They put a lot of effort into this trailer, unlike the Stormwind one, which was cheap trash in comparison. I guess we know where their priorities lie.
It makes me wonder how shocking the Mercs monetization will be. I don't think Blizzard would spend resources to hype something that wasn't expected to bring in a lot of cash right out of the gate.
It was shortly after launch. It was free, and I had enjoyed both MtG and WoW off and on, so I figured why not?
I spent a very long time completely ignorant of the meta or even how to play well. Eventually, I decided to try to get good at Arena, which improved my skills a lot. (Any amount would have been a lot.) I got tired of Arena before getting super good, but at that point I could at least play Ranked without completely embarrassing myself. I remember loving Druid the most, I think? The versatility of the class always appealed to me.
I think what I liked about the game overall was the possibility of coming up with new ways to use underappreciated cards and pushing classes in unexpected directions. Now, of course, I see how such efforts are actively thwarted by the game's design, but I still like to mess around with off-meta stuff once I've ranked up as far as I care to go in a given season. (Yes, I'm the guy you run into at Diamond 5 or 10 trying to make Sheldras Moontree work. Spoiler alert: It doesn't.)
No, any deck that contains 15 spells cannot be called Zoo. What we see here is Handlock.
And it takes a LOT of cheek for someone at Blizzard to actively suggest that people should play a deck containing two of the nerfed cards. It's like, "Hey, we 'nerfed' a couple of these cards, but we also recognize that our changes will not hinder the deck in any way."
Totally sucks for people with limited collections, but that's not me, so I'll happily collect the extra gold. Couldn't care less about the stars, though.
I might get tired of being told what class to play, but I guess I don't HAVE to do it.
Trying to sink the whole company would be misguided. Blizzard continues to employ many innocent people who make a product I enjoy.
I don't want to sink the whole company. I agree there are lots of innocent people (and even victims) at Blizzard who deserve a better workplace, not a bankrupt employer. I have enjoyed playing Hearthstone for years, and I don't want to see it gone because I really don't think other CCGs in the market can replace it (I have soured considerably on LoR, and as great as MTGA is, I think its complexity means it can't fill the same fast-paced space that Hearthstone occupies).
But that doesn't mean I don't want to send Blizzard a message that makes clear that I want to see them make meaningful changes to their corporate culture. A boycott doesn't need to mean "destroy this company by taking away all their revenue." It can simply be a protest that shows Blizzard that their customers are willing to hit them where it hurts.
After mulling it over for a while, I've decided to stop paying for anything in Hearthstone (and any Blizzard games writ large), and just going totally F2P. That leaves the door open to spending more on the game if Blizzard can show meaningful change, while not cutting out a product that I enjoy a lot.
I know it's hard to feel powerless and the desire to "send a message" is strong, but it's important to think about whether the message being received is the one you are trying to send.
The flaw in your plan is that when a significant number of people boycott, Activision has no idea why sales dropped. They could easily blame the quality of the game and lay a bunch of people off. Even if they suspect the losses are due to boycotts, they could punish employees with layoffs and blame the product anyway. If history is any guide, I suspect that's exactly what they'd do.
On the other hand, if the courts do the punishing, Activision knows exactly what it did wrong and can then take steps to correct course. If at that point you feel the punishment wasn't harsh enough or Blizzard's course correction was insufficient, THAT would be the time to boycott.
One thing I want to add is, I encourage everyone to not rely too much on buying bundles. Sure, if you have a lot of spare money, I can't really stop you from buying anything. But consider this.
The thing is, what you're buying can be considered loot boxes, or gambling (sort of). You can buy plenty full game with lower than $60. But you can never have full collection in Hearthstone with just that. There's always the need to keep buying the packs. That's just for one expansion. We have three per year.
The collection itself offers no return value. And will probably be forgotten in 2 years or more. So please be gentle with your wallet. And of course, not 100% of the cards will be useful in the game.
My point is, any game should not be like Hearthstone-expensive to be enjoyed.
