Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[StagnantSoul]

Might check it out, not a fan of Hunters, probably check out the warlock and paly decks the site has.

[Criptfeind]

well turns out it was just a free arena ticket. meh, i was expecting free arena play taking in account that its practically impossible to get wins there. i dont get how's there people that plays that only.

The fact that you struggle to get wins when the definitional average is slightly above 3 sorta answers the question of what the people who only play area are doing, heh. 

On the p2w front, that's exactly what I meant a bit on why I was reticent to call it pay to win.

The game is, technically in my eyes, pay to win. Because when you first start playing the game yes, when fighting against someone else with all else being equal, the person who paid a ton of cash to make a good deck is going to have a better chance at winning. However, it's very easy to make good decks cheaply as well. With even a small amount of play the difference between someone paying and someone not drops down a lot, and soon is fairly meaningless. The person paying has more options, but they aren't better then the person playing for free.

You say you were having issues in a post GVG game to win because of docktor boom and other big legendarys from Naxx? (Hint here, there's exactly one legendary card from naxx that was actually that good, loatheb. Kel'Thuzad saw play in some decks as "the big card" but wasn't even that great for that... I found such choices somewhat questionable in comparison to other "the big cards") and you felt your only way to win was to try to go toe to toe with your own legendary card?

No, the reality is your best choice was probably face hunter in that era. The deck was one of the best in the game, as cheap or cheaper (what are these pay to win rare highmains? Wot wot?) then the one Darkmere just linked too (which is, actually, yes, a good deck, although not as good as face hunter was.) Zoo was also extremely cheap in that era and very good (blackrock mountain made it even better until patron run over the meta.) and mech mage, although sometimes running a single legendary, was otherwise quite cheap and often the target of peoples whining.

So, yes. In my eyes the game is technically pay to win. But it's not at all pay to win in the way that you think of pay to win. And it's something that I see as part and parcel of the genre, not even really a bad thing to be honest (although if someone wanted to say they didn't like ccgs in general because of it, I'd find that fair. But not hearthstone specifically...) And it sounds like, no offense, even if you had all the cards in the game you wouldn't have done much better to be honest... You'd just be in here asking "is the game still over run by aggro shit keeping me from winning if with my 7 mana cost average deck?" (to which the answer would be, yes.)

[wereboar]

I don't know if it can be called p2w. I've never spent a dime on it yet I've pretty much got all the cards I need to be competitive.
My resources are somewhat limited, like I can't craft all the legends to build all the decks. But I can consistently put up 4-5 tournament quality decks each season.

[frostshotgg]

Hearthstone isn't anymore P2W than TCGs/CCGs are by their nature. You have cards that you must collect which have value e.g. aren't totally free. Having more expensive cards doesn't mean you inherently win, 1200 dust hunter can beat 12000 dust paladin easily. Same goes in other TCGs that people would never call P2W like Magic. A 27$ monored deck can beat a 700$ UW deck.

[Neonivek]

in other TCGs that people would never call P2W like Magic.

One of the major criticisms of the game at the moment is that Magic the Gathering is implementing mechanics that drive up the prices of cards to force people to buy more packs and pay more for individual cards.

Some of these cards which could cost a LOT of money on their own were rather necessary for some decks or to remain competitive within one year.

Bringing up magic isn't the best example one can use for non-paytowin tactics. Especially in a game where tournaments constantly cycle out old cards and keep you in a perpetual state of needing to buy new ones.

This is ignoring the whole "You can beat someone who spent more money with less money" doesn't excuse it. It only means that one cannot directly translate money into success in the same way that a golden car isn't faster than a normal car.

---

I mean nevermind that Hearthstone's entire business model as a "free to play" game is to encourage you to pay real money and often relies on addiction to make part or even most of its sales.

My personal measure of whether a game isn't Pay to Win even if it allows you to buy an edge or outright power... Is whether the grind is reasonable and if the game presents any sort of speed bumps that outright inhibit people who don't pay.

Which for Hearthstone? I don't know. The common response is that if you want to have real fun you should spend 50 bucks on the game and basically buy a very basic great deck... At which point you shouldn't spend anymore money.

It is just not a good argument to compare it to magic the gathering or comparing deck costs.

[Criptfeind]

My personal measure of whether a game isn't Pay to Win even if it allows you to buy an edge or outright power... Is whether the grind is reasonable and if the game presents any sort of speed bumps that outright inhibit people who don't pay.

Funnily enough my own defenition of pay to win is almost the opposite of this. To me, pay to win is simple. Do situations arise where the person who paid money has an advantage and an easier time winning then the person who didn't? IE: Can you actually pay to win?

For hearthstone the answer to that is: Yes. Such situations can happen, especially in the lower ranks when you have someone with no good cards going up against someone with good cards. This is not at all relevant to my hearthstone experience, given I've been playing the game for years. And I think this is simply how ccgs work, and don't really see a way around it. But I am forced to conclude that hs is technically ptw, under my definition at least.

The corollary to this, a game can be grindy as shit and basically impossible to actually progress in without paying money, and I might not call such a game pay to win. Pay to progress. Pay to play. And just a shit game in general maybe. But not pay to win in my eyes.

[xaritscin]

today i reached 1K gold (yay!).

also, paladin is horrible when you barely play it and need to use 50 cards from that class. i got some victories tho, murloc knight is a wonderfull card when the enemy doesnt focus it, even on this meta of discover/adapt i keep finding cards with inspire working on several decks. it wasnt even a murloc deck, but still.

i also tested beast hunter. i dont have dinomancy, so i use that legendary from TGT that improves your hero power (i barely use it anyways). meat of the deck is having mostly early lvl cards with sinergy. i found strange that webspinners dont appear as craftable cards, i thought they were there, but well, jeweled macaw is a nice replacement in that case (need another, only have 1).

the idea is to start filling the board with cheap cards, if i can i adapt them or summon an adaptable minion, if not, i use the wolf to boost their attack and keep threat. ram master for that unexpected beast summon, tundra rhino and hyenas for charge and boosting, i dont have savannah high mane so my focus is to get the lead before turn 6-7 when things get ugly.

special mention to firebat, carrion grub, ravasaur hatchling and alley cat. also, lost plainstrider and stranglethorn tiger for mana 4/5 holes.

oh and Mukla's Champion. this gorilla has been really usefull in many of my decks.

i hope to get some more class lvl beasts but i need more powder.

[wereboar]

To me, pay to win is simple. Do situations arise where the person who paid money has an advantage and an easier time winning then the person who didn't? IE: Can you actually pay to win?

For hearthstone the answer to that is: Yes.

I think that definition is a bit too broad. Paying in HS makes you progress a bit faster, i.e. buy more packs earlier thus catching up card collection-wise with established players sooner if you're just starting out. It doesn't suddenly make you win games though.
As stated previously, I've been playing for a while and I've got enough resources to put out several good decks each season. I don't believe I could improve my performance if I bought 50 more packs or something.

[Criptfeind]

It doesn't suddenly make you win games though.

When you're first starting out in hearthstone, the ability to netdeck a top tier deck and play that vs playing with the basic cards is absolutely enough to make a difference in your win percentage. Obviously there's no hard and fast rules here, skill matters a lot as well, but all else being equal...

Once again, when I  say pay to win in hearthstone, the easiest example of this is to me someone first starting out. Yes. It's not relevant to you or me given we've been playing for a while. But just because this experience isn't relevant to us, and it's something that'll fade away from someone as they play the game, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Faster progression is a thing that I wouldn't necessarily say makes a game pay to win, but in hearthstone you play against the same challenges (other people) no matter your level of progression. So, your level of progression absolutely does matter to your win rate, especially when first starting out.

As an aside, do you think my definition is too broad because it doesn't make sense, pay to win means you can pay to increase your win rate, or because it makes a game that doesn't feel like it's pay to win in a bad way into a game that's pay to win and that has negative connotations? Because honestly, I'd get that second one  however, I think it's easier to just say

Pay to win in a ccg isn't a universally bad thing despite the negative connotations it has as a whole.

Then it is to try to weasel around it. (the first one almost feels tautologically true to me... You can almost boil it down to a pay to win game is a game where you pay to win.)

As a double aside, Frost Lich Jaina got "leaked". I say "leaked" because it might not be real, and if it is real it might not be an actual leak but rather a marketing stunt, and either way the hero power didn't get leaked so we still don't know that much about the card except that it's clearly pushing elemental synergy in mage. That could be interesting. Also it would mean blizzard is actually supporting previous expansion mechanics (which when I actually write that out makes me less likely to think it's actually real.)

Edit: For those that don't want go googling for it: 9 mana, summon a water elemental, from now on all your elementals have lifesteal, normal 5 armor, no idea what the hero power is.

[wereboar]

As an aside, do you think my definition is too broad because it doesn't make sense, pay to win means you can pay to increase your win rate, or because it makes a game that doesn't feel like it's pay to win in a bad way into a game that's pay to win and that has negative connotations?

I just feel like there's some sort of a contradiction here. You said that you wouldn't consider a game p2w even if it was nigh impossible to progress in without paying money. And in HS progress without paying is not even difficult. It just takes time. Speeding it up is classic pay to progress and it is only really relevant at all when you first start playing.
So maybe you can claim that it is p2w when you're a complete noob and you want to move some ranks asap. But when you're past that initial stage, even this arguable p2w element is not there any more.

[Neonivek]

I actually find it funny the concept of "You have to pay money to do well in this game" is somehow countered by "Just BECAUSE you pay money it doesn't mean you will do well"

As in... The game is set up so that even if you spend hundreds or thousands of dollars, you can still suck... So keep spending money!

[Darkmere]

As a double aside, Frost Lich Jaina got "leaked". I say "leaked" because it might not be real, and if it is real it might not be an actual leak but rather a marketing stunt, and either way the hero power didn't get leaked so we still don't know that much about the card except that it's clearly pushing elemental synergy in mage. That could be interesting. Also it would mean blizzard is actually supporting previous expansion mechanics (which when I actually write that out makes me less likely to think it's actually real.)

Tribe support has happened constantly, though. Mechs, dragons, pirates, murlocs have all gotten piecemeal support over multiple sets, as well as deathrattle, "stealth rogue" (lol) and other stuff. I basically assumed they'd do stuff to push the utter flops, like they did for silence priest before, just because they have a weird boner for discardlock and the perpetual inability to make control hunter a thing.

It kinda looks to me like they're pushing value and later-game decks to counterweight the pirate warrior fiesta, with cards like volcano and glyph and shadow visions/Lyra. I don't mind it, as long as Jade is still there to prevent idiotic fatigue decks.

[Neonivek]

Are traps viable?

[Criptfeind]

Well I mean not really, two guys can't reproduce no matter how much like a girl one looks.


Oh, wait, you mean secrets? Sure. Secret mage is the aggro version of mage and is a totally viable deck. Hunter secrets aren't really too much of a thing right now, too busy playing the beast synergy thing. Paladin secrets are a thing in wild, and in standard the hydrologist, a paladin card that gives you a secret, is played in every paladin deck.

Tribe support has happened constantly, though. Mechs, dragons, pirates, murlocs have all gotten piecemeal support over multiple sets, as well as deathrattle, "stealth rogue" (lol) and other stuff. I basically assumed they'd do stuff to push the utter flops, like they did for silence priest before, just because they have a weird boner for discardlock and the perpetual inability to make control hunter a thing.

Heh, the backwards support was sorta a joke... Although sorta true as well, there's scattered support for tribes, but nothing that lets them stick around past when their main set rotates out. A few mechs with no synergy doesn't make a mech deck. A few dragon cards isn't enough to make a dragon deck with no blackrock, etc. Too be fair though, they do add support to failed concepts, sometimes. Not to grimy goons. Heh. But other failed concepts.

On the continuing ptw discussion. I don't see the contradiction. Pay to play isn't pay to progress isn't pay to win. And yeah. Even if it's just ptw at the start (which I think it's arguable if it's ONLY that, but that's neither here nor there) thats. Still. Ptw? Yes? It'z in zee geam.

[xaritscin]

reached rank 19 with the hunter deck, was even bordering matches with rank 18 people. what?

funny how you can ascend quickly with a more or less barebones deck while i was struggling to ascend with my C'thun Mage deck that actually costed me a lot of powder to make.

anyways, got lucky with the quest today and made enough for a pack, decided to buy some more gadgetzan just in case, allthought most of it became powder. figures.

think im gonna stick with hunter for the time being until the expansion comes.