4 ms·

I used to view it as good value for a casual game until the announcement of where as new expansion sets are rolled out, previous ones are sunsetted. It essentia

I used to view it as good value for a casual game until the announcement of where as new expansion sets are rolled out, previous ones are sunsetted. It essentially gives a 1-2 year expiration date on any new packs purchased rather than making a limited or ban list for certain specific cards. Then again, Activision stock has increased by a decent margin so there's at least one group of people who likes it.

r00fus 9y ago
Yeah, but there's still "Wild" where nothing sunsets. Of course, some would say Wild is even more expensive as there's mostly legendary in most decks.
- methodover 9y ago
  Wild is not a very well supported format though. From the game director, in response to a criticism from earlier this year, says as much: > I don't think we've done a good job historically supporting Wild enough. But I do think we've been doing better lately, and it's very important to us that Wild be a real format that is properly supported. https://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comments/6ynecq/an_open_letter_to_team_5_from_a_wild_player_xpost/dmp0vt4/ https://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comments/6ynecq/an_open...
  - r00fus 9y ago
    That just means they need to do some "hall of fame" actions in Wild to balance which could have backlash (ppl expect Standard to rotate/change, but Wild is Wild!) - any changes they do to cards in Wild may have impacts to Standard (i.e., if it's a Standard card that's reacting to Wild cards) But this is Blizzard, and they released balance updates to Starcraft for years. Just takes focus.
  - Fnoord 9y ago
    Good marketing speak. They can't cater both formats equally. They'll have to balance Wild which costs resources. If players go for the latest and greatest (Standard) you can forget it with your old cards. Even if you won them in single player (those get removed as well). They won't take Wild too serious because the money's at Standard. So Wild will always be a second class citizen. It also seriously pisses me off because I spend a good fortune on cards when Hearthstone came out and I didn't expect them to go the MtG route. Boy, was I wrong. Many of them are worthless now.

r00fus 9y ago

Yeah, but there's still "Wild" where nothing sunsets. Of course, some would say Wild is even more expensive as there's mostly legendary in most decks.

methodover 9y ago
Wild is not a very well supported format though. From the game director, in response to a criticism from earlier this year, says as much: > I don't think we've done a good job historically supporting Wild enough. But I do think we've been doing better lately, and it's very important to us that Wild be a real format that is properly supported. https://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comments/6ynecq/an_open_letter_to_team_5_from_a_wild_player_xpost/dmp0vt4/ https://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comments/6ynecq/an_open...
- r00fus 9y ago
  That just means they need to do some "hall of fame" actions in Wild to balance which could have backlash (ppl expect Standard to rotate/change, but Wild is Wild!) - any changes they do to cards in Wild may have impacts to Standard (i.e., if it's a Standard card that's reacting to Wild cards) But this is Blizzard, and they released balance updates to Starcraft for years. Just takes focus.
- Fnoord 9y ago
  Good marketing speak. They can't cater both formats equally. They'll have to balance Wild which costs resources. If players go for the latest and greatest (Standard) you can forget it with your old cards. Even if you won them in single player (those get removed as well). They won't take Wild too serious because the money's at Standard. So Wild will always be a second class citizen. It also seriously pisses me off because I spend a good fortune on cards when Hearthstone came out and I didn't expect them to go the MtG route. Boy, was I wrong. Many of them are worthless now.