As always cannot start my own Fireside Gathering due to 404 errors. Been happening for over a year now and a ticket to Blizz last expansion didn't help either. *Sigh*
I actually think it is a shame Turtle Mage got killed and it is because some fun meme decks utilized it to actually make other non-competitive cards see a bit more play than they had before (which in many cases was zero play before Turtle Mage). Ra combo decks and Bancient One decks will go back into much more difficult to actually play obscurity once more, which is a big shame.
Still no actual helpful details about how experience is actually obtained specifically. I play many meme decks, which plainly require many loses (playing for fun over playing just to win, such as going through many games to pull that meme dream off). If experience is tuned for mostly winning games that would theoretically mean the way in which I play will actually punish the rewards I gain from playing the game.
So back in the day I enjoyed Toast's content before he started losing interest in HS and was only doing it for a source of income. However, I just saw a Toast video pop up in my YT about toast being on some dating show and thought it was pretty random. So for any Toast fans out there, what does he even do nowadays on YT?
I wish they'd just HoF the classic set to us in wild and just make an entirely new updated power level classic set for the modern game. Sounds like the effort they're going to have to put in to revamp classic as about akin to replacing it. Plus, I don't want to see any of our favorite cards changed in such a way that it could break some fun meme/classic decks or combos.
"Ben mentions in a later comment to remind everyone that the 5000 gold is just his personal progression each expansion cycle and not a cap in the system."
Posting this here just to reemphasize that the cap wasn't moved up to 5000, but allegedly if there is still a cap it is above 5,000 or potentially even no cap at all. Just seeing a lot of posts in the first 2 pages of this article that keep saying the cap is 5,000 when it was clarified that it wasn't the cap.
I'd to address to those posters in the last battle pass thread about waiting til they implement the new model before voicing complaints about it. You notice how they said it is now undergoing a "major rework"? That might not have happened if there weren't fans like us on OoC, Reddit, official forums, etc that hadn't voiced our opinion when news first caught wind about the model.
So way to go all of us that shared our thoughts and feelings about the potential model that could've replaced the amount of gold we earned in the model we've been used to since the game came out.
What I'd like to know is why Activision felt this business risk was necessary. Memes about greed aside, was Hearthstone not already incredibly profitable as it currently stands? Why just completely break something that wasn't financially broken and risk creating uproar with your customers?
From any business majors out there, is this really a smart decision for them?
To all of the people who didn't want casual to award gold for wins because of net decks in casual, you got what you wanted, at the expense of less gold and packs in between each expansion due to the battle pass.
"The passes last a limited amount of time so they get players to engage more with the game so they don't miss out on rewards."
Nothing like using what's already well known about FOMO to try to get more players to compulsively play the game. Let's be honest here. You 'get' to "engage" with the game, really means "Here's this digital carrot. Play the game more or miss out on these cool shinies. Oh, and also you get to pay more money so that you don't miss out on said shinies."
Look, I get it, businesses at the end need to make profit, they're not a charity for doing their job, but some business models reek of more greedy practice because of how we've seen them used in other games and with other companies. This is essentially a 'pseudo subscription' model for Hearthstone. Yeah you technically still get to play as a free player, but now arbitrary gates are placed on you as far as in-game 'income' goes. This is one step further away from the type of free-to-play game that would allow said players to not fall behind paying players.
As an fyi I am no longer a free to play player (haven't been for awhile), but I still really dislike this move. Even as a paying player I spend at least the $80 on each expansion mega bundle. I could get everything else without spending more money. Now I 'get' to spend money on top of the $80 just to keep up with the Jones or I start falling behind.
I also think this survey is the illusion of choice when it comes to the direction of Hearthstone. As was suggested in the article the survey very much does not have any impact on whether this massive change to the game is going to happen. It's more to pretend like the big boys upstairs are listening to the community (I haven't seen any streamers whose content I follow or any well known HS competitive players ask for a battle pass).
