Oh, one more to add to the collection - a year or two back, I decided I was tired of having every card on day 1 with nothing to work towards. I also knew I was too weak to simply stop myself from buying a huge number of packs. So, I decided to implement an alternative rule - I was only allowed to craft golden cards from then on. That way I wouldn't have enough dust to make every card and would be forced to work towards some of them. Perfect idea!
..Except I misjudged my own stupidity, and the only real result was I just bought more packs. I am the worst.
I would argue the inverse - I'd say the economy throttle is doing exactly what it's intended to do, assuming I read the intentions correctly. That is, the actual intentions, rather than what they really have to say to avoid enraging fans.
Most of us here are card game enthusiasts, and I'd imagine most of us have dabbled in other card games. How many have risen in great acclaim recently? And of those, how many are still major players in the card game world? I would wager an answer to the latter question would be 'none'.
The true purpose of the throttle isn't really to stop the meta from getting stale or anything similar, in my view. It's simply to avoid the game becoming stale too quickly. I emphasize 'too quickly' because it's an inevitability that people will complete their collections (or at least as much of them as is necessary for full experimentation). People can be frustrated at not being able to quickly complete their collections - that's not going to make many of them drop the game entirely, though. On the other hand, it's very common for card game players (who, in my experience, tend towards the obsessive on average) to complete a collection very quickly, play themselves through, and then burn out.
So - the throttle is simply to keep people coming back to earn their rewards and unlock a collection more slowly. That way, the game can continue to have an active player base.
It has to be said, of course - CursedParrot's comment above, noting that future expansions wouldn't work well with the current limitations. That is 100% correct - but that's fine, because the limitation isn't intended to be sustainable, according to my interpretation above. All it needs to do is keep the game thriving in the short term. After a certain point - and the next expansion is a solid milestone for that - if a community is still strong, it will be invested enough that it'll keep playing without needing that kind of incentivization to sustain it. But in this short term period, I believe Riot is simply trying to ensnare its player base and keep them from wandering off - and they are 100% correct to do so, in my opinion.
Final point - I would add to CursedParrot's post that not only will this model be unsustainable for future expansions, it will be actively detrimental at that point. Not being able to buy a lot of cards is a good thing (for Riot) right now - but skip forward two or three expansions and imagine a new player coming in. It's bad enough on Hearthstone, having to deal with top-tier meta decks with a limited selection of cards. Imagine being in that same situation and you can't even buy enough cards to close the gap. All you can do is buy enough cards to complete maybe one third of a meta deck - a deck which, in three weeks' time, may well have dropped to the middle tiers or lower. That would make for an atrociously bad new player experience. So I would venture that the current model will be removed at some point - I'd guess sometime around the next expansion.
That's my guess, anyway... but then, looking at League, Riot have never been particularly good at the whole new player experience thing :P
Quote From ArngrimUndyingI got that out of a pack and it's honestly pretty decent, particularity the deathrattle-mech variant - definitely very mulligan/curve-heavy in getting the Reborns, but it's on of those snowball decks where if you can make it to mid-game and start spamming, your oppoent will be very hard-pressed to win with anything short of a Plague of Death clearing the field or OTK.
Okay, this is just my guesswork, and could be proven totally wrong, but I think Boompistol Bully is going to be absolutely insane. It locks out HALF of the cards of the most popular Highlander Galakrond Rogue deck (according to HSReplay). And the remaining cards are mostly just low-cost spells like Praise Galakrond! and Shadowstep.
The effect is proven to be really strong by Loatheb, still played in Wild to protect a large board. But the difference between these two cards is that this locks out tempo and value options for the opponent. So dropping it on curve can put you greatly ahead in the tempo race. Not to mention this is a 5/5 as well, no drawbacks in stats.
Another attribute that may not appear on first glance is that this is one of the few (or only) cards that are techs AGAINST THEMSELVES. If both decks in a game run it, the first one to drop it wins more. This will bring many swingy and chaotic games. Even stronger with bounce effects like Shadowstep. This may be the strongest weapon of Rogue and against Rogue. A very interesting paradox and I can't wait to see how it will actually work out! (Even if I turn out to be totally wrong.)
