Hit it on the nose penniless as a fellow f2p player myself, I can't help but agree. I think another problem is that every class (except warrior) has basically only one viable deck. This makes it even harder for f2p players succeed cause now they have to craft many, many class legendaries and epics. used to be able to craft about 3 full decks an expac but in uldum, i could only afford 2 while keeping my collection relatively healthy.
The guys at Heartstone Mathematics have made some good videos explaining how the cost of the game in general has been increasing through the years. The people that buys pack have to buy even more nowadays to get a good collection and they are pushing f2p player out of the ecuation. I guess raking more money than what they need is worth the bleeding of the playerbase and losing the apreciation of the fanbase.
Well I am another f2p and I dont have that problem I have the murloc paladín (he only need 6 epics(murloc warleader, the prisma and the 8 spell that summon 7 murloc) , 8 if you want to add the amalgam that is not nesesary) and the legendaries are in most cases useless, in the totally of the games I played the only legendary that I play is zepherys and the others like chef nomi and leeroy I ever played, specially nomi and zepherys is sometimes that I play him. This deck only need the epics not the legendaries, ah and I have brann and zepherys because in my aperture of packs I got that two and I have the dust to craft hightlander hunter, but is more funny to play in wild
I felt this expansion like: OH NICE I GOT A LEGENDARY! Let'me see in which decks can I use it! Oh I just need 6 or more legendaries and some epics too... Ok so... I'll end this season at 10 T-T
The hard truth is that we don't get to choose the legendaries we open. So if you happen to open most legendaries not from the half that you wanted, it's a #feelsbad moment.
Or you could stop bitching and just dust stuff. Ive been f2p for 5 years and have never been in a situation where I didnt have cards to dust for a new deck
thats why you play wild, overal cheaper(escpially once got staples) and if dont have specefic are lot more options for evrything and multiple good decks that cost less then a legendary(like mech hunter which only required legendary is teh free snipsnap) and cards dont rotate youl always have acces to them, to play competive its lot cheaper in long for wild, and you need lot less per expansion to be competive(if you just want evry card possible ever ofc its gonna be more expensive then to get all standard cards atleast in short amount of time) but for competive its lot cheaper.
In my second uldum pack I opened Tekahn and I was really happy because I specifically wanted to play zoo. Then I found out zoo was bad and doesn't even run Tekahn... since then I've opened Anka, Colossus of the moon and Tinkmaster overspark :/
I figure the defined "optimal" decks became more expensive, I never was one to opt for a full decklist of anything as saying that the decks "required" those legendaries. I played Highlander Mage without owning a Yogg-box, Kalecgos, Siamat or Vulpera at the time. Had Ysera, Messenger Raven, Toki and put a Flakmage in. Then I reached Legend utilising my own Zoolock that doesn't have Soularium and Tekahn, and remember the hype around "needing" Rafaam for Zoolock in RoS? Disappointed that Zoolock has been put down so hard in this video even though it got plenty of powerful tools in Uldum with the EVIL Recruiter, Neferset Thrasher and Diseased Vulture. I used Quicksand Elemental, which I saw 0 people playing. They definitely did reduce the trashiness of the worst epics and legendaries, meaning so many become useful, I can agree with that. Bloodsworn Mercenary being a key piece for Aggro Warrior, and Psychopomp for Priest, as well as the Tortollan Pilgrim for Mage, lots of good epics. Octosari and Colossus of the Moon both have their niche uses, which cannot be said for cards like Duskfallen Aviana or Harbinger Celestia.
I remember first noticing the "epic problem" in Hearthstone when The Grand Tournament released and they made Twilight Guardian, an incredibly simple and overpowered card that would be auto include in any dragon deck, an epic. Over time they have just done it more and more
This is the experience what I felt when I started playing. It was araund Gadgetzan and it felt like Blizzard said:"Hello we make this very good decks that need a lot of pieces. If you don't like them or can't get them you will SUCK."
It's strange As a player, it's good to open an epic or legendary and know it will be played But It's also good to know if you want to build a deck, you only need 2-3 epics/legendaries
I hope so, whenever I see a priest all my focus goes into dealing with "Inner Fire", its at the point I don't see priest as priest its just the "Inner Fire" class to me and its kind of sad to see all these options and being like: "Is this better then Inner Fire?" Answer: "No".
@@nileboy5055 Yeah it has always been a thing. But Priest just constantly falls back on it. It's not interesting and it's very limiting. I'd rather they replaced Inner Fire with something like Kabal Talonpriest, Sandhoof Waterbearer, or maybe even Penance. Base set Priest is desperate for some good cards. It has Northshire Cleric and Power Word:Shield. Admittedly these are two of the strongest cards in the game, but it's not enough. Inner Fire and Divine Spirit are only powerful together.
Glad to see you back, penniless! I'd love to do some friendlies with you sometime, now that I have completed my classic collection. As for the meta analysis, I appreciate how honestly you've summerized it. I can agree with many of the statements you make here, good job.
For everyone’s own benefit, just pause this video at 0:32 and go put on BOOM BOOM BOOM. I just put it on and listened twice, still amazing. Hey Penny, I want you in my room.
I'm penniless as well but i run highlander hunter, battlecry shaman, tempo rogue and Murloc Paladin. Because everything is balanced and fine. Just because you don't have a sufficient amount of legendaries doesn't mean you can complain. If you go for a set amount of decks each expansion, you can never go wrong.
As someone who is also FTP and only plays mage, it's sad to see the top decks nerfed so quickly after years without any decent decks. At least Casino Mage will always have a place in my heart. All hail Yogg!
I've thought this for a while but I think it's insulting that a pack only contains five cards. Maybe when it first came out that made sense but assembling decks across multiple expansion card pools is way too unforgiving. The game in general really needs to be more generous with resources to encourage people to keep playing.
Reached top 500 Legend on EU using only Quest Shaman so yeah the deck is pretty good if played properly.The mistake most people do when playing the deck is that they use the Double Battlecry Hero power the whole time.
I think a big issue with this meta is that it's extremely polarized. There's a good number of auto-concede matchups out there. Like Quest Paladin vs. Control Warrior: Quest Paladin has an 80% winrate in that matchup! It's ridiculous. I think another big reason why Battlecry Shaman is so popular is because it's not very polarized; unlike, say, Control Warrior, Quest Shaman doesn't have any auto-concede matchups that you simply cannot win. So it's an ideal deck to climb with, since there's less risk of repeatedly running into bad matchups on the ladder.
I've just started the video, so I dunno what points will be brought up yet, but I really enjoy almost everything about this post-nerf meta. I say almost, because a very fast Divine Spirit Inner Fire Priest exists, and that's a deck archetype I've hated since Hearthstone's inception. I greatly enjoy playing my various builds of Quest Shaman, Quest Paladin and a few silly homebrews, and while I don't like to play the other big decks in the meta, all of them I find fun to play against, which is a nice thing. Pushing Highlander decks into repeated "have this answer right now or you're boned" situations, overwhelming Control Warriors with incremental advantages, picking apart Murloc boards, it's all good stuff. I've now gotten to the end of the video, and I have to say that I do see the point of complaining about prices. It hasn't affected me at all personally, but that's because I've zero interest in playing Wild, ever, and simply strip-mine old sets for Dust as soon as they rotate - the only cards I have in my Wild collection are ones I can't disenchant, like Marin the Fox, and my one golden Azure Drake, who will remain there forever for dumb sentimental reasons, as it was a linchpin of so many of my decks before it got kicked out (card draw, spell power and dragon tribe hits so many of the archetypes I've enjoyed). As a result, I'm sitting on a dragon's hoard of something like 650,000 Dust.
They managed to balance a meta so well it hurts f2p...well done and I thought I was going crazy with my collection and deck building. Glad to be reassured of this problem and hopefully we get some changes once the next set comes around.
Blizzard's greed is why I only ever play HS now against friends, where we can dick around with our bizarro decks and don't have to give a crap about the meta. It's comfy af and honestly the thought of queueing up into ladder makes me feel ill by comparison.
This is why WhizBang is the only deck I run still, crafted in normal and golden depending on my mood. It's basically the equivalent of Making the game free to play, but It's now $15 a month to Build your own Deck Unless it's face-hunter and if you don't subscribe you get a random shit deck that craps on you for resisting Pavlovian training.
