play the Corrupt version. (assuming that's the one you get in hand).
Pokeniner: Cool design, but I don't see DH having trouble getting the Deathrattle. Still, it's basically '2 mana: Gain 2 attack this turn', so I don't know how broken it is.
Wailor: I like the Pally/Priest version better, and I like it A LOT! Really nice design.
You could play Heroic Duels to round it out. Same awards as Arena.
True, didn't consider that. But I think I dislike Duels even more then arena. I hate how, even in a mode like this, people can't avoid netdecking. I abandoned casual Duels mode after few runs because of this, and I can pretty safely assume that the competitive Duels mode is way worse from this point of view.
This would be the first iteration if Blizzard Actually listened to feedback from the poll they made, the planning of the system was lacking and it still does have big flaws, and it was very buggy.
achievements: giving 1/5 of a daily quest, most of them being pointless and most that do reward you require a legendary/epic.
Duel requirements: arbitrary collection based, the mode was monetized so badly..
Meta: DH being oppressive af, in every mode.
Crafting system still outdated, and unfair.
Pack openings are still heavily skewed toward 40 dust packs.
The 500 gold and packs is like asking: "come back now, or miss this" (another FOMO) , but they should've just added it to the track in the early levels so new players don't miss out on that if they join in February.. Talking about new players there's still that problem (takes too long to catch up).
Tl;dr: this is good, but not enough and still doesn't address core issues of the game, it fixes the problem they introduced, instead of problems the game had for years.
I think it's a possible very strong tech card for tournaments settings, if you target some decks.
Because there are a lot of decks that have almost every time a full hand, off the top of my head: TF go hard, FTR, anivia control, Karma decks, Vi-Heimer, on a minor extent Ez-Draven. All those decks will not gain much from drawing one card more everyturn, because they start burning them.
In ladder it seems too much of a suicide to run it
Demon Hunter with a 2-mana hero power?
Dh have more powerful cards. Example - draw 2 more cards
A short story
I'll wait it out and see how it goes. but making the levels 20% better sounds like an executive move
"They make the system originally, some exec says "Looks good but make the xp 50% grindier to get" They do it, people complain, the team shows the exec they say "Ehh, make it 20% better, they'll stop""
Sorry i'm not supposed to complain about this obvious ploy that corporations use because POTENTIALLY i will receive more gold?
It will still take about 4-5 quests to receive a level up to receive gold, wheras before you would get twice as much for half as many quests.
if blizzard came out and said they released a deadly disease as a plague on humanity, claimed they did it on accident and then released a vaccine for that plague people would forgive them too.
People talk about the "We're sorry" clip from south park:
but they don't remember what it was about. BP knew they disaster could happen they knew there was a chance for it, but they kept going anyway. This is the battlepass(in a less destructive manner) How many controversies does activision blizzard need for people to realize they're not "accidentally" screwing their playerbase over.
I am not "quitting the game", it's still fun to me, despite the meta being pure aggro forever, this isn't a reddit report. You people and your goat analogy. It would be a much better analogy if it was a different kind of grazing animal, because the community is full of sheep.
Blizzard Responds to the Hearthstone Rewards Track - Less XP Required, Gold Bonus Next Week, More XP Gains
Sounds like the changes won't go into effect until the 15th which is next week.
And I'd bet dollars to donuts they'll have another bundle with a character portrait up too, they usually have those around this time of year (lookin at you Hazel bark)
Blizzard Responds to the Hearthstone Rewards Track - Less XP Required, Gold Bonus Next Week, More XP Gains
Here's a table based on 50,000 XP increments to judge your current progress, and the system as a whole.
Remember to account for achievements XP you may have gotten but won't for the rest of the expac cycle. Also we likely have more time on this track than what will normally be the case.
Gold per 1000 XP averages are based on the XP for that actual level, not what's in the table which is just the nearest level to the 50K XP milestone.
There's a table here to lookup your XP based on your level. https://outof.cards/hearthstone/2200-the-rewards-track-how-long-to-get-to-level-50-644000-experience-required-to-get-to-level-150
Blizzard Responds to the Hearthstone Rewards Track - Less XP Required, Gold Bonus Next Week, More XP Gains
TL;DR
old level 100 is 31.1 gold per 1000 XP
new level 200 is 34.7 gold per 1000 XP
Following the 8 Dec 2020 announcement by Blizzard with upcoming changes to the rewards track, I've made a new graph to give an indication of how much Gold 1000 XP is worth based on where you finish. I think one of the main problems we've had is de-obfuscating XP into gold.
