I could get behind Thalyssra for some Nightborne representation. Maybe Aegwynn, except that she hasn't been mentioned at all in HS, really.
The rest of these don't seem all that iconic to me, just people who happen to use magic. There are existing Legendary Mage cards that have been more impactful than some of these people, and others (like Azshara) should be tied to an expansion.
But I'd honestly rather see Hearthstone develop its own characters and not continually borrow from WoW.
I think the problem isn't that people were doing spreadsheets, but that they weren't given the full data to work with.
I think it's crazy that people assumed they had all the data and assumed their spreadsheets were flawless.
If the people who built the system tell you one thing, and your own calculations tell you something very different, your first assumption should NOT be that you've been lied to. It should be that you don't have all the information, or that your calculations are off.
You were never told that the price was the only price it would ever be. They have never said that about anything. They may have said something is a "limited time offer," but that only means the current offer will end at some point. It doesn't mean it will never come back in the future, possibly at a different price point (or even a different currency).
They want to pressure you to buy all the achievement-related cards from the current expansion before the next expansion comes out.
Basically, anytime you think one of their decisions is weird or inconvenient for you, notice how it becomes a lot more convenient if you just give them more money.
I'm sure they decided which two would be the most desired and arranged the bundles so that you have to pay slightly more to get those two. There's nothing weird about that.
I'd personally be happy to get all but Garrosh, but since it's cheaper to get all four than just three, I suppose I'll do that.
My opponent played Mirror Entity. Was he trying to counter Pogo somehow? I don't think that would have worked. It certainly didn't beat my Violet Spellwing. (Glad I didn't see Pogo and don't have to do this more than once!)
I've always thought Garrosh was a terrible choice for the face of the Warrior class. He was certainly not the best Warchief, and there are a lot of Warrior class traits he does not exemplify very well. I fully admit that my personal dislike for him as a character spills over onto the class and has made me dislike it more than I should at times.
They use explorer costumes all the time, so I wouldn't expect anything as obvious and pedestrian as "Year of the Explorer." After Kraken, Mammoth, Raven and Dragon, it's just not a very compelling icon. I definitely hope the "Year of" is something more interesting.
If Blizzard were still Blizzard, it might be worth celebrating, but I'm not going to offer tribute to a subsidiary of the bloated monstrosity that is Activision.
They may have acquired the Blizzard name, but they have cast aside every part of that company that made it special and good.
I agree with the comment made that if you are not a whale it is a great deal. Who knows what synergies await when the next expansion comes out. If you are a whale, do not bother investing.
If you are a whale, you bought it the moment it was available and are laughing at all the weird logic in this silly thread.
I wouldn't call it intimidation, but I do acknowledge 1.000 win portraits in some kind of "okay, you're dealing with an expert here, be careful" kind of way.
I dunno. I had a 1,000 win Demon Hunter nuke his entire board with a Shardshatter Mystic a few months ago, letting me win the game.
1,000 wins is just time spent playing, not time spent playing well.
No one is saying 1,000 wins makes you infallible. But, knowing nothing else about two players, which one are you going to bet real money on: the one with 1,000 wins or the one with all golden cards and not even 500 wins?
Death Knights in Knights of the Frozen Throne originally shuffled corrupted things into your deck. It wasn't fun.
Kind of like bombs, also not fun, yet you allowed them to dominate the meta for the majority of the year?
This goes back to my argument about Demon Hunter not being the success your metrics tell you it is. Lots of people play to win and will pick the strongest thing, not necessarily the thing that's the most fun for everyone. They certainly don't care about what's healthy for the game -- quite the opposite, in most cases.
Demon Hunter is "successful" (i.e., played a lot) because it has been extremely OP for most of the last year. That's not the same as everyone loving it. A lot of players play to win and don't care how they do it.
I personally don't find DH interesting at all and consider it a failure in terms of design, certainly not worth all the effort they must have put into it. There is not one part of the DH class that couldn't have been implemented in one or more other classes instead.
And, as I implied earlier, it hasn't been successfully balanced until very recently -- mainly by boosting the power level of the rest of the classes. This will lead to big problems again after rotation if DH retains its overpowered core while everyone else loses some of the strongest parts of their kits.
So, in summary, I hope they never add another new class to Hearthstone. Demon Hunter was a big enough mistake; let's not repeat it.
