This Game Is Pay-to-Win

Play Mode Discussion
Prev 1 4 5 6 8 Next
02/22/2019 01:46 PMPosted by Shakou
i don't care if it's ccg or rts or fps or moba,
Sorry to break it to you, but this is why you will always be wrong regarding this argument. Your basis is simply wrong, trying to measure certain objects with a same standard when you just can't (apples and oranges).
i play video games to have fun and the fun in hs is about playing cards and ranking up, not grinding/buying to wank over a collection (which, in the end, you don't even own)...
Every other semi-successful CCG/TCG begs to differ.
it's no accident if there're less new players on hs than most games, grinding for months or wasting hundreds before finding out if you're going to like the game or not is ridiculous
Again, apples and oranges. Compare CCG with CCG, not with other genre games.

edit: you know what? I think apples and oranges example still might not get through to your head. how about apples and pizza? they're both food, that's it.
02/22/2019 01:46 PMPosted by Shakou
i don't care if it's ccg or rts or fps or moba, i play video games to have fun and the fun in hs is about playing cards and ranking up, not grinding/buying to wank over a collection (which, in the end, you don't even own)...
it's no accident if there're less new players on hs than most games, grinding for months or wasting hundreds before finding out if you're going to like the game or not is ridiculous
That would be like going into an fps or moba where you DO have access to everything and saying:

I really like the idea of having consistently measurable progress and the ability to unlock more things as I go in order to get stronger. Progression is a huge part of what keeps me coming back to a game, and with having everything from the get-go I feel like there's really nothing to look forward to.

What do you think the people in those kinds of games would say to such a thing?
02/22/2019 11:03 AMPosted by TheRiddler
what do you compete for at rank5?


What do people compete for at Legend? Since the Ranked rewards are piddling little nothings, I suppose the primary motivation is simply to see how far one can go.

that's why fortnite and apex have so many more players


Not really. Battle Royale games are simple action shooters which are highly accessible. Hearthstone is a math-based strategy game with a collection aspect. Completely different genres draw different audiences, and it has little (if nothing) to do with the price models.

you need to buy 150-160 packs to get the full set if you complete ALL your dally quests = "only" 187€ every 4 months!


Why anyone believes they need to do such a thing is what I never quite manage to understand. Using nothing but free quest gold and the freebies from Blizzard, I have easily obtained over 85% of the collectible cards in every expansion. I can build multiple fully optimized Tier 1 decks, and nearly-optimized versions of pretty much everything else in the meta. All for free. Why would anyone undertake the expensive, low ROI effort to move from "free 85+%" to "high-cost 100%?" when it really doesn't accomplish much except to give the person a pointless sense of completion?


I can't believe you, I played for nearly 2 year straight and never came close to own 60% and I even bought 10-15$ of pack in 2 sets.
The biggest problem you have, OP, is that there isn't a true casual play mode. One where fun and meme and limited and troll decks are commonplace if not required to play.
02/22/2019 11:03 AMPosted by TheRiddler
...

What do people compete for at Legend? Since the Ranked rewards are piddling little nothings, I suppose the primary motivation is simply to see how far one can go.

...

Not really. Battle Royale games are simple action shooters which are highly accessible. Hearthstone is a math-based strategy game with a collection aspect. Completely different genres draw different audiences, and it has little (if nothing) to do with the price models.

...

Why anyone believes they need to do such a thing is what I never quite manage to understand. Using nothing but free quest gold and the freebies from Blizzard, I have easily obtained over 85% of the collectible cards in every expansion. I can build multiple fully optimized Tier 1 decks, and nearly-optimized versions of pretty much everything else in the meta. All for free. Why would anyone undertake the expensive, low ROI effort to move from "free 85+%" to "high-cost 100%?" when it really doesn't accomplish much except to give the person a pointless sense of completion?


I can't believe you, I played for nearly 2 year straight and never came close to own 60% and I even bought 10-15$ of pack in 2 sets.
How? Even with quests alone, its always been possible to crank 6-7k gold out for each expansion and that isn't counting any of the gold you get for actually winning matches over those 4 months.
I can't believe you, I played for nearly 2 year straight and never came close to own 60% and I even bought 10-15$ of pack in 2 sets.


Depends on how you are arriving at your percentage. There are many ways to skin that cat, and I've had several discussions on the methods. Card sets are valued Rarity and Usefulness ... and how much of a "set" you have has to consider both aspects.

I use the fairest possible method - which is a percentage of the total number of collectible cards in a set (98 commons, 72 Rares, 54 Epics, 23 Legendaries ... 247 cards). Some people don't like this approach, but repeated discussions about the topic of "how to calculate set completion" have led me to the conclusion that it's the fairest, most representative method. This is because it balances both rarity and usefulness while other methods tend to exaggerate one or the other.