This contrasts with the previous graph (level 100 is same as level 200 above):
So whereas level old level 100 would equal 31.1 gold per 1000 XP
the equivalent level 200 in the new system is 34.7 gold per 1000 XP
I'm posting this without trying to infer the system is good or bad. Just the data for you to decide for yourself.
Notes:
- I've reduced the XP requirements by 19.2 % approx (1-(37000/192200)) for levels 1-50. And added the 50 gold to levels 27 and 30. Changed the 50+ levels by splitting each level into 3.
- They will have more even numbers than I used in new graph, but won't make much meaningful difference to this graph, and no difference at all if you are looking past level 50.
- Non-gold rewards are subjective and not factored in to this gold only graph. It's for you to decide their worth to you.
- if they keep the same slightly lower XP requirements for current level 50-60 I'll need to make a new graph, it won't make much difference to the takeaway average though (total 7200 XP).
- Kept the same max scale at 80g per 1000 XP even though it cuts the top off. I'm a crazy rebel
In The Swing Of Things - Card Design Competition Discussion Thread
Some ideas
A short story
The first interpretation you've offered - that the doctor has caused harm simply to later get praise for it - is a misinterpretation of the "get rid of the goat" parable. This is made plain by the historical context of the story. It is a traditional Jewish story in which a poor (but faithful) man calls on God to alleviate his misery, and God (depending on the retelling) either tells him to get a goat or gives him a goat, and then the story proceeds basically as you've written it. Over time, God would be replaced in the story with a rabbi, or a wiseman, or (today) with a doctor.
Given that God is the original adviser in the story, and that God is good in the Abrahamic traditions, the point was never to suggest that God has maliciously ruined the man's life for the sake of praise. In fact, he already has the man's praise, as he is faithful when he originally calls on God. God in the story is teaching the man perspective and gratitude for what he has. So, the second interpretation has always been the actual meaning of the story. That's plain to see even in the modern, secular retelling of the story you're offering. Doctors swear a Hippocratic Oath, which first says to do no harm. The purpose of replacing God or a rabbi with a doctor is to make the story connect more effectively to secular audiences while maintaining the notion that the adviser in the story has the man's best interests at heart. That the secular version is now open to such misinterpretations as you've offered today is probably a reflection of a broader, modern distrust in institutions. But at this point I've probably spent more time than necessary on religion, history, and politics, as this is a space for discussing CCGs.
So, to go back to the argument about Hearthstone, Blizzard does not benefit from alienating its fans, and it was clear from the start that they weren't trying to. Looking back to the earliest announcements of this new system in August, Dean Ayala was quoted on Reddit as saying "Our intent with the system is for it to be upside for all players. We've done many checks on different player segments to try and make sure that is the case no matter how you play. Despite all this, we're making XP per level and XP bonuses as tuning knobs in case our predictions were incorrect. We can push legendary quests or give out additional rewards during events as well." As I argued in a separate forum post, we have seen these good faith efforts to make the game better for everyone over the course of the entire year.
There's no question that they were wrong in their assumptions, but it seems clear that they acted in good faith, and that they have made major changes to address the cases where they missed the mark. You can feel that the system doesn't go far enough to address the cost of the game, but that really has nothing to do with whether or not Blizzard is trying to make the game more rewarding than it has been in the past.
And frankly, I think the arguments about slow fixes to cards like Patches the Pirate and Baku the Mooneater are an unreasonable comparison to the rewards track. There were (and still are) a lot of players who enjoyed both of those cards in their original states. For that reason, any change would inevitably have a negative impact on some player segments, and therefore required a lot more consideration before they could proceed. But the rewards track change was intended from the start to simply offer more stuff to everyone. Again, you can say it's not enough, but by the end of the adjustments no one will be getting less, making these changes easier to roll out from a community PR standpoint.
Demon Hunter with a 2-mana hero power?
Honestly, at this point, would that even destroy the class? I get that the cheaper hero power is kind of its gimmick but considering their cards are usually just better version than what other classes can do, would it even be that far off of a change to consider?
We have warlock getting weaker cards because their hero power is so good - so why not apply the reverse to Demon Hunter?
Seeing how every expansion cycle that class finds a way to be oppressive in its aggression, I just want to stop having to wish for nerfs on it.
