I don't think The Purator would fit in the current Pure Paladin, as that decks tries to end the game by turn 7/8 instead of drawing more cards.
It might fit into a Pure version of Dragon Paladin, as that deck already runs The Leviathan, so you could use The Purator as a tutor for that. Also Lightray is a card you'd run in a Pure Paladin deck and it is dual-tribe now, so I expect you'd draw both copies. Not sure how much you'd miss Kazakusan though: would the hero power from Lightforged Cariel be sufficient to win long games?
Another option would be a Pure Control Paladin that tutors Anachronos. Again the question is what the win condition would be: there are decks which can do huge amounts of damage, so you can't just wait for fatigue.
The gaming sphere back in the 90s was mostly 2d side scrollers. If Im not mistaken warcraft 1 was the first really popular RTS made, and diablo 1 was pretty much the best, if not the first, game of that genre in the west. Blizz tends to innovate more often than copy.
I think Dune II was the game that put RTS on the map, certainly for PC players. While Warcraft does innovate upon that formula, it is clearly using that game's design as a starting point.
That helped a little, but it mainly provided the rule of thumb rather than exact details. At least, I don't think tribe entirely determines Horde/Alliance: as far as I know Sylvanas is Horde in WoW lore, while Dawngrasp is Horde according to the Barrens storyline, but others of their tribes are not.
While I agree with Mercenaries looking flat and barren, I'm not sure the engine is to blame for that. More is possible within the engine: classic Hearthstone boards are more lively than the Mercenaries board and diamond cards show that 3D character art is technically possible.
There were also advantages to putting Mercenaries in the same client, like lowering the barrier for people to try it out. And I think the character cross-promotion with the Barrens expansion was executed well.
It is good that they provide clarity about the future instead of letting it die silently. Also the final update looks pretty nice, so in that regard they're ending it on a high note.
What would Hearthstone 2 even be? If it's a graphical refresh with the same mechanics and cards, I'd welcome it. But if they restart from scratch, whether I'd make the jump would depend on how easy it is to build a new collection: I'm not eager to invest a lot of time and/or money in a new collection when there are so many other good games out there.
It's one of many little things that, when combined, maybe could have made a difference. The lack of polish at launch did the mode no favors: there was a lot of hype at launch, but players dropped off very quickly.
In particular as someone who never played WoW, it was hard to remember which mercs were Horde, which were Alliance and which were neutral. Some patterns are easy: humans and draenai are generally Alliance and orcs and trolls are generally Horde, but what about an elven druid like Malfurion?
Traditionally Blizzard games stood out in terms of polish, but that was missing from Mercenaries. As you said, the launch was very incomplete, with many tasks not working as stated in their descriptions. Some little annoyances were never fixed, such as bounties that require you to visit healers or buff nodes not showing a completion notice until after the next fight, even though they can be completed if you navigate to them manually.
The recently extended areas seem to lack any original design, just putting dragons in all of them. There is no storytelling going on there, it's just filler. Even if they didn't have a budget for designing entirely new enemies, they could have remixed existing ones in more interesting ways.
I don't know if the devs were severely understaffed and therefore only able to focus on the bare essentials, or if they were assigned to a project they didn't really care about, but it is clear that they didn't give it the attention to detail that players expected. I think it could be the latter (maybe not for all devs, but for some of them) because the entire mode's existence feels like it was motivated by monetization rather than by a creative drive.
And that monetization was done terribly. Everything was way overpriced, even relative to other Hearthstone modes. The algorithm for pack contents was too complicated for the average player to grasp: it is completely counter-intuitive that you can get a portrait of a certain rarity instead of a merc card, just because only one slot per pack has duplicate protection. The issue of useless coins was addressed way too late and the solution was much too stingy. Even though I put quite a few hours into Mercenaries, I never felt like spending money on it after the first few days, because everything they were selling felt like a terrible deal.
I think it's a pity, since its core mechanics are enjoyable. The main problem is not there, but in its poor execution.
Regarding a lack of enthusiasm from streamers though, the mode just isn't great streaming material, so I think that was always going to happen. You can't really grasp what is going on in PvP unless you know the abilities of every merc by heart; this was a problem even for players and it would be worse for a viewing audience. Streaming PvE would be easier to follow, but not varied enough to keep viewer attention for long.
Of course it shouldn't be possible to just invite any two accounts into a match, players would have to indicate their approval in advance, for example by subscribing to a particular event first and confirming that via OAuth. With such precautions, the potential damage from abuse is limited.
It is possible that people will make other things than tournaments with such a generic API, but I don't see that as a bad thing. Entire game genres like MOBA and auto-battlers were started by modders, which can benefit the original game's publisher as well. While Blizzard was too slow in launching Heroes of the Storm, Hearthstone Battlegrounds is doing quite well in terms of player count (not sure about monetization, but they're trying).