I only read the OG post when I clicked the link. Lol I was really reaching to catch the joke lol
I saw the pen slinger, with the animation that almost looked like it was trying to form a ring around his finger (the Lotr reference) and then also saw that every card art had a book in it.
Mindrender Illucia is just no fun. Having key cards stripped away from hand is just abominable, and doing it for (2) is dirty cheap. This card should cost (3) or even (4).
I just wanted to echo how bad this feels to play against…and the emoting that comes after makes it all the saltier, haha
But beyond the gut punch, I just don't believe that a single card should be able to completely disrupt an entire archetype (Combo/OTK), especially when that archetype is a counter to what the class typically likes to do (play Control). I'm not against disruption cards in general, but this one seems too strong/guaranteed.
Thinking of nerfs, I agree that an increase in cost is most likely, but personally I'd like something different. I feel that there needs to be more of a way to play around this card as an opponent. So maybe the nerf could be that you only swap 4 or 5 cards from hand, randomly chosen, along with swapping decks. This way Combo decks could at least add some RNG into the equation by keeping their hand full, but it would come at a cost that would benefit Priests (in terms of losing tempo and/or having to add more card draw to the deck). Alternatively, you could add restrictions on the other end such as swapping only the number of cards that the Priest has in hand.
The problem is that cards like this are necessary unless we want T5 to just lay the nerf/ban hammer hard on combo/otk decks. Even if a combo isn't T0 or even T1 there usually ends up being a lot of uproar that eventually rises from the community. If T5 hasn't already produced a semi-consistent counter card to fight against it then T5 usually will cave to the vocal minority and severely weaken, or even kill, the combo (e.g. Grim Patron, Raging Worgen, Star Aligner, etc). At least with allowing these cards to exist it means T5 is less likely to kill modern combo decks. You have to carefully pick your poison if you want to be able to play the decks you enjoy (this is coming from a heavy wild combo/otk main btw).
Also, in wild otks are a bit ridiculous with 2 decks able to consistently kill you on turns 8 or 9 if you're a control main. While I always stand by the holy trinity of rock-paper-scissors I don't feel us otk players should consistently be able to win against control before turn 10. OTKs aren't meant to function that way. So in wild Illucia actually makes it possible to not insta concede as control if you go against Quest Mage or Mech'athun Lock.
Problem is Mindrender Illucia does much more than giving Control a tip against Combo, as you can steal finishers or key cards from ANY deck you find.
Also, at the moment Illucia is not just giving a chance, she's granting you the power to tear apart any deck based on some key cards, given the right moment to play her.
Mechathunlock almost out of cards > Mindrender Illucia > game over. That's more than just a chance at it.
You could even counter QMage, either stealing their reward, or, in case they are holding the completion, stealing their spell turn right before they are ready to resolve.
Same goes against Druid (steal spells) or any other deck with key cards in hand. Including Aggro, just to say. That's Dirty Rat on steroids.
All of a sudden a Control deck has virtually no vulnerability in the metagame.
If OTK are ridiculous because they can kick in too soon (ie QMage or Druid), then they do deserve a nerf, not a card that can counter anything consistently enough.
I get what you're saying. The issue though is how counter cards are designed in the first place. Hearthstone in general is very bad about creating counter tech cards because in probably over 80% of cards the tech is a coin flip that just wins a game when you play it if you win the coin flip of drawing it. For example, Geist just wins the game against Jade Druid and a handful of OTK decks if the opponent wins the coin flip of drawing it. Dirty Rat (often claimed as a well designed tech by some) is actually just at terrible coin flip 'I-win button'. You either hit 1-2 minions (if comboed with Brann) and you win, or you don't and you lose. Sure, hand reading and timing created a type of skill ceiling for the tech card where more experienced players had higher frequencies of using it to win against OTK, but at the end of the day it still was a polarizing tech where you win with result A and lose with result B. Other techs, not against OTK, could include the anti-murloc/pirate crabs. You drew them early against a murloc or pirate deck and significantly skyrocketed whether you won, or didn't draw them and your chance of winning was significantly plummeted. I do agree that Illucia is also one of these types of coin flip/polarizing 'I-win button' cards.