Blizzard Responds to the Hearthstone Rewards Track - Less XP Required, Gold Bonus Next Week, More XP Gains
They dropped those numbers, 400XP for Ranked/Arena/Duels and 300XP for BG iirc. But I believe that's not enough: you don't play one hour worth of games for one hour, there's waiting periods between games, there's deck making/tweaking, there's accessing menus, there's bucket selections in Duels and so on. So, i believe simply showing how much XP you gain each game should add extra clarity. And you're right, Casual should give similar numbers.
And regarding the last paragraph, yes, I meant 7 wins in any PvP mode, forgot PvE and Practice aganst Innkeeper existed lol.
Even Priest
I'm always a fan of aggro priest, but I don't have the two 4 cost legendaries. Can you recommend any replacements?
The Designs of the Class-Specific Packs Coming From Book of Heroes
WHen is garrosh coming?
A short story
If they were aiming for that they clearly didn't reckon on the scale of the anger it triggered, and there is no way the frankly limited praise they are getting now overturns those effects.
I'm leaning towards not thinking that was their plan. If it was they wouldn't have spent 3 weeks being silent about it. They would have put out the improvements much sooner to both stem the bleeding and probably get more praise out of it. No, the timescale screams of the issues big corporations face when having to work out changes, agree on them, pass them by other departments, agree on when to implement them, and finally make an announcement about it. This was likely compounded by the challenges of the pandemic.
There is absolutely no doubt Blizz could have handled this whole thing much better, but I don't think their stated intent is quite as far from the truth as many believe.
Demon Hunter Legion Duel Deck
8-1 so far. Got Fireshaper and Double Time. This deck is all about speed =)
Also got Vampiric Fangs, Book of the Dead and Spyglass
Blizzard Responds to the Hearthstone Rewards Track - Less XP Required, Gold Bonus Next Week, More XP Gains
There's way too strong a desire to associate malice with the Hearthstone development team. (Apparently no one in the Hearthstone community has heard of Hanlon's Razor...)
As was already noted elsewhere on this thread, it's possible they intended to grant everyone an Old God as their "bonus legendary" and that changes were made over the course of development that threw that assumption out of whack. It's also possible they thought people would gravitate toward playing Duels to complete that quest, as it's pretty easy to get Darkmoon Faire Old Gods in that mode. Maybe they just thought adding that quest and the Play 50 Corrupt cards would get people excited about playing Darkmoon Faire cards, and that the cost of rerolling was low enough that it wouldn't matter if any individual player wanted to skip it because they'd get lots of chances to do so over the course of a week (and would be able to roll over one weekly quest to the next week if it came to that).
I don't work in the gaming industry, but I do work in software, and I've seen lots of examples of teams with the best intentions for positive user experiences making mistakes and frustrating users. It's not easy, and Blizzard has (as far back as August) been up front about how they were designing the system to be flexible so that if there were issues, they could go in and make changes. In retrospect, it feels like the biggest gap here was Blizzard thinking "rewards are a four month process, so it's okay if you have to roll over quests week to week, and it's okay if we wait until a major event to give you bonus XP, etc., because you have four months" while the community was thinking "rewards are a day-to-day event and I want to feel gratified every day I play." That gap can explain a lot of the missteps here without any need to assert malice.
It would have been nice if they had said "we hear you, we're working on it" a bit earlier, just to let people know they were listening, but I'm honestly not surprised they didn't given how incredibly toxic the Hearthstone community can be.
12 Win Deathrattle Hunter
tried this deck twice, 0-3 both times :/
often lost vs C'thun decks with great treasures
A short story
Mmy central point is that they solved mostly problems they introduced instead of solving the main issue (long lasting pain), they do this a lot of times introducing issues then FINALLY solving them.. like with Patches the Pirate and Baku the Mooneater they introduced so many problems with those that were complained for ages.. and then getting the praise for solving them.
sure you can also get the other analogy from this tale which is also a legit one that people complain about stuff that are not so bad, I like this tale cause it can got both ways:
the doctor is introduced a problem that didn't exist and solved it and then got the praise.
OR
The person is complaining about pain but it's not so bad in the end.
Which are both stances about the battle pass, that's why I posted it.
Of course I am on the patient side but I am also looking at the other side of the coin, did Blizzard did this kind of thing just to get praises about them fixing the problem and making us forget about the long time pain?