The bundles are by far the best value for Hearthstone cards you will ever see in the shop. If you know you'll spend $50, $80, or $130 on Hearthstone in the next few months anyway, it's foolish to ignore the bundles. With the gold and dust from the previous Reward Track plus both pre-order bundles, I do expect to have a full set of Stormwind cards.
Refuse to buy them on principle if you must, but then YOU are the one making Hearthstone more expensive than it needs to be. I do hate random packs as a business model for digital card games, but it doesn't sound like they would ever think about changing that, so I'll take discounts where I can get them.
Also, not to be rude, but if you are a free player, I'm not sure I understand why you are participating in the discussion. Literally nothing in the cash shop has anything to do with you, and you have no frame of reference for what is a good deal on Hearthstone products. If anything, you should be encouraging other people to spend money on the game because that's the only way it's going to stay alive.
I actually hate the slow trickle that lasts an entire month.
I say hold everything until exactly one week before launch, then reveal the whole thing. It's not like any amount of analysis matters until you can see the full set, and you don't need more than a week to theorycraft and get hyped.
Getting this effect for free would be extremely problematic. It's not a good idea to let people easily win the game the same turn they finish the quest. There needs to be some opportunity for the opponent to react to it. Even if they are just squirming helplessly, that's still more fun than Quest Complete = Game Over.
It's really unnecessary, even if you're the most puckered rules lawyer in the realm. You haven't even played with this card yet, but you already know exactly how it interacts.
November is 100% fall. This is not a matter of opinion. There is absolutely zero intersection between the month of November and the season of winter. Winter begins on December 21 or 22. November is also still Phase 2.
The Mercenaries stream could easily be put off until November according to the information in this article.
Like the lore puzzles in WoW, these were not meant to be solved by lone individuals. The devs knew full well that the hive mind of reddit would tackle them en masse and never quit until all four had been devoured.
Man, these guys really overthink EVERYTHING (except game balance, of course).
Why would "showing off" your board choice matter to anyone? Everyone has seen all the boards, and no one is going to be super impressed by the board (or board half) their opponent forces them to look at. It's bad enough I have to look at that stupid Christmas card back.
If I were to choose a board, I would want it to be an entire board, not just half, and it would be for my own personal viewing pleasure, not because I think my opponent will love (or hate) my pick. Just make it a part of the deck package, along with the card back, the portrait, and (maybe someday) the coin. This isn't rocket science.
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe you are just a bad player and your losses aren't due to literally having the worst luck possible every single turn?
I am genuinely curious as to what one of your games looks like. Do you use a decktracker? If so would you mind sharing a replay of one of your games?
Kaladin has a long history of complaining about not being able to beat meta decks with homebrews. It's kind of a thing.
The downvotes just make it all the sweeter when I come back in October and say I told you so.
They put a lot of effort into this trailer, unlike the Stormwind one, which was cheap trash in comparison. I guess we know where their priorities lie.
It makes me wonder how shocking the Mercs monetization will be. I don't think Blizzard would spend resources to hype something that wasn't expected to bring in a lot of cash right out of the gate.
It was shortly after launch. It was free, and I had enjoyed both MtG and WoW off and on, so I figured why not?
I spent a very long time completely ignorant of the meta or even how to play well. Eventually, I decided to try to get good at Arena, which improved my skills a lot. (Any amount would have been a lot.) I got tired of Arena before getting super good, but at that point I could at least play Ranked without completely embarrassing myself. I remember loving Druid the most, I think? The versatility of the class always appealed to me.
I think what I liked about the game overall was the possibility of coming up with new ways to use underappreciated cards and pushing classes in unexpected directions. Now, of course, I see how such efforts are actively thwarted by the game's design, but I still like to mess around with off-meta stuff once I've ranked up as far as I care to go in a given season. (Yes, I'm the guy you run into at Diamond 5 or 10 trying to make Sheldras Moontree work. Spoiler alert: It doesn't.)
No, any deck that contains 15 spells cannot be called Zoo. What we see here is Handlock.
And it takes a LOT of cheek for someone at Blizzard to actively suggest that people should play a deck containing two of the nerfed cards. It's like, "Hey, we 'nerfed' a couple of these cards, but we also recognize that our changes will not hinder the deck in any way."
