Power Creep in Hearthstone (and other CCGs)

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Tue Aug 25, 2015 6:00 pm

Pseudo Stupidity wrote:Hearthstone doesn't just have power creep, it is blatantly pay-to-win. There were always cards that were just straight up better than other cards for the same cost.

Even if you have the better deck doesn't mean you going to win.

It's bad that some cards are just way the fuck better than everything else because it sucks to be a new person and not have access to the good stuff. Losing for the first 3 weeks of playing a game is boring and will make people quit. It's bad design to make playing your game boring or frustrating.

The game does have that problem, I don't know why one needs to have a level 20 class to enter the Tavern Brawl. Also Blizzard has been a little more stingy with giving players things. Blackrock didn't have a free wing like Nax. There were no free pack when TGT came out. It seems like they are changing the rewards to Arena, so maybe that will be good. Right now faster combo decks are wrecking people. Also adding some awards to Ladder.

The funny thing about this game is that most of the high level players put very little money into the game (less than $100). They mostly used gold and dust won in Arena.

Hearthstone is not a complicated game like MtG either, it doesn't need "learnin' cards." At least not yet.

I agree.

karpik777 · Post by **karpik777** » Tue Aug 25, 2015 7:59 pm

Previn wrote:That would be true if Hearthstone didn't have a matchmaking system that pitted players somewhat close in playtime/card pool together. I had a friend who started about a month ago. I've watched his matches and he's paired up against people that match up to his cards and play ability. He's winning around 60% of his matches.

This is not how the system works. For ranked (at least below legend) the only thing that matters is your current rank. For other game modes, there is a hidden rating (Matchmaking rating, MMR for short) - separate for each one - that is raised when you win and drops if you lose (by how much depends on the MMR of your opponent). Neither of the things you mentioned is taken into account at all. You may expect someone who played longer to have a higher MMR, but they may have dropped it on purpose - if only to make farming gold via quests easier.

zugschef · Post by **zugschef** » Tue Aug 25, 2015 8:35 pm

When i started the game i hit rank 13 with a basic mage deck. After unlocking naxx i hit 10. Hearthstone is not pay to win. Play arena, do your dailies and build a zoo, tempo or face deck which are mostly pretty cheap. Although i have to admit that it has become harder to catch up for new players. The crafting mechanic is your friend though. If you fearlessly disenchant cards you get enough dust to craft decks which don't require legendaries and multiple epics. The hardest part is grinding gold for naxx and brm. But even that isn't that hard to do with the one-time quests you get in the beginning. There are legend players who have never paid for hearthstone. Man, if i had the time (and stamina and motivation) to play 300 games in a month i'd probably hit legend. As it is i give up at rank 5 maybe 4 if i have a run.

Also, arena is the best playmode anyway.

You can't pay to win there.

Pseudo Stupidity · Post by **Pseudo Stupidity** » Tue Aug 25, 2015 9:03 pm

Pay-to-win and "play a ton to get the cards you need to win" are essentially the same thing. You're paying in time or money to compete in a way that is completely divorced from ability to play the game well. Hearthstone does have a lot of RNJesus cards, but the decks that win in legendary are often high reliability and high cost (unless you're running zoo or a face hunter, in which case they're just reliable).

Examples from legendary july 15 (some of the higher % played decks):

http://hearthstonechampion.com/season-1 ... -midrange/

http://hearthstonechampion.com/hearthst ... ge-hunter/

http://hearthstonechampion.com/decks/co ... ta-report/

They're all rocking a few legendaries and quite a few epics. And this is excluding control decks, which are basically legendary spam until you win. Control warrior packs like, 10 legendaries and a couple epics and is 5% of legendary play.

You don't get decks like that within a month without dropping 50-100 bucks, spamming arena while playing 2+ hours a day, or getting incredibly lucky (and also spamming arena).

It's not that expensive of a pay-to-win, but it's very pay-to-win. Hell, July was a good month for zoo and face, making it one of the better months to play a cheap deck and win.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Wed Aug 26, 2015 4:49 am

Previn wrote:None of which actually require you to pay real money. I've gotten all the expansions, and 'bought' at least 10 of each pack type without ever spending a cent. I've crafted 2 legionaries on top of that. You don't have to put money down to win in Hearthstone. In fact the RNG is so ridiculous in this game that who wins is often more a matter of luck than anything else.