Achievement Tips/Strategies Sharing
That's a really great find - given how many cards don't work (Bloodbloom, Scion of the Deep, Cho'gall), I would have never even bothered to try Seadevil Stinger.
A short story
That's great, except if the analogy held up the man's house would be completely fine at the end of it, and maybe even benefited a little.
What I find most amusing about your stance is that your central point is that the man is oblivious to having moved the goalposts, while not-so-subtly referring to a debacle where the still-angry community has moved its goalposts, and it is the now-content members who are consistent with their original stance (namely that the Rewards Track is fine so long as players aren't worse off than they were before).
You can still fault the cost of the game, but that's a separate issue from the introduction of the Rewards Track.
In The Swing Of Things - Card Design Competition Discussion Thread
New idea:
You can either use this to remove a minion immediately, of hold it to hit the enemy in the face at the end of your turn, bypassing Taunt.
Feedback:
anchorm4n: Balanced Blade is an interesting one, as the weapon would get weaker and weaker. I feel it's a tad strong right now, with 15 total damage for 5 mana. [Hearthstone Card (Self-Shaperinig Sword) Not Found] is 10 damage for 3, but you have to work your way up to the large damage ammount. I'd make yours a 4 mana 4/1
The second Rendition of Staff of Souls looks better, I don't think it's OP. My issue is that there's no reason for the one Durability, I prefer the blade.
Demonxz95: Worgen Fangs looks ok. I already told you my opinion on Everlast.
BloodMefist: Infusion Hammer looks ok, the most obvious design for a 1-Durability weapon. I think the uncorrupted version is Xal'atoh is actually better, since you need to pay 7 mana constantly to play the Corrupt version. (assuming that's the one you get in hand).
Hordaki: Really like this one, nice job!
Pokeniner: Cool design, but I don't see DH having trouble getting the Deathrattle. Still, it's basically '2 mana: Gain 2 attack this turn', so I don't know how broken it is.
Wailor: I like the Pally/Priest version better, and I like it A LOT! Really nice design.
A short story
A man goes to the doctor to complain about a pain he had for years.
The doctor suggests: "You should get a goat".
The man goes and buys a goat, and after a week he returns to the doctor.
he tells him: "This is horrible! the goat destroyed everything in the house".
Then the doctor suggests:"Well you should get rid of the goat".
After a week the man returns to the doctor and tell him:"Thanks a lot! now everything is fine you solved the problem".
Blizzard Responds to the Hearthstone Rewards Track - Less XP Required, Gold Bonus Next Week, More XP Gains
True, didn't consider that. But I think I dislike Duels even more then arena. I hate how, even in a mode like this, people can't avoid netdecking. I abandoned casual Duels mode after few runs because of this, and I can pretty safely assume that the competitive Duels mode is way worse from this point of view.
Blizzard Responds to the Hearthstone Rewards Track - Less XP Required, Gold Bonus Next Week, More XP Gains
This would be the first iteration if Blizzard Actually listened to feedback from the poll they made, the planning of the system was lacking and it still does have big flaws, and it was very buggy.
achievements: giving 1/5 of a daily quest, most of them being pointless and most that do reward you require a legendary/epic.
Duel requirements: arbitrary collection based, the mode was monetized so badly..
Meta: DH being oppressive af, in every mode.
Crafting system still outdated, and unfair.
Pack openings are still heavily skewed toward 40 dust packs.
The 500 gold and packs is like asking: "come back now, or miss this" (another FOMO) , but they should've just added it to the track in the early levels so new players don't miss out on that if they join in February.. Talking about new players there's still that problem (takes too long to catch up).
Tl;dr: this is good, but not enough and still doesn't address core issues of the game, it fixes the problem they introduced, instead of problems the game had for years.
Blizzard Responds to the Hearthstone Rewards Track - Less XP Required, Gold Bonus Next Week, More XP Gains
I played one less game a day in protest, glad they noticed and took action!
Six New Cards Revealed for Runeterra's Cosmic Creation Expansion Including Piltover's Landmark
I think it's a possible very strong tech card for tournaments settings, if you target some decks.
Because there are a lot of decks that have almost every time a full hand, off the top of my head: TF go hard, FTR, anivia control, Karma decks, Vi-Heimer, on a minor extent Ez-Draven. All those decks will not gain much from drawing one card more everyturn, because they start burning them.
In ladder it seems too much of a suicide to run it
Lunacy C'Thun Mage
Hi thanks for comment. I've tried The Amazing Reno but found it too slow in this meta.