The problem lies with T5 not creating what I would call 'smart' tech cards, counters that don't instantly win or lose you the game based on a coin flip or good hit and instead create a temporary disruption or extra time that could influence a win/loss for either play across multiple turns. A great example of a smart tech card is Mojomaster Zihi. Zihi, when played against something like Mecha'Thun Lock, is not an instant win for the opponent while also still allowing the warlock a chance to fight for the win, assuming they didn't expend removal or healing that they may have otherwise been able to save in their hand until they got back up to 10 mana. Glide or the new DH legendary are also smart tech cards. They do not destroy anything in the hand, but require the opponent to delay combo setup and to draw the card(s) again. Sadly though T5 mainly prints cards that are niche specific against one or two decks and that essentially make a win or loss for or against the combo player based on the result of a random outcome (like Rat or drawing Mindrender Illucia vs not drawing her).
Although, like I said in my previous post, if strong tech cards against combo don't exist in a meta then T5 is very likely to just kill the deck, which I find is even worse than having an OP tech card against my favorite combo/OTK deck. While I don't like wins & loses turned into a coin toss of polarizing tech cards I'd rather at least be able to play my combo/OTK deck without it getting the Grim Patron/Raging Worgen/Star Aligner treatment.
Mindrender Illucia is just no fun. Having key cards stripped away from hand is just abominable, and doing it for (2) is dirty cheap. This card should cost (3) or even (4).
I just wanted to echo how bad this feels to play against...and the emoting that comes after makes it all the saltier, haha
But beyond the gut punch, I just don't believe that a single card should be able to completely disrupt an entire archetype (Combo/OTK), especially when that archetype is a counter to what the class typically likes to do (play Control). I'm not against disruption cards in general, but this one seems too strong/guaranteed.
Thinking of nerfs, I agree that an increase in cost is most likely, but personally I'd like something different. I feel that there needs to be more of a way to play around this card as an opponent. So maybe the nerf could be that you only swap 4 or 5 cards from hand, randomly chosen, along with swapping decks. This way Combo decks could at least add some RNG into the equation by keeping their hand full, but it would come at a cost that would benefit Priests (in terms of losing tempo and/or having to add more card draw to the deck). Alternatively, you could add restrictions on the other end such as swapping only the number of cards that the Priest has in hand.
The problem is that cards like this are necessary unless we want T5 to just lay the nerf/ban hammer hard on combo/otk decks. Even if a combo isn't T0 or even T1 there usually ends up being a lot of uproar that eventually rises from the community. If T5 hasn't already produced a semi-consistent counter card to fight against it then T5 usually will cave to the vocal minority and severely weaken, or even kill, the combo (e.g. Grim Patron, Raging Worgen, Star Aligner, etc). At least with allowing these cards to exist it means T5 is less likely to kill modern combo decks. You have to carefully pick your poison if you want to be able to play the decks you enjoy (this is coming from a heavy wild combo/otk main btw).
Also, in wild otks are a bit ridiculous with 2 decks able to consistently kill you on turns 8 or 9 if you're a control main. While I always stand by the holy trinity of rock-paper-scissors I don't feel us otk players should consistently be able to win against control before turn 10. OTKs aren't meant to function that way. So in wild Illucia actually makes it possible to not insta concede as control if you go against Quest Mage or Mech'athun Lock.
As always cannot start my own Fireside Gathering due to 404 errors. Been happening for over a year now and a ticket to Blizz last expansion didn't help either. *Sigh*
"Even competive Hearthstone must die!"
Just what HS needed, more of an incentive to play to win as much as possible as opposed to playing fun memes that usually are the opposite of that.
Yay
I'm glad he stuck around for so long.
I'm also glad that he didn't let negativity bleed into his content toward the end like what happened with Savjz and Toast.