A freemium game is not not pay-to-win because it provides time-consuming but ultimately cashless ways to access content behind the freemium pay wall. That is not what pay-to-win has ever meant and that is not what pay-to-win should ever mean. Most obviously, the people who put money in can also put time in; the two are not exclusive. And then the person who put in just as much time as you but also put in money has more and better shit than you do so get fucked scrub.

But mostly the entire point (from a business standpoint) behind having your freemium pay wall content accessible without paying a cent is to keep people from ragequitting your game when they realize they don't have access to the entire game, and then you wait for your grind to wear them the fuck down and then they put in money to speed things up. You are not supposed to actually unlock everything through time because the time investment required is fucking insane. And I guarantee there are cards that would improve your decks that you don't have because you haven't spent money - and if there aren't, just wait until the next content release when everyone who puts in money or has put in money will have that content sooner than you.

And everyone needs to stop talking about "even if you have a better deck you might not win because RNG." When your deck is worse you win less, and you will keep winning less until the RNG determines winner by perfect coinflip, at which point your deck isn't worse because deck composition has stopped mattering. You cannot hide behind the weight of the RNG. The weight of the RNG just means the stakes are lower, it doesn't mean you can't pay for an advantage over other players who haven't put money in - which you can, up to the ceiling of "people who spend enough time in the game to unlock 100% of the competitive content."

zugschef · Post by **zugschef** » Wed Aug 26, 2015 8:04 am

Dude, if you invest so much money that you have every single card the day you start playing, you still won't hit legend without playing a shittonne of games. First because you need to become a good player and second because it even takes professionals several 100 games a month to do it. And you only get better in arena by playing because your collection doesn't fuckin' matter.

Pseudo Stupidity · Post by **Pseudo Stupidity** » Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:50 pm

zugschef wrote:Dude, if you invest so much money that you have every single card the day you start playing, you still won't hit legend without playing a shittonne of games. First because you need to become a good player and second because it even takes professionals several 100 games a month to do it. And you only get better in arena by playing because your collection doesn't fuckin' matter.

You really don't need to play much. Just look up a legendary deck, build it, then don't be a fuckwit. Hearthstone is not a hard game. The hardest deck is a really simple combo deck (Patron warrior) and the easiest decks (tie between face hunter and zoo) are played more in legendary.

Two of the best decks right now are seriously "throw your hand at the table and spam your hero power." You're not even supposed to play your secrets as face hunter, you're supposed to mad scientist them out.

zugschef · Post by **zugschef** » Wed Aug 26, 2015 3:27 pm

Shut up. To hit legend you need to play several 100 games.
https://m.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comm ... _legend_a/

Pseudo Stupidity · Post by **Pseudo Stupidity** » Wed Aug 26, 2015 3:37 pm

I meant to specify the "to get good" bit.

Hitting legend takes a long time because everyone else is running the same shit and your deck probably has a 60% win rate against some and a 40% win rate against others. There's a lot of luck in the matchups and even in just drawing the right cards.

The thing is, you aren't even in the running for legend until you build one of those decks.

Sir Aubergine · Post by **Sir Aubergine** » Thu Aug 27, 2015 12:05 am

Exhibit A (Old Card):

Exhibit B (New Card):

Here is an explanation for those who do not play Hearthstone.

These cards are similar in most regards: they both have the same attack power, they can only be played in Shaman decks (Hearthstone requires you to pick a "class," which gives you access to certain cards when constructing decks and a special ability that can be used repeatedly during play), and they both have the "Windfury" ability (This ability allows the minion/creature/monster ("minion") to attack twice during the controlling player's turn. MTG players can think of this ability as "Doublestrike," but only for offensive purposes).

There are some big differences, however. The old card, Dust Devil ("DD") is cheaper by one mana, has one less defense/health/toughness (d/h/t), and has an ability called "Overload." This ability forces you to spend mana during your next turn equal to the amount printed on the card. (MTG players might remember a similar mechanic called "Echo" in their game of preference. The difference is that paying the Overload cost is mandatory (although you keep the minion even if you cannot pay the full amount.) Lastly it has no minion "sub-type" (Minions in Hearthstone can have one of a small number of sub-types or none at all, and their significance is virtually the same as it would be in MTG).