Warrior is almost ENTIRELY made to just kill your stuff, which is why it can control the game so easily. It’s no wonder that players hated it so much if it was control.
Honorable mention goes to Combo Priest for being a decently prominent aggro player in the meta. Popularity wise, I'd say that's the aggro deck to beat, not Murloc Paladin.
Quest shaman doesnt suck it's all over ladder, on my way to legend that's mostly what I played against, except for the combo preist every now and again.
I don’t agree with the “corporate greed” section. It’s a by product of the “no duplicates” effect. Personally, I loved Reno meta and love no duplicate decks, love playing them and playing vs them. You see more interesting cards and have more interesting moments as more cards make lists that normally would never see play. I’ll take costing a bit more so long as the games a lot more fun (which it is).
I mean, even if it's expensive, I do suppose it makes sense. It didn't become expensive because things were overpriced or because of some scheme, but out of the genuine quality of the product. I can get behind people making good money out of genuinely well-crafted content. Even as a free to play player I think if you are good enough for tier 1, you can probably gather up the gold you need, though it may take longer and I understand why that would be frustrating.
@after you I mean I hate to be *that guy* but... you can play those other games then. If you want to play hearthstone and not those, then maybe there's some extra value that's worth money by comparison. And if all else fails, you don't need to pay a cent, you can just be a free to player. Maybe you won't be at the top tier of ladder, and again, I can see why having to pay to be at top tier might upset people, but I just can't see it being such a major issue.
@after you What business standpoint are you referring to exactly? Charging more for products worth more is the basis of how markets remain balanced. Plus making money is the point, it's WHY hearthstone exists to begin with. From the player's standpoint it's not a business to begin with. Now, if the game was bad and expensive, and it was the design being rigged that led to that expense I would be inclined to agree with you. However, in this case the expense is forming naturally from things being well designed, legendaries are meant to be stronger and top tier decks search for any little ounce of strength they can get. Will the future of the game really be hurt by the top tier decks needing more expenses, or by being more expensive while also being a better game than those other ones, at least for now, when none of that expense actually has to be paid to enjoy the game?
@after you While what you're saying is true- indeed a more expensive products leads to people buying less of it and people who buy less of a product- hearthstone is a game where the majority of the players are, as far as I'm aware, free to play. It's sustainable as a game, as those players aren't going away from things getting more expensive (unless the prices in the free to play currency increase, which has actually been the exact opposite, as the ease of getting gold through quests and amount of it has actually increased). Furthermore, a better game with better design will attract more people because it is a better product. Better product means you can afford to charge more with less loss of player base. if you only buy a few of those packs, you're probably not overly affected by the price changes. If you buy a heck ton of packs at a time, you're gonna complain, but chill out the money anyway- it was never something you were planning to spend with care to begin with. Only people who buy a moderate amount of packs are really in any danger of dropping the amount. Blizzard has experts on their team keeping tabs on this sort of financial matters. While we may speculate, but as you said yourself- either option loses money and earns money, whether they choose to increase or decrease the price. Blizzard employees with full access to their information probably know better which will result in more profits better than you or I. Now, let's say that the reddit, forums and youtube channel you are commenting on are correct, and there were less preorders. I can think of a good number of reasons other than simply price for this. There was less hype for this expansion than League of Shadows, which was the first of the new rotation which is often something that brings players back who left because they didn't like the meta. The mechanics in league of shadows also received more overall praise than Uldum's "reborn" , and until recently the most interesting features of the new adventure mode were pretty much unknown. Add to that the fact that the same few classes keep getting the new skins that come with the preorders, thus greatly reducing the incentive from those which increased price AND buyers before. I am also curious as to what other games you are referring to, and where you are getting the numbers to say they are making so much more profit. Assuming you are correct though, are those games free to play? Do they not have a predatory design? What exactly is the player base getting out of it, is the reason they are willing to bring out more money only because the packs are cheaper? Those kinds of questions are relevant too. I do agree the model for hearthstone could be better- any always can- but I don't think great expense is the issue it has. In fact Blizzard has been cracking down on a lot of the issues I would see legitimately causing problems in terms of design or bottom line, and would probably only ask they stop with the damn limited-time bundles and just let us buy certain items individually.