I crafted Making Mummies day one. I wanted that deck to work so badly...
Maybe when Shotbot comes out. I won't stop dreaming.
I got that out of a pack and it's honestly pretty decent, particularity the deathrattle-mech variant - definitely very mulligan/curve-heavy in getting the Reborns, but it's on of those snowball decks where if you can make it to mid-game and start spamming, your oppoent will be very hard-pressed to win with anything short of a Plague of Death clearing the field or OTK.
My question is: Is the throttle really working as intended?
You know, that's in fact exactly what I thought when I first saw the actual numbers of the purchase limit. Riot's goal is a noble one, but I think for the limitation to be meaningful in keeping paying and free players on a more even playing field, they'd have to set it to something like 1 champion, 1 epic, 2 rares, and 3 commons per week.
The way things currently stand, I (as a free player) wouldn't be opposed to removing the limit. As you said, it's only going to fulfill its purpose for a couple of weeks, anyway. In that case, I'd rather let the people who want to spend their money give it to Riot so that they, in turn, can invest more funds into improving and expanding the game.
How about giving the opponent a card draw if the countered spell costs more than 3 mana? Although this wouldn't work with skills (I believe they all have a cost of 0, right?). I generally like the idea, but it would make countering lower-cost spells rather awkward, if not outright disadvantageous.
I guess giving the opponent back some mana would be a decent-ish trade-off, too.
This is a screenshot of a few unreleased cards that djinn found in crafting mode on iOS. And I know what you're thinking: "Those are fake!". However, one of the devs actually responded to the post:
Now, if you look at the cards, quite a number of them reference agriculture in some way. This also makes sense from a story perspective:
Show Spoiler
Last time we saw her, Percy was looking for her mom. If Percy is Persephone, her mother would be Demeter, godess of agriculture.
I don't know about you, but I'm really hyped for this.
Yeah, it seems like the wildcards limit will work for this current set, but if players buy the maximum every week they’ll be able to get the entire next expansion when it releases, making the limit only relevant for new paying players (which seems against the spirit of the limits). Maybe they’ll make it so that you can’t buy wildcards if you have all the cards of that rarity already
As I understand it, the weekly cap on wildcard purchases is intended to keep people from collecting all the cards too quickly, and the developers hope this will keep the meta from getting stale too quickly. I guess I'm wondering what their definition of "too quickly" is.
There are 24 Champions in the game, and you can have 3 copies of each, so 24 x 3 = 72 is the maximum number of Champ cards you can collect at this time.
If I spent all my wildcards and shards after only three vault openings, I would now have over 40 Champion cards. I am confident that I could easily collect all 72 by the end of the first month. Someone more dedicated than me could have them all a bit sooner by grinding every region with Expedition XP. (I've only completed one region, but I'm very close to finishing my second.)
I've heard several streamers expressing frustration at having to wait to craft a wider variety of decks. My question is: Is the throttle really working as intended?
It seems like it's making paying players unhappy in the short term, while not really slowing things down all that much when you consider the bigger picture. After all, this game is surely going to last a while, and it could be many months before we see an expansion.
Furthermore, once that expansion does arrive, people will easily be able to acquire most of it immediately with saved resources. (I've seen no indication that the current resources won't work on future content.)
It all sounded like a good idea on paper, but I'm not sure the result (a month or less before whales have a full set) is worth the frustration -- especially when the people you are frustrating are the only ones actually giving you money.
@OldManSanns: Your posts on this topic don't bother me at all, but I do get annoyed when people start talking as if an animated sticker is some kind of emotional assault. It makes sense that you might want clarification on the general intent of the emote, even if I will never agree that these innocuous things could ever be used in a truly hurtful way.
If a Quest Pirate Warrior can somehow be made to work then this curves perfectly with [Hearthstone Card (Ancharr) Not Found], though I'm not confident that deck will be very good.
I haven't found it to be oppressive, and it's often a dead card in my hand. I'd be curious to hear about its stats before taking action. I do like someone's point that it bends the meta away from control. I think one thing that would help is clarification on which kinds of ally abilities show up in the spell queue and can be countered. Some "Play" effects go in the queue and others don't. I think a nice way to balance the card would be to give it "refill your opponent's spell mana." That way it punishes big ally "Play" effects (but they still get the big ally), but isn't as devastating when they got nothing off their big spell.
e can go from LV1 to I WIN { she level up mid spell and count the rest of the units afterwards, of course that means judgment counts for killing with her at any point 0/4, 1/4, etc.}
Yeah, I've lost games to that before. Complete board dominance, opponent down to 2 health, he declares attack at the very start of the round, then chains Riposte into Judgment on my full board. I was torn between outrage, amusement, and cautious respect.
Given the provocative language and relatively new account, I'm entirely unconvinced that this isn't just a bait-thread. But for the sake of argument, I'd note that the mechanic is entirely intuitive once you understand and accept the premise. It also ensures that Overwhelm is appropriately powerful - it'd be a lot less impactful as a keyword if the same effect could be reproduced by basically any targeted removal spell.
I certainly disagree with calling it "retarded." I wasn't taken aback by this at all since it basically works the same in Magic: The Gathering, (although I'm not a big Magic player by any stretch). I embrace this mechanic as a way to keep the overall power of removal cards in check.
The Galakrond's Awakening Hearthstone Adventure Week 3 Cards - Air Battle Over Dragonblight
Halazzi?
What is the 1 mana floop spell in this deck for?
That moment you know you have a bad idea
Oh, one more to add to the collection - a year or two back, I decided I was tired of having every card on day 1 with nothing to work towards. I also knew I was too weak to simply stop myself from buying a huge number of packs. So, I decided to implement an alternative rule - I was only allowed to craft golden cards from then on. That way I wouldn't have enough dust to make every card and would be forced to work towards some of them. Perfect idea!
..Except I misjudged my own stupidity, and the only real result was I just bought more packs. I am the worst.
Economy throttle actually pointless?
I would argue the inverse - I'd say the economy throttle is doing exactly what it's intended to do, assuming I read the intentions correctly. That is, the actual intentions, rather than what they really have to say to avoid enraging fans.
Most of us here are card game enthusiasts, and I'd imagine most of us have dabbled in other card games. How many have risen in great acclaim recently? And of those, how many are still major players in the card game world? I would wager an answer to the latter question would be 'none'.
The true purpose of the throttle isn't really to stop the meta from getting stale or anything similar, in my view. It's simply to avoid the game becoming stale too quickly. I emphasize 'too quickly' because it's an inevitability that people will complete their collections (or at least as much of them as is necessary for full experimentation). People can be frustrated at not being able to quickly complete their collections - that's not going to make many of them drop the game entirely, though. On the other hand, it's very common for card game players (who, in my experience, tend towards the obsessive on average) to complete a collection very quickly, play themselves through, and then burn out.
So - the throttle is simply to keep people coming back to earn their rewards and unlock a collection more slowly. That way, the game can continue to have an active player base.
It has to be said, of course - CursedParrot's comment above, noting that future expansions wouldn't work well with the current limitations. That is 100% correct - but that's fine, because the limitation isn't intended to be sustainable, according to my interpretation above. All it needs to do is keep the game thriving in the short term. After a certain point - and the next expansion is a solid milestone for that - if a community is still strong, it will be invested enough that it'll keep playing without needing that kind of incentivization to sustain it. But in this short term period, I believe Riot is simply trying to ensnare its player base and keep them from wandering off - and they are 100% correct to do so, in my opinion.
Final point - I would add to CursedParrot's post that not only will this model be unsustainable for future expansions, it will be actively detrimental at that point. Not being able to buy a lot of cards is a good thing (for Riot) right now - but skip forward two or three expansions and imagine a new player coming in. It's bad enough on Hearthstone, having to deal with top-tier meta decks with a limited selection of cards. Imagine being in that same situation and you can't even buy enough cards to close the gap. All you can do is buy enough cards to complete maybe one third of a meta deck - a deck which, in three weeks' time, may well have dropped to the middle tiers or lower. That would make for an atrociously bad new player experience. So I would venture that the current model will be removed at some point - I'd guess sometime around the next expansion.
That's my guess, anyway... but then, looking at League, Riot have never been particularly good at the whole new player experience thing :P
That moment you know you have a bad idea
"Pretty decent" is stretching, but it's not useless. It's just a horrifically inconsistent deck, which is why I'm hopeful for Shotbot.
(Also why are the quotes so hard to work with on this forum. I really wish you could paste them in BBCode)
Boompistol Bully
I am just imaging this in a Shaman Shudderwock build
The Galakrond's Awakening Hearthstone Adventure Week 3 Cards - Air Battle Over Dragonblight
Okay, this is just my guesswork, and could be proven totally wrong, but I think Boompistol Bully is going to be absolutely insane. It locks out HALF of the cards of the most popular Highlander Galakrond Rogue deck (according to HSReplay). And the remaining cards are mostly just low-cost spells like Praise Galakrond! and Shadowstep.
The effect is proven to be really strong by Loatheb, still played in Wild to protect a large board. But the difference between these two cards is that this locks out tempo and value options for the opponent. So dropping it on curve can put you greatly ahead in the tempo race. Not to mention this is a 5/5 as well, no drawbacks in stats.
Another attribute that may not appear on first glance is that this is one of the few (or only) cards that are techs AGAINST THEMSELVES. If both decks in a game run it, the first one to drop it wins more. This will bring many swingy and chaotic games. Even stronger with bounce effects like Shadowstep. This may be the strongest weapon of Rogue and against Rogue. A very interesting paradox and I can't wait to see how it will actually work out! (Even if I turn out to be totally wrong.)
That moment you know you have a bad idea
I got that out of a pack and it's honestly pretty decent, particularity the deathrattle-mech variant - definitely very mulligan/curve-heavy in getting the Reborns, but it's on of those snowball decks where if you can make it to mid-game and start spamming, your oppoent will be very hard-pressed to win with anything short of a Plague of Death clearing the field or OTK.
Though that deck's time to shine was definitely the Halloween event - 2 mana Sylvanas Windrunners & Ragnaros the Firelords? Yes, please!
I think i should have won... pls explain to me
So is this a known issue at Riot? If not, someone needs to report the bug.
Fiora's counter should display her accurate progress toward victory, not just kills on that specific instance of Fiora.
That moment you know you have a bad idea
I crafted Making Mummies day one. I wanted that deck to work so badly...
Maybe when Shotbot comes out. I won't stop dreaming.
Economy throttle actually pointless?
You know, that's in fact exactly what I thought when I first saw the actual numbers of the purchase limit. Riot's goal is a noble one, but I think for the limitation to be meaningful in keeping paying and free players on a more even playing field, they'd have to set it to something like 1 champion, 1 epic, 2 rares, and 3 commons per week.
The way things currently stand, I (as a free player) wouldn't be opposed to removing the limit. As you said, it's only going to fulfill its purpose for a couple of weeks, anyway. In that case, I'd rather let the people who want to spend their money give it to Riot so that they, in turn, can invest more funds into improving and expanding the game.
So, how long is Deny gonna stay at 3 mana?
How about giving the opponent a card draw if the countered spell costs more than 3 mana? Although this wouldn't work with skills (I believe they all have a cost of 0, right?). I generally like the idea, but it would make countering lower-cost spells rather awkward, if not outright disadvantageous.
I guess giving the opponent back some mana would be a decent-ish trade-off, too.
The Galakrond's Awakening Hearthstone Adventure Week 3 Cards - Air Battle Over Dragonblight
In Wild, Boompistol Bully + Loatheb
The first expansion of the game will probably be themed around agriculture
Hey, guys! Long time, no write.
So a few days ago, when the purple patch landed, user u/diamadjinn posted this photo on reddit:
This is a screenshot of a few unreleased cards that djinn found in crafting mode on iOS. And I know what you're thinking: "Those are fake!". However, one of the devs actually responded to the post:
Now, if you look at the cards, quite a number of them reference agriculture in some way. This also makes sense from a story perspective:
I don't know about you, but I'm really hyped for this.
Economy throttle actually pointless?
Yeah, it seems like the wildcards limit will work for this current set, but if players buy the maximum every week they’ll be able to get the entire next expansion when it releases, making the limit only relevant for new paying players (which seems against the spirit of the limits). Maybe they’ll make it so that you can’t buy wildcards if you have all the cards of that rarity already
Economy throttle actually pointless?
As I understand it, the weekly cap on wildcard purchases is intended to keep people from collecting all the cards too quickly, and the developers hope this will keep the meta from getting stale too quickly. I guess I'm wondering what their definition of "too quickly" is.
There are 24 Champions in the game, and you can have 3 copies of each, so 24 x 3 = 72 is the maximum number of Champ cards you can collect at this time.
If I spent all my wildcards and shards after only three vault openings, I would now have over 40 Champion cards. I am confident that I could easily collect all 72 by the end of the first month. Someone more dedicated than me could have them all a bit sooner by grinding every region with Expedition XP. (I've only completed one region, but I'm very close to finishing my second.)
I've heard several streamers expressing frustration at having to wait to craft a wider variety of decks. My question is: Is the throttle really working as intended?
It seems like it's making paying players unhappy in the short term, while not really slowing things down all that much when you consider the bigger picture. After all, this game is surely going to last a while, and it could be many months before we see an expansion.
Furthermore, once that expansion does arrive, people will easily be able to acquire most of it immediately with saved resources. (I've seen no indication that the current resources won't work on future content.)
It all sounded like a good idea on paper, but I'm not sure the result (a month or less before whales have a full set) is worth the frustration -- especially when the people you are frustrating are the only ones actually giving you money.
What is the Shen emote supposed to convey?
@OldManSanns: Your posts on this topic don't bother me at all, but I do get annoyed when people start talking as if an animated sticker is some kind of emotional assault. It makes sense that you might want clarification on the general intent of the emote, even if I will never agree that these innocuous things could ever be used in a truly hurtful way.
The Galakrond's Awakening Hearthstone Adventure Week 3 Cards - Air Battle Over Dragonblight
what it will replace?
New Neutral Minion - Sky Gen'ral Kragg
If a Quest Pirate Warrior can somehow be made to work then this curves perfectly with [Hearthstone Card (Ancharr) Not Found], though I'm not confident that deck will be very good.
So, how long is Deny gonna stay at 3 mana?
I haven't found it to be oppressive, and it's often a dead card in my hand. I'd be curious to hear about its stats before taking action. I do like someone's point that it bends the meta away from control. I think one thing that would help is clarification on which kinds of ally abilities show up in the spell queue and can be countered. Some "Play" effects go in the queue and others don't. I think a nice way to balance the card would be to give it "refill your opponent's spell mana." That way it punishes big ally "Play" effects (but they still get the big ally), but isn't as devastating when they got nothing off their big spell.
I think i should have won... pls explain to me
Yeah, I've lost games to that before. Complete board dominance, opponent down to 2 health, he declares attack at the very start of the round, then chains Riposte into Judgment on my full board. I was torn between outrage, amusement, and cautious respect.
So, how long is Deny gonna stay at 3 mana?
For the sake of provoking more discussion, I'm curious what people think of alternative balancing measures, such as:
- Giving the opponent a card draw
- Refunding some or all of the opponent's mana expenditure in casting the countered spell
- Locking you (the Deny player) out of playing any other spells that round
- Stopping you (the Deny player) from banking any spell mana that round
- Can't cast it if you have any non-Ionian allies in play
I could go on. I'm not suggesting any of these are a good idea - just spitballing.
what's with the mechanic of units not being able to attack after blockers have been removed from in front of them?
Given the provocative language and relatively new account, I'm entirely unconvinced that this isn't just a bait-thread. But for the sake of argument, I'd note that the mechanic is entirely intuitive once you understand and accept the premise. It also ensures that Overwhelm is appropriately powerful - it'd be a lot less impactful as a keyword if the same effect could be reproduced by basically any targeted removal spell.
New Priest Minion - Aeon Reaver
Maybe a new dragon control priest tool? If that is a thing?
what's with the mechanic of units not being able to attack after blockers have been removed from in front of them?
I certainly disagree with calling it "retarded." I wasn't taken aback by this at all since it basically works the same in Magic: The Gathering, (although I'm not a big Magic player by any stretch). I embrace this mechanic as a way to keep the overall power of removal cards in check.