The new card, Whirling-Zap-o-matic ("XZM"), does not seem all that much more potent than its predecessor at first blush. However, even a single point of d/h/t makes a world of difference in Hearthstone. The Mage class can deal a single point of damage at will, as Previn alluded to. Hearthstone also gives the other classes myriad ways to do a single point of damage, including sacrificing cheap minions. Also remember that XZM does not have Overload, which means the player's following turn is not hindered as it would be with DD. Lastly, the simple fact that XZM has the "Mech" sub-type means that is has favorable synergy with many other useful cards.

TL/DR: Blizzard took a minion which is very risky to play and created a new version which is arguably the most powerful minion of its cost in the entire game. Calling the decision "over-correction," would be charitable.

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Thu Aug 27, 2015 12:13 am

Dust devil is not cheaper, it cost 3 since it has the 2 overload. Dust devil was always seen as a bad card.

Sir Aubergine · Post by **Sir Aubergine** » Thu Aug 27, 2015 1:20 am

Leress wrote:[...] Dust devil was always seen as a bad card.

You're not wrong. My argument is that Blizzard went so far overboard in making a second, more viable version of Dust Devil that they created a (robotic) monster. The old logic for Windfury is that it should cost 1-2 mana. There is literally a spell called "Windfury" that costs 2 mana and permanently gives a minion Windfury.

The Whirling-Zap-o-matic should not get an incredibly powerful ability with no loss of stats, an increased cost, or some other drawback.

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Thu Aug 27, 2015 1:40 am

Sir Aubergine wrote:
The Whirling-Zap-o-matic should not get an incredibly powerful ability with no loss of stats, an increased cost, or some other drawback.

It is not that powerful, since a lot of the game is about board control it having windfury doesn't lend well for trading or for tempo.

http://www.hearthpwn.com/cards/12231-wh ... ap-o-matic

Now this is just small bit of data collection, but XZM is only in 10% of constructed decks (I assuming those are mech shaman) and 80% for Arena picks. It is a good card to pick for Arena, but not a very powerful one.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Thu Aug 27, 2015 4:55 am

Zugchef, you're being an idiot. Your "keen" observation that someone who has never played MtG before can run the latest and greatest tournament deck and still lose is not actually a keen observation. It's just stupid and irrelevant. The statements "you can spend your way to relative advantage" and "you can still lose" are not actually related in any way whatsoever.

If CS:GO let you break out your credit card in order to replenish your in-game cash totals each round, you could put in all the money you fucking wanted and competitive teams would still mop the floor with you without paying a dime. But the competitive tournament scene would completely stop having eco rounds, because that's an advantage you can buy and in order to stay competitive you would have to buy it.

People don't go to serious MtG tournaments with a starter deck and a couple of boosters. They go with decks that cost five to ten times that much, and they spend similar amounts regularly to keep up with rotations and meta shifts. Hearthstone is not actually any different, except it's digital and they provide a way to unlock content through time investment that still wouldn't unlock everything you needed to optimize your deck even if playing Hearthstone were your full-time job. Because, like MtG, making you pay for content is their fucking business model, and they can only do that if you have something to gain by giving them money.

Any game in which skill is a component requires time investment. That doesn't mean it's not pay-to-win. For fuck's sake, CCG's are the classic pay-to-win. They are pay-to-win from before pay-to-win was a thing people said games were. How is this fucking controversial? Do people think the term "pay-to-win" was coined to describe the exactly zero games which allow you to pay actual money to literally instantly win whatever match you're currently in? Like there's a little button somewhere on the screen that says "$9.99: Win! Show that scrub you're playing what's what!" Because that's fucking stupid, and that's not what the term has ever meant, because no game like that has ever existed.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:43 am

Pay-to-win is not completely apt in description of the CCG model. It is however somewhat apt.

A more nuanced, less-soundbite worthy statement is that "The full price to play this game at a truly competitive level requires hundred of dollars in materials, which will need to be updated with each new major release -- but the stripped down basics to play at a merely casual level can be had for under $20. So while the game has a relatively low minimum entry cost, the cost of the full game is hidden by a distribution model that has low unit cost, but requires a large number of units to play the complete game. And that's a form of deceptive marketing which can easily make for a game that is frequently unfair when played."

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Thu Aug 27, 2015 6:08 am

Your more nuanced, less-soundbite worthy statement is a 100% accurate description of the freemium MMO's which gave birth to the term "pay-to-win." No, really. I want you to tell me what you think pay-to-win means, and then I want you to tell me how what you said is different in anyway.

The term "pay-to-win" was coined to describe freemium MMO's where people could pay actual money for access to an ultimately finite set of more powerful options (games don't have infinite content, and even if they did, only a finite subset of it would be competitively relevant) - games where the cost of entry is low, casual play is cheap, and competitive play requires purchasing a finite amount of content (likely costing several hundred dollars), and you have to continue spending money as new content comes out. That is exactly like your description of MtG.

You can complain that the term pay-to-win is misleading (people aren't paying to win, they are paying a hidden fee to engage in competitive play), and you are kind of right and kind of wrong (given equal time investment/skill, the person who has spent more money does have an advantage and is more likely to win, up to some ceiling where extra money stops unlocking meaningful content, but competitive play occurs at the ceiling so for those purposes it is simply a hidden fee). But again, that's what the term means. It's what the term has always meant. It's what the term will always mean. It does not refer to the zero existing games where you throw money at the monitor and your opponent loses. It refers to the practice of making more powerful content accessible to users who open their wallets.

zugschef · Post by **zugschef** » Thu Aug 27, 2015 8:37 am

DSMatticus wrote:Zugchef, you're being an idiot. Your "keen" observation that someone who has never played MtG before can run the latest and greatest tournament deck and still lose is not actually a keen observation. It's just stupid and irrelevant. The statements "you can spend your way to relative advantage" and "you can still lose" are not actually related in any way whatsoever.

If CS:GO let you break out your credit card in order to replenish your in-game cash totals each round, you could put in all the money you fucking wanted and competitive teams would still mop the floor with you without paying a dime. But the competitive tournament scene would completely stop having eco rounds, because that's an advantage you can buy and in order to stay competitive you would have to buy it.

People don't go to serious MtG tournaments with a starter deck and a couple of boosters. They go with decks that cost five to ten times that much, and they spend similar amounts regularly to keep up with rotations and meta shifts. Hearthstone is not actually any different, except it's digital and they provide a way to unlock content through time investment that still wouldn't unlock everything you needed to optimize your deck even if playing Hearthstone were your full-time job. Because, like MtG, making you pay for content is their fucking business model, and they can only do that if you have something to gain by giving them money.

Any game in which skill is a component requires time investment. That doesn't mean it's not pay-to-win. For fuck's sake, CCG's are the classic pay-to-win. They are pay-to-win from before pay-to-win was a thing people said games were. How is this fucking controversial? Do people think the term "pay-to-win" was coined to describe the exactly zero games which allow you to pay actual money to literally instantly win whatever match you're currently in? Like there's a little button somewhere on the screen that says "$9.99: Win! Show that scrub you're playing what's what!" Because that's fucking stupid, and that's not what the term has ever meant, because no game like that has ever existed.

How does this rant contradict my claim that hearthstone doesn't require you to pay to win? Hint: it doesn't. Because you really don't have to pay to win in Hearthstone, unless you consider time-investment a payment.

GâtFromKI · Post by **GâtFromKI** » Thu Aug 27, 2015 8:50 am

Hearthstone is maybe not a pay-to-win, but it is definitely a pay-to-not-be-bored-after-a-week.

I mean, I have played several computer-ccg, and each time with a minimal expense and after a funny farming phase, I had a very competitive deck ; and then after some time, the whole collection.

In hearthstone, the farming is boring as hell. As I recall, you have to win 3 game to get 5 cards ; since it's 3 game against equal-level opponents, you lose every other game, so you have to play 6 games. And since there are 10 classes, 80% of the cards you get can't be added to your deck. So every 6 game, you gain 1 card you may add to your deck.

And the games you play during farming aren't even enjoyable. I don't know how the computer chose the "equal-level-opponent", but after a few game they all have a deck far better than yours; each of their cards is worth two of yours, their card advantage is so high it's basically unplayable. I don't know, maybe the players are stupid and that's why they have the same rank as me and my beginner deck; anyway, it's not very fun when each time you play a card, your opponent play a card twice as powerful.

Then, there's the draft mode, which is very fun, and... Oh wait, accessing this mode require even more farming than buying cards, and the farming is still boring.

And then there's the challenges, which are solved by... farming.