But I don't think it's going to happen: thinking in terms of APIs is not in Blizzard's DNA. For example, deck trackers and sites like this one have to data mine all their card info, instead of Blizzard doing a full JSON dump of all card info at the end of the reveal season.
Different people have different expectations for what tournament mode should be. I think they should just publish an API to invite two players into a match and a way to get the match results, then people outside Blizzard can build their own tournament sites.
I use regular tickets for the rewards mode of Duels, so I can get some value for the tickets and complete the "win 5 games in brawl/duels/arena" weekly quest when that week's brawl is not worth replaying.
If you don't get 3 wins into your run, and you really wanted that skin, congratulations, you're not going to be forced into additional runs, drying up your gold reserves and making the mini-set a mandatory real money purchase.
I guess "not" is a typo and should read "now" instead?
The threshold of 3 wins is pretty nasty, as the average player is going to need 2 runs to get it, as you expect to get 3 wins and 3 losses in 6 games, but half of the time the third loss comes before the third win, ending the run.
There are several reasons the Heroic Brawliseum does not appeal to me:
The average payout being only 70%, which is ridiculously low (as Zeddy remarked, casinos pay out in the high 90's). And there is no reason it can't be 100%, as converting real money and gold into cards and dust is already a financial win for Blizzard.
It's very top-loaded, so even if you are an above-average participant, you still need a certain amount of luck to get the good rewards.
The entrance fee is too high: I'd be willing to use a few regular tavern tickets (150 gold) for a chance to win a skin, but 1000 gold for each attempt is just too much.
So far, it worked every time for me, but I haven't played a huge number of games. Maybe it depends on the card IDs? If so, adding an odd card older than Genn could sabotage it.
Flobbidinous Floop also acts weird: once it has found a target, it costs 4 mana in the hand and shows 3/4 stats. I didn't pay attention to what stats it gets on the board.
A note about the mechanics: the minions are made 1/1 by an aura effect, so even minions that don't originate from your deck will be 1/1. Hand and board buffs can be applied to them though.
This one seems quite doable also for people who don't have Mark's persistence. I got an OTK on the second try and I might have gotten it on the first try if I had saved the Coin in that game.
I had planned to finish the event this week, only to find out it has ended already. If they care so little about Mercenaries that they're not willing to properly correct this mistake by re-enabling the event until the previously announced end date, then I think I'll take the hint and stop playing this mode.
Not sure about that one: the card text says it stays in your hand, not that a new copy is added to your hand. Of course not all Hearthstone cards are implemented exactly as worded, but when taking the card text literally, re-casting wouldn't give you a fresh copy.
I don't think The Purator would fit in the current Pure Paladin, as that decks tries to end the game by turn 7/8 instead of drawing more cards.
It might fit into a Pure version of Dragon Paladin, as that deck already runs The Leviathan, so you could use The Purator as a tutor for that. Also Lightray is a card you'd run in a Pure Paladin deck and it is dual-tribe now, so I expect you'd draw both copies. Not sure how much you'd miss Kazakusan though: would the hero power from Lightforged Cariel be sufficient to win long games?
Another option would be a Pure Control Paladin that tutors Anachronos. Again the question is what the win condition would be: there are decks which can do huge amounts of damage, so you can't just wait for fatigue.
I think Dune II was the game that put RTS on the map, certainly for PC players. While Warcraft does innovate upon that formula, it is clearly using that game's design as a starting point.
That helped a little, but it mainly provided the rule of thumb rather than exact details. At least, I don't think tribe entirely determines Horde/Alliance: as far as I know Sylvanas is Horde in WoW lore, while Dawngrasp is Horde according to the Barrens storyline, but others of their tribes are not.
While I agree with Mercenaries looking flat and barren, I'm not sure the engine is to blame for that. More is possible within the engine: classic Hearthstone boards are more lively than the Mercenaries board and diamond cards show that 3D character art is technically possible.
There were also advantages to putting Mercenaries in the same client, like lowering the barrier for people to try it out. And I think the character cross-promotion with the Barrens expansion was executed well.
It is good that they provide clarity about the future instead of letting it die silently. Also the final update looks pretty nice, so in that regard they're ending it on a high note.
What would Hearthstone 2 even be? If it's a graphical refresh with the same mechanics and cards, I'd welcome it. But if they restart from scratch, whether I'd make the jump would depend on how easy it is to build a new collection: I'm not eager to invest a lot of time and/or money in a new collection when there are so many other good games out there.
It's one of many little things that, when combined, maybe could have made a difference. The lack of polish at launch did the mode no favors: there was a lot of hype at launch, but players dropped off very quickly.