For example ... some people like to use pure "Percentage of Dust Crafting Cost" as their figure to calculate completeness. But this method exaggerates the value of rarity and places a huge amount of value on very expensive cards that are arguably of little real-world use.

Take Rastakhan's Rumble as a case study. If I had no other cards than Griftah, Undatakah, Hakkar, Loti, Gonk, Thakal, Shirvallah, Bwonsamdi, Zentimo, Jeklik, Malacrass, Talanji, Kragwa, and Hireek (only 14 cards), I could still PROUDLY claim that I had MORE of the set than someone who had all the Commons, Rares, and half the Epics. This despite the fact that all 14 of those cards are arguably irrelevant to the meta.

So a method that takes both rarity and usefulness into account is necessary to have an honest, fair discussion about set completion. The people who focus only on rarity are using a method that is stilted and inaccurate ... typically because it exaggerates the self-pity party they like to throw themselves about "not having any cards".

So I use the total number of collectible cards as the method of evaluating set completion. Using that method, I've documented with video evidence that it's very easy to do the daily quests and end up with well over 8,000 gold between expansions. Add that to your win gold and players can have upwards of 10-12K gold between sets. With that gold stash you buy 70-80 packs, add it to the freebies Blizzard gives, dust the duplicates and extra gold cards, make smart crafts and Bob's your Uncle - you end up with around 85% (or more) of the collectible cards in a set. Like a clock. For free.
Game isn’t Pay-To-Win at all. I joined October 2017 as a graduate without a job.

I started off with Secret Mage and exclusively focused on being good at that. I had no Legendary in it and Bonemare + Kabal Crystal made games really easy.

Now it was hard saving up for my first epics (Primordial Glyph) and the deck took some hits but I ended up saving as many mage cards as I could and dusting others.

If I had to be honest I played Mage pretty exclusively for the time played in 2017. I used Tavern for other class quests. I reached about 400 wins before I got a job. I had made two other classes at that point and was working on them the same way I built up mage (Priest and Paladin).

Now I can make any class I want but i’m grateful for the fun HS gave to me when I wasn’t able to pay for stuff. It is more ‘limiting’ in what you can do, can’t make any deck you want on a whim but it’s still very fun (especially Solo, Tavern and arena which often don’t care about your card collection at all).

Edit: I also recently made another account for the new player experience. It’s insane how easy it is to climb ranks on midrange hunter. IMO If you’re new highly recommended climbing using hunter and make Wizzbang at rank 25 so you get to experience all the classes.
02/22/2019 06:29 PMPosted by TheRiddler
I use the fairest possible method - which is a percentage of the total number of collectible cards in a set (98 commons, 72 Rares, 54 Epics, 23 Legendaries ... 247 cards). Some people don't like this approach, but repeated discussions about the topic of "how to calculate set completion" have led me to the conclusion that it's the fairest, most representative method. This is because it balances both rarity and usefulness while other methods tend to exaggerate one or the other.


In the context of threads like this, thats not the fairest method though, as its misleading. The fairest method is to combine both card completion rate AND dust completion rate and divide by 2. That paints a far more accurate picture of where you stand completion wise within a given set.

For example, using hypothetical numbers, if i am at 200/250 (80%) cards, but only 150k/300k (50%) dust required for a set, my set completion would be 65% set completion. This more accurately accounts for the ROI you mention so often in terms of how much investment (packs/dust) will be required to finish your set than 80% does, 'cos I can assure you at 80% OF CARDS you are not much over over half way through (definitely not 20% to go) your expected investment for 100% set completion.
I compete at the highest levels any normal player (non-professional) who plays 20-30 games a day does and I have never spent a dime.

To shine some light on a point you were making earlier in this tread, Call of Duty is a FPS and Hearthstone is a DCCG. Comparing apples to oranges doesn’t help prove your point.

When you are new to any card game there is a learning curve and while in that curve you have time to collect everything you need for victory.

In MTG that means learning what is out there and buying what you need. In Hearthstone it means doing the tutorials learning in the beginner ranks, while reading articles to learn what to do when you get to rank 20 and what cards you should make that are staples of any classes decks.

Anyways hope that helps if you have a question of how to boost your win rate you can always ask it outright, we are friendly here and can help.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0YXmLM_8Ks

A relatively good video for people opting F2P and along with a few discussion points included.
02/22/2019 01:54 PMPosted by Siperos
Quit Hearthstone. Because it's obviously not for you.
why? i don't play much since apex came out, it's true, but unlike you, i still have fun and still manage to climb a bit
02/22/2019 02:00 PMPosted by Wardrum
That would be like going into an fps or moba where you DO have access to everything and saying:

I really like the idea of having consistently measurable progress and the ability to unlock more things as I go in order to get stronger. Progression is a huge part of what keeps me coming back to a game, and with having everything from the get-go I feel like there's really nothing to look forward to.