Totally sucks for people with limited collections, but that's not me, so I'll happily collect the extra gold. Couldn't care less about the stars, though.
I might get tired of being told what class to play, but I guess I don't HAVE to do it.
It blows my mind that people are complaining about Questlines when there is a reliable turn-6 OTK in the game.
I know it's hard to feel powerless and the desire to "send a message" is strong, but it's important to think about whether the message being received is the one you are trying to send.
The flaw in your plan is that when a significant number of people boycott, Activision has no idea why sales dropped. They could easily blame the quality of the game and lay a bunch of people off. Even if they suspect the losses are due to boycotts, they could punish employees with layoffs and blame the product anyway. If history is any guide, I suspect that's exactly what they'd do.
On the other hand, if the courts do the punishing, Activision knows exactly what it did wrong and can then take steps to correct course. If at that point you feel the punishment wasn't harsh enough or Blizzard's course correction was insufficient, THAT would be the time to boycott.
Punishing Blizzard is the job of the courts, not the customers. It is the whole reason for the lawsuit.
Trying to sink the whole company would be misguided. Blizzard continues to employ many innocent people who make a product I enjoy.
The bundles are by far the best value for Hearthstone cards you will ever see in the shop. If you know you'll spend $50, $80, or $130 on Hearthstone in the next few months anyway, it's foolish to ignore the bundles. With the gold and dust from the previous Reward Track plus both pre-order bundles, I do expect to have a full set of Stormwind cards.
Refuse to buy them on principle if you must, but then YOU are the one making Hearthstone more expensive than it needs to be. I do hate random packs as a business model for digital card games, but it doesn't sound like they would ever think about changing that, so I'll take discounts where I can get them.
Also, not to be rude, but if you are a free player, I'm not sure I understand why you are participating in the discussion. Literally nothing in the cash shop has anything to do with you, and you have no frame of reference for what is a good deal on Hearthstone products. If anything, you should be encouraging other people to spend money on the game because that's the only way it's going to stay alive.
I actually hate the slow trickle that lasts an entire month.
I say hold everything until exactly one week before launch, then reveal the whole thing. It's not like any amount of analysis matters until you can see the full set, and you don't need more than a week to theorycraft and get hyped.
Actual Curvestone with an Exodia finish. Amazing.
Getting this effect for free would be extremely problematic. It's not a good idea to let people easily win the game the same turn they finish the quest. There needs to be some opportunity for the opponent to react to it. Even if they are just squirming helplessly, that's still more fun than Quest Complete = Game Over.
It's really unnecessary, even if you're the most puckered rules lawyer in the realm. You haven't even played with this card yet, but you already know exactly how it interacts.
This is exactly why I quit playing LoR last year. I only popped into the forums just now to see if maybe they'd started doing a better job.
Looks like I have my answer! Thanks for the thread, guys!
Nerfing old archetypes so the new stuff can be OP isn't necessarily "fixing the game."
In fact, it's exactly what they've done in the past.
November is 100% fall. This is not a matter of opinion. There is absolutely zero intersection between the month of November and the season of winter. Winter begins on December 21 or 22. November is also still Phase 2.
The Mercenaries stream could easily be put off until November according to the information in this article.
Like the lore puzzles in WoW, these were not meant to be solved by lone individuals. The devs knew full well that the hive mind of reddit would tackle them en masse and never quit until all four had been devoured.
Man, these guys really overthink EVERYTHING (except game balance, of course).
Why would "showing off" your board choice matter to anyone? Everyone has seen all the boards, and no one is going to be super impressed by the board (or board half) their opponent forces them to look at. It's bad enough I have to look at that stupid Christmas card back.
If I were to choose a board, I would want it to be an entire board, not just half, and it would be for my own personal viewing pleasure, not because I think my opponent will love (or hate) my pick. Just make it a part of the deck package, along with the card back, the portrait, and (maybe someday) the coin. This isn't rocket science.
Kaladin has a long history of complaining about not being able to beat meta decks with homebrews. It's kind of a thing.
God, some people are intolerant of the fact that different people have different ideas of fun.