Knowledgeable pro player, memer, and positive.
I actually think it is a shame Turtle Mage got killed and it is because some fun meme decks utilized it to actually make other non-competitive cards see a bit more play than they had before (which in many cases was zero play before Turtle Mage). Ra combo decks and Bancient One decks will go back into much more difficult to actually play obscurity once more, which is a big shame.
Still no actual helpful details about how experience is actually obtained specifically. I play many meme decks, which plainly require many loses (playing for fun over playing just to win, such as going through many games to pull that meme dream off). If experience is tuned for mostly winning games that would theoretically mean the way in which I play will actually punish the rewards I gain from playing the game.
So back in the day I enjoyed Toast's content before he started losing interest in HS and was only doing it for a source of income. However, I just saw a Toast video pop up in my YT about toast being on some dating show and thought it was pretty random. So for any Toast fans out there, what does he even do nowadays on YT?
I wish they'd just HoF the classic set to us in wild and just make an entirely new updated power level classic set for the modern game. Sounds like the effort they're going to have to put in to revamp classic as about akin to replacing it. Plus, I don't want to see any of our favorite cards changed in such a way that it could break some fun meme/classic decks or combos.
"Ben mentions in a later comment to remind everyone that the 5000 gold is just his personal progression each expansion cycle and not a cap in the system."
Posting this here just to reemphasize that the cap wasn't moved up to 5000, but allegedly if there is still a cap it is above 5,000 or potentially even no cap at all. Just seeing a lot of posts in the first 2 pages of this article that keep saying the cap is 5,000 when it was clarified that it wasn't the cap.
I'd to address to those posters in the last battle pass thread about waiting til they implement the new model before voicing complaints about it. You notice how they said it is now undergoing a "major rework"? That might not have happened if there weren't fans like us on OoC, Reddit, official forums, etc that hadn't voiced our opinion when news first caught wind about the model.
So way to go all of us that shared our thoughts and feelings about the potential model that could've replaced the amount of gold we earned in the model we've been used to since the game came out.
#teamwork!
What I'd like to know is why Activision felt this business risk was necessary. Memes about greed aside, was Hearthstone not already incredibly profitable as it currently stands? Why just completely break something that wasn't financially broken and risk creating uproar with your customers?
From any business majors out there, is this really a smart decision for them?
What are you talking about? This screws over casuals by capping out how much gold they can get between expansions.
The current idea would be to replace gold that you could earn outside of the battle pass.
To all of the people who didn't want casual to award gold for wins because of net decks in casual, you got what you wanted, at the expense of less gold and packs in between each expansion due to the battle pass.
#carefulwhatyouwishfor
"The passes last a limited amount of time so they get players to engage more with the game so they don't miss out on rewards."
Nothing like using what's already well known about FOMO to try to get more players to compulsively play the game. Let's be honest here. You 'get' to "engage" with the game, really means "Here's this digital carrot. Play the game more or miss out on these cool shinies. Oh, and also you get to pay more money so that you don't miss out on said shinies."
Look, I get it, businesses at the end need to make profit, they're not a charity for doing their job, but some business models reek of more greedy practice because of how we've seen them used in other games and with other companies. This is essentially a 'pseudo subscription' model for Hearthstone. Yeah you technically still get to play as a free player, but now arbitrary gates are placed on you as far as in-game 'income' goes. This is one step further away from the type of free-to-play game that would allow said players to not fall behind paying players.
As an fyi I am no longer a free to play player (haven't been for awhile), but I still really dislike this move. Even as a paying player I spend at least the $80 on each expansion mega bundle. I could get everything else without spending more money. Now I 'get' to spend money on top of the $80 just to keep up with the Jones or I start falling behind.
I also think this survey is the illusion of choice when it comes to the direction of Hearthstone. As was suggested in the article the survey very much does not have any impact on whether this massive change to the game is going to happen. It's more to pretend like the big boys upstairs are listening to the community (I haven't seen any streamers whose content I follow or any well known HS competitive players ask for a battle pass).