What do you think the people in those kinds of games would say to such a thing?
there's a measurable progression on every game, battle passes, achievements, you name it
02/22/2019 08:05 PMPosted by F2Player
I compete at the highest levels any normal player (non-professional) who plays 20-30 games a day does and I have never spent a dime.
20-30 games a day means at least top 100 and yet, we can see on this site that you're nowhere near that rank
02/23/2019 10:37 AMPosted by Shakou
20-30 games a day means at least top 100 and yet, we can see on this site that you're nowhere near that rank


I don't think that's correct. It takes a lil more than that to be top 100.
02/23/2019 10:37 AMPosted by Shakou
02/22/2019 01:54 PMPosted by Siperos
Quit Hearthstone. Because it's obviously not for you.
why? i don't play much since apex came out, it's true, but unlike you, i still have fun and still manage to climb a bit
02/22/2019 02:00 PMPosted by Wardrum
That would be like going into an fps or moba where you DO have access to everything and saying:

I really like the idea of having consistently measurable progress and the ability to unlock more things as I go in order to get stronger. Progression is a huge part of what keeps me coming back to a game, and with having everything from the get-go I feel like there's really nothing to look forward to.

What do you think the people in those kinds of games would say to such a thing?
there's a measurable progression on every game, battle passes, achievements, you name it
02/22/2019 08:05 PMPosted by F2Player
I compete at the highest levels any normal player (non-professional) who plays 20-30 games a day does and I have never spent a dime.
20-30 games a day means at least top 100 and yet, we can see on this site that you're nowhere near that rank
You're clearly ignoring the Apples-to-Oranges point that has been made multiple times. You seem to be under the impression that all genres of all games should follow the exact same format, which is such a naive thing to think would actually work. If you think all digital CCGs would be even 10% as profitable by selling aesthetics only, you're insane.

20-30 games per day should get someone to top 100 Legend? It this point I'm leaning less on you being ignorant of reality and more on you just being a troll...
02/23/2019 11:03 AMPosted by Wardrum
which is such a naive thing to think would actually work. If you think all digital CCGs would be even 10% as profitable by selling aesthetics only, you're insane.
and we'll never know unless they try
02/23/2019 10:42 AMPosted by SirColson
I don't think that's correct. It takes a lil more than that to be top 100.
he has 0 point which means he didn't even reach the dumpster
02/23/2019 11:03 AMPosted by Wardrum
20-30 games per day should get someone to top 100 Legend? It this point I'm leaning less on you being ignorant of reality and more on you just being a troll...
i have people in my friendlist who used to get top 200-500ish by playing a LOT less than 20-30 every day
and we'll never know unless they try

[/quote]Just how far do you think that would make it in a board room meeting?

Naivety.

You can interact and do things with aesthetics in other games. In a card game, you don't really DO anything with a protrait or cardback. While it might appeal to a certain portion of your audience, its not like the action you get out of skins in more personally interactive games.
but unlike you, i still have fun and still manage to climb a bit
Pfft! Nice assumptions there, buddy. Did you run out of arguments? Not that you ever had any good ones based on reality to begin with but still.

02/23/2019 11:03 AMPosted by Wardrum
which is such a naive thing to think would actually work. If you think all digital CCGs would be even 10% as profitable by selling aesthetics only, you're insane.
and we'll never know unless they try
In a way they kinda did. With cosmetic heroes Muradin, Medivh and Alleria in 2015. Why do you think Blizzard hasn't added any new purchasable heroes to the shop since then? Because they didn't sell well enough to justify their continuation. Which is a very strong indication that people simply don't care for cosmetics in Hearthstone. Not nearly as much as in Battle Royales, MOBAs or whatever

But hey, keep ignoring the points made you know you can't argue against and enjoy being wrong! :D
02/20/2019 07:26 PMPosted by Tari
p2w search your feelings, you know it to be true!

downvote the truth, it is impossible for a new person starting now to keep current and collect the back catalogue without paying money, Impossible!
02/23/2019 10:42 AMPosted by SirColson
02/23/2019 10:37 AMPosted by Shakou
20-30 games a day means at least top 100 and yet, we can see on this site that you're nowhere near that rank


I don't think that's correct. It takes a lil more than that to be top 100.


Wrong, 20-30 games a day is more than enough to be top 100. You’re MMR is more dependent on win percentage than number of games played. The month I got as high as rank 2 legend (finished 109) was one of the months I played the least. I averaged about 7 wins a day.
Anyone who says Hearthstone is pay-to-win immediately is wrong. It doesn't matter what your argument is.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum