Mean Streets of Gadgetzan

[Twoddle]

I agree with much of what you had to say, but in the end money providing you to more access or more opportunities for fun is still not pay to win.

As far as the win percentage thing goes that you mentioned you still wouldn't need to spend a single real dime on cards to make a decent enough midrange shaman, or even zoolock, and just wreck faces, thus ending up with a high win percentage.

I cant help, but feel the vast majority of HS pay to win argument are simply started because someone looks at a few control decks and goes; "Wow, I want to play that deck! Oh wait, I can't because it has too many epics/legendaries from different sets? Game must be pay to win because I won't be getting those packs with a free to play account." Control decks aren't everything. Sure, if you only looked at the game from the perspective of that archtype then yeah it would look almost like it was pay to win. Luckily, some of the best decks (such as aggro or midrange shaman) don't require much gold or cards.

You're not accounting for the time factor to collect the cards. You're saying that because a new player can craft a tier 1 aggro deck in a month of dedicated grinding but over a year to craft a full-blown control deck, it's therefore not pay-to-win. In the end it depends on your definition of pay-to-win but for a new player to max out his winning chances he either has to play with gimped cards for a month or two, or he has to pay. If he wants to start qualifying for next year's Blizzcon he will have to fork out the cash.

Of course for seasoned players who have built up sizeable gold and dust reserves you could argue it's no longer strictly pay-to-win for those people because they can ride on that momentum.

[Pantalaimon]

You're not accounting for the time factor to collect the cards. You're saying that because a new player can craft a tier 1 aggro deck in a month of dedicated grinding but over a year to craft a full-blown control deck, it's therefore not pay-to-win. In the end it depends on your definition of pay-to-win but for a new player to max out his winning chances he either has to play with gimped cards for a month or two, or he has to pay. If he wants to start qualifying for next year's Blizzcon he will have to fork out the cash.

Of course for seasoned players who have built up sizeable gold and dust reserves you could argue it's no longer strictly pay-to-win for those people because they can ride on that momentum.

But the argument isn't "Is HS pay to win within the first month or two of starting?", it is "Is HS pay to win?". If for some odd reason it would take a player over 2 months of dailies to get the common and rare cards for a good aggro or midrange shaman, plus the dust from stuff they don't want to get the odd epic, they would certainly not have a problem finishing it beyond that time period (ending int taking way less time to make that deck before the next adventure or expansion would be released). Afterward, it simply be a matter of time before they are climbing ladder with that deck.

[Twoddle]

But the argument isn't "Is HS pay to win within the first month or two of starting?", it is "Is HS pay to win?".

You want to say HS is not pay-to-win in the general case? There is no general case. It starts off pay-to-win until you can acquire any cards you need to be able craft any deck you see fit in order to maximise winning chances and adjust to any meta.

Hearthstone can even go in and out of pay-to-win status in the future if certain cards are suddenly seen as must haves to counter other decks eg. Harrison Jones might suddenly be needed to counter weapons everyone starts running. Dragon Priest suddenly top tier? Tough shit you went aggro Pirates now tier 3, pay-to-win once again.

[Pantalaimon]

You want to say HS is not pay-to-win in the general case? There is no general case. It starts off pay-to-win until you can acquire any cards you need to be able craft any deck you see fit in order to maximise winning chances and adjust to any meta.

Hearthstone can even go in and out of pay-to-win status in the future if certain cards are suddenly seen as must haves to counter other decks eg. Harrison Jones might suddenly be needed to counter weapons everyone starts running. Dragon Priest suddenly top tier? Tough shit you went aggro Pirates now tier 3, pay-to-win once again.

See that is the problem. A player doesn't *need* to have card collections that allow them to adjust to any meta, play any deck, but simply "Do I have at least one deck that I can succeed with?". Too many HS players seem to have this funny idea that they need to win with pretty much everything to be considered "winning" the game. In no way is that true. By the time their current deck will have been nerfed (which if it is aggro or midrange shaman isn't likely to kill it) then they would have bought enough packs to construct yet another cheaper deck. We're not even taking into consideration dust from repeat cards & unwanted cards either.

[Twoddle]

See that is the problem. A player doesn't *need* to have card collections that allow them to adjust to any meta, play any deck, but simply "Do I have at least one deck that I can succeed with?". Too many HS players seem to have this funny idea that they need to win with pretty much everything to be considered "winning" the game. In no way is that true.

That is your definition to which you are perfectly entitled, I don't have to agree.

[Blueobelisk]

We're gonna solve this dilemma with LOGIC :O @Pantalaimon @Twoddle

Why Hearthstone is Pay to Win:

Premise 0: "Pay to win" means that if you put money into something, it increases your chance of winning.
Premise 1: In Hearthstone Standard Ranked gameplay, only one person "wins". That person is Legend 1 at the end of the season.
Premise 2: If you don't get Legend 1 at the end of the season, it's possible to do better and "win more".
Premise 3: It's not possible to get to Legend 1 without a good card collection.
Conclusion: Because of Premise 0, Premise 1, Premise 2, and Premise 3, Hearthstone is "Pay to win."

Point out which premise is flawed and we can discuss this further.

[NED funded]

We're gonna solve this dilemma with LOGIC :O @Pantalaimon @Twoddle

Why Hearthstone is Pay to Win:

Premise 0: "Pay to win" means that if you put money into something, it increases your chance of winning.
Premise 1: In Hearthstone Standard Ranked gameplay, only one person "wins". That person is Legend 1 at the end of the season.
Premise 2: If you don't get Legend 1 at the end of the season, it's possible to do better and "win more".
Premise 3: It's not possible to get to Legend 1 without a good card collection.
Conclusion: Because of Premise 0, Premise 1, Premise 2, and Premise 3, Hearthstone is "Pay to win."

Point out which premise is flawed and we can discuss this further.

Why is winning defined by reaching rank 1 legend?

[Twoddle]

Premise 3 needs refinement, a good collection increases your chances. A good collection has the resources to dynamically maximise that chance.

And yeah reaching rank one legend isn't everyone's goal every season.

Premise 2 is also flawed, you're not guaranteed to reach rank 1 legend even after giving yourself the best chance.

[Blueobelisk]

Why is winning defined by reaching rank 1 legend?

I could post more but I think mods would get mad.

Legend is a nice personal accomplishment, but it's not like you won at the game/season.

If you want to replace "Legend 1" with "Top 100 Legend" I think that's fair.

I don't think it's fair to say "I crafted a midrange shaman deck and was able to get to legend eventually. I'm getting an extra golden card this season! Envy me." is winning.

Even if you define "I got to legend" as winning, you can pay to get there faster.

- - - Updated - - -

Premise 3 needs refinement, a good collection increases your chances. A good collection has the resources to dynamically maximise that chance.

Yeah premise 3 is what I find to be the arguable premise. I actually think it's slightly reasonable to netdeck something and make it to top 100 legend. Legend 1, idk though. You have to not lose against other netdeckers.

And yeah reaching rank one legend isn't everyone's goal every season.

Cool. It's not my goal either. But I don't think I "win" by getting an extra golden card by hitting rank 15.

[NED funded]

I could post more but I think mods would get mad.

Legend is a nice personal accomplishment, but it's not like you won at the game/season.

If you want to replace "Legend 1