I only read the OG post when I clicked the link. Lol I was really reaching to catch the joke lol
I saw the pen slinger, with the animation that almost looked like it was trying to form a ring around his finger (the Lotr reference) and then also saw that every card art had a book in it.
So I thought, One book worm to rule them all! XD
I get what you're saying. The issue though is how counter cards are designed in the first place. Hearthstone in general is very bad about creating counter tech cards because in probably over 80% of cards the tech is a coin flip that just wins a game when you play it if you win the coin flip of drawing it. For example, Geist just wins the game against Jade Druid and a handful of OTK decks if the opponent wins the coin flip of drawing it. Dirty Rat (often claimed as a well designed tech by some) is actually just at terrible coin flip 'I-win button'. You either hit 1-2 minions (if comboed with Brann) and you win, or you don't and you lose. Sure, hand reading and timing created a type of skill ceiling for the tech card where more experienced players had higher frequencies of using it to win against OTK, but at the end of the day it still was a polarizing tech where you win with result A and lose with result B. Other techs, not against OTK, could include the anti-murloc/pirate crabs. You drew them early against a murloc or pirate deck and significantly skyrocketed whether you won, or didn't draw them and your chance of winning was significantly plummeted. I do agree that Illucia is also one of these types of coin flip/polarizing 'I-win button' cards.
The problem lies with T5 not creating what I would call 'smart' tech cards, counters that don't instantly win or lose you the game based on a coin flip or good hit and instead create a temporary disruption or extra time that could influence a win/loss for either play across multiple turns. A great example of a smart tech card is Mojomaster Zihi. Zihi, when played against something like Mecha'Thun Lock, is not an instant win for the opponent while also still allowing the warlock a chance to fight for the win, assuming they didn't expend removal or healing that they may have otherwise been able to save in their hand until they got back up to 10 mana. Glide or the new DH legendary are also smart tech cards. They do not destroy anything in the hand, but require the opponent to delay combo setup and to draw the card(s) again. Sadly though T5 mainly prints cards that are niche specific against one or two decks and that essentially make a win or loss for or against the combo player based on the result of a random outcome (like Rat or drawing Mindrender Illucia vs not drawing her).
Although, like I said in my previous post, if strong tech cards against combo don't exist in a meta then T5 is very likely to just kill the deck, which I find is even worse than having an OP tech card against my favorite combo/OTK deck. While I don't like wins & loses turned into a coin toss of polarizing tech cards I'd rather at least be able to play my combo/OTK deck without it getting the Grim Patron/Raging Worgen/Star Aligner treatment.
The problem is that cards like this are necessary unless we want T5 to just lay the nerf/ban hammer hard on combo/otk decks. Even if a combo isn't T0 or even T1 there usually ends up being a lot of uproar that eventually rises from the community. If T5 hasn't already produced a semi-consistent counter card to fight against it then T5 usually will cave to the vocal minority and severely weaken, or even kill, the combo (e.g. Grim Patron, Raging Worgen, Star Aligner, etc). At least with allowing these cards to exist it means T5 is less likely to kill modern combo decks. You have to carefully pick your poison if you want to be able to play the decks you enjoy (this is coming from a heavy wild combo/otk main btw).
Also, in wild otks are a bit ridiculous with 2 decks able to consistently kill you on turns 8 or 9 if you're a control main. While I always stand by the holy trinity of rock-paper-scissors I don't feel us otk players should consistently be able to win against control before turn 10. OTKs aren't meant to function that way. So in wild Illucia actually makes it possible to not insta concede as control if you go against Quest Mage or Mech'athun Lock.
Very good results this time.
Out of 93 packs I got the following (starting first with my 5 golden packs)
Also got Ace Hunter Kreen for my free non-golden legendary and Archwitch Willow for my free golden legendary
Do the cards from your second 'hand' get shuffled back in or discarded?