In particular as someone who never played WoW, it was hard to remember which mercs were Horde, which were Alliance and which were neutral. Some patterns are easy: humans and draenai are generally Alliance and orcs and trolls are generally Horde, but what about an elven druid like Malfurion?
Traditionally Blizzard games stood out in terms of polish, but that was missing from Mercenaries. As you said, the launch was very incomplete, with many tasks not working as stated in their descriptions. Some little annoyances were never fixed, such as bounties that require you to visit healers or buff nodes not showing a completion notice until after the next fight, even though they can be completed if you navigate to them manually.
The recently extended areas seem to lack any original design, just putting dragons in all of them. There is no storytelling going on there, it's just filler. Even if they didn't have a budget for designing entirely new enemies, they could have remixed existing ones in more interesting ways.
I don't know if the devs were severely understaffed and therefore only able to focus on the bare essentials, or if they were assigned to a project they didn't really care about, but it is clear that they didn't give it the attention to detail that players expected. I think it could be the latter (maybe not for all devs, but for some of them) because the entire mode's existence feels like it was motivated by monetization rather than by a creative drive.
And that monetization was done terribly. Everything was way overpriced, even relative to other Hearthstone modes. The algorithm for pack contents was too complicated for the average player to grasp: it is completely counter-intuitive that you can get a portrait of a certain rarity instead of a merc card, just because only one slot per pack has duplicate protection. The issue of useless coins was addressed way too late and the solution was much too stingy. Even though I put quite a few hours into Mercenaries, I never felt like spending money on it after the first few days, because everything they were selling felt like a terrible deal.
I think it's a pity, since its core mechanics are enjoyable. The main problem is not there, but in its poor execution.
Regarding a lack of enthusiasm from streamers though, the mode just isn't great streaming material, so I think that was always going to happen. You can't really grasp what is going on in PvP unless you know the abilities of every merc by heart; this was a problem even for players and it would be worse for a viewing audience. Streaming PvE would be easier to follow, but not varied enough to keep viewer attention for long.
Of course it shouldn't be possible to just invite any two accounts into a match, players would have to indicate their approval in advance, for example by subscribing to a particular event first and confirming that via OAuth. With such precautions, the potential damage from abuse is limited.
It is possible that people will make other things than tournaments with such a generic API, but I don't see that as a bad thing. Entire game genres like MOBA and auto-battlers were started by modders, which can benefit the original game's publisher as well. While Blizzard was too slow in launching Heroes of the Storm, Hearthstone Battlegrounds is doing quite well in terms of player count (not sure about monetization, but they're trying).
But I don't think it's going to happen: thinking in terms of APIs is not in Blizzard's DNA. For example, deck trackers and sites like this one have to data mine all their card info, instead of Blizzard doing a full JSON dump of all card info at the end of the reveal season.
Different people have different expectations for what tournament mode should be. I think they should just publish an API to invite two players into a match and a way to get the match results, then people outside Blizzard can build their own tournament sites.
I use regular tickets for the rewards mode of Duels, so I can get some value for the tickets and complete the "win 5 games in brawl/duels/arena" weekly quest when that week's brawl is not worth replaying.
I guess "not" is a typo and should read "now" instead?
The threshold of 3 wins is pretty nasty, as the average player is going to need 2 runs to get it, as you expect to get 3 wins and 3 losses in 6 games, but half of the time the third loss comes before the third win, ending the run.
There are several reasons the Heroic Brawliseum does not appeal to me:
So far, it worked every time for me, but I haven't played a huge number of games. Maybe it depends on the card IDs? If so, adding an odd card older than Genn could sabotage it.
This time around the brawl does have deck limits.
I made a Miniature Warfare (Tavern Brawl) variant of this deck:
Flobbidinous Floop also acts weird: once it has found a target, it costs 4 mana in the hand and shows 3/4 stats. I didn't pay attention to what stats it gets on the board.
A note about the mechanics: the minions are made 1/1 by an aura effect, so even minions that don't originate from your deck will be 1/1. Hand and board buffs can be applied to them though.
This one seems quite doable also for people who don't have Mark's persistence. I got an OTK on the second try and I might have gotten it on the first try if I had saved the Coin in that game.
Standard pack opening works for me now (PC, EU). It didn't work last night.
For context, see this video from Old Guardian:
I had planned to finish the event this week, only to find out it has ended already. If they care so little about Mercenaries that they're not willing to properly correct this mistake by re-enabling the event until the previously announced end date, then I think I'll take the hint and stop playing this mode.
Not sure about that one: the card text says it stays in your hand, not that a new copy is added to your hand. Of course not all Hearthstone cards are implemented exactly as worded, but when taking the card text literally, re-casting wouldn't give you a fresh copy.
But aren't legendary cards expected to be flashy? It's in the name: it's legendary because people tell stories about it.