So yeah maybe Hearthstone is not a pay-to-win, but winning without paying is so boring... It's far more fun to work and use your money to buy cards.

Stahlseele · Post by **Stahlseele** » Thu Aug 27, 2015 9:16 am

I love how you can have a full legendaries or inspiration deck or somethig like that and still be beaten by a propperly made and played murlock deck ^^

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Thu Aug 27, 2015 12:18 pm

zugschef wrote: How does this rant contradict my claim that hearthstone doesn't require you to pay to win? Hint: it doesn't. Because you really don't have to pay to win in Hearthstone, unless you consider time-investment a payment.

Here's a challenge to shut you the hell up: define pay-to-win and name a game which is an example of pay-to-win. You will do one of these things:
1) Eviscerate your bullshit in exactly the same way I already have.
2) Redefine pay-to-win to mean something it has never meant, in exactly the same way I have already mockingly suggested. Except that you'll be doing it for reals, making it 200% funnier.
3) Say something stupid about how if you really really really really want to you can quit your job, move into your parents' basement, and spend every waking hour playing Hearthstone for half a year until you have a respectable and competitive collection of cards (and going forward you'll probably only be a couple weeks behind people who crack open their wallets every content update).

Seriously, just shut up. You are as equipped to have this discussion as my grandmother, who has never touched a computer in her life and would probably think CCG's are satanic. You don't know what pay-to-win means.

Previn · Post by **Previn** » Thu Aug 27, 2015 4:20 pm

Whelp, I'm ignoring DSMatticus since there's clearly no point engaging with him in this topic.

GâtFromKI, 'farming' is playing the game in Hearthstone, I'm not sure what exactly you expect? Free gold and cards just for having an account so you never have to actually play a game farm?

Stahlseele, one of the big things in Hearthstone is that players with only basic or minimal cards can win games even against people with 5+ legend netdecks. Just in the basic set 12-15 life is pretty close to the point where you can just get dead because LOL.

Some examples of this:
Mage: Double Fireball + Frost Bolt = 15 damage with basic cards only.
Shaman: Bloodlust +4 creatures with any power = 16 damage with basic cards only
Priest: Warden + Divine Spirit + Inner Fire = 14 damage with basic cards only

shlominus · Post by **shlominus** » Thu Aug 27, 2015 4:45 pm

DSMatticus wrote:You don't know what pay-to-win means.

so what does it mean? as far as i know there is no widely accepted definition and without one your dispute is a bit silly. to me a game is pay-to-win if players cannot compete at the highest level unless they pay. this doesn't seem to be the case in hearthstone.

is there a f2p game out there that is not considered pay-to-win accoring to your definition?

Zaranthan · Post by **Zaranthan** » Thu Aug 27, 2015 4:47 pm

shlominus wrote:is there a f2p game out there that is not considered pay-to-win accoring to your definition?

Doesn't exist. Even Path of Exile is pay to win now.

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:02 pm

In hearthstone, the farming is boring as hell. As I recall, you have to win 3 game to get 5 cards ; since it's 3 game against equal-level opponents, you lose every other game, so you have to play 6 games. And since there are 10 classes, 80% of the cards you get can't be added to your deck. So every 6 game, you gain 1 card you may add to your deck.

Umm, that is like not right at all.

If you doing Arena you are guaranteed a pack and some random reward even if you lose 3 games. You get better rewards with more wins (up to 12). It cost 1.99 or 150 gold to enter the Arena and you break even with 7 wins. There are 9 classes. You can do daily quest to get gold, and for every 3 wins you get 10 gold (max at 100 gold per day), and some quest give you a basic pack.

There are a total of 693 cards any one class is excluded from 360 cards since they are cards to other classes.

Zaranthan wrote:
shlominus wrote:is there a f2p game out there that is not considered pay-to-win accoring to your definition?
Doesn't exist. Even Path of Exile is pay to win now.

That's an April fools joke.

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:08 pm

shlominus wrote:
DSMatticus wrote:You don't know what pay-to-win means.
so what does it mean? as far as i know there is no widely accepted definition and without one your dispute is a bit silly. to me a game is pay-to-win if players cannot compete at the highest level unless they pay. this doesn't seem to be the case in hearthstone.

is there a f2p game out there that is not considered pay-to-win accoring to your definition?

Dwarf Fortress.