I could get behind Thalyssra for some Nightborne representation. Maybe Aegwynn, except that she hasn't been mentioned at all in HS, really.
The rest of these don't seem all that iconic to me, just people who happen to use magic. There are existing Legendary Mage cards that have been more impactful than some of these people, and others (like Azshara) should be tied to an expansion.
But I'd honestly rather see Hearthstone develop its own characters and not continually borrow from WoW.
Any powerful, high-cost, non-battlecry legendary would probably work. Go nuts!
So many excellent entries here. I'd trade any one of these for the awful Christmas one in a heartbeat.
Of the top four, the winner is probably my least favorite. They should put all four in the shop and let us buy the one(s) we like.
I think it's crazy that people assumed they had all the data and assumed their spreadsheets were flawless.
If the people who built the system tell you one thing, and your own calculations tell you something very different, your first assumption should NOT be that you've been lied to. It should be that you don't have all the information, or that your calculations are off.
Awesome news! Thanks for the link!
You were never told that the price was the only price it would ever be. They have never said that about anything. They may have said something is a "limited time offer," but that only means the current offer will end at some point. It doesn't mean it will never come back in the future, possibly at a different price point (or even a different currency).
They want to pressure you to buy all the achievement-related cards from the current expansion before the next expansion comes out.
Basically, anytime you think one of their decisions is weird or inconvenient for you, notice how it becomes a lot more convenient if you just give them more money.
I'm sure they decided which two would be the most desired and arranged the bundles so that you have to pay slightly more to get those two. There's nothing weird about that.
I'd personally be happy to get all but Garrosh, but since it's cheaper to get all four than just three, I suppose I'll do that.
My opponent played Mirror Entity. Was he trying to counter Pogo somehow? I don't think that would have worked. It certainly didn't beat my Violet Spellwing. (Glad I didn't see Pogo and don't have to do this more than once!)
I've always thought Garrosh was a terrible choice for the face of the Warrior class. He was certainly not the best Warchief, and there are a lot of Warrior class traits he does not exemplify very well. I fully admit that my personal dislike for him as a character spills over onto the class and has made me dislike it more than I should at times.
They use explorer costumes all the time, so I wouldn't expect anything as obvious and pedestrian as "Year of the Explorer." After Kraken, Mammoth, Raven and Dragon, it's just not a very compelling icon. I definitely hope the "Year of" is something more interesting.
As a master of the craft, I can assure you that it's definitely sarcasm.
Starcraft doesn't really do cosmetic items, does it? I mean, other than portraits, what else can they offer?
If Blizzard were still Blizzard, it might be worth celebrating, but I'm not going to offer tribute to a subsidiary of the bloated monstrosity that is Activision.
They may have acquired the Blizzard name, but they have cast aside every part of that company that made it special and good.
You're right -- it's way too much like Mark of Hakkar, and I'm not a fan of either one.
If you are a whale, you bought it the moment it was available and are laughing at all the weird logic in this silly thread.
No one is saying 1,000 wins makes you infallible. But, knowing nothing else about two players, which one are you going to bet real money on: the one with 1,000 wins or the one with all golden cards and not even 500 wins?
I mean, thanks, but ... were you aware that at Copper rank, you may actually face easier matchups than in Casual?
Kind of like bombs, also not fun, yet you allowed them to dominate the meta for the majority of the year?
This goes back to my argument about Demon Hunter not being the success your metrics tell you it is. Lots of people play to win and will pick the strongest thing, not necessarily the thing that's the most fun for everyone. They certainly don't care about what's healthy for the game -- quite the opposite, in most cases.
Demon Hunter is "successful" (i.e., played a lot) because it has been extremely OP for most of the last year. That's not the same as everyone loving it. A lot of players play to win and don't care how they do it.
I personally don't find DH interesting at all and consider it a failure in terms of design, certainly not worth all the effort they must have put into it. There is not one part of the DH class that couldn't have been implemented in one or more other classes instead.
And, as I implied earlier, it hasn't been successfully balanced until very recently -- mainly by boosting the power level of the rest of the classes. This will lead to big problems again after rotation if DH retains its overpowered core while everyone else loses some of the strongest parts of their kits.
So, in summary, I hope they never add another new class to Hearthstone. Demon Hunter was a big enough mistake; let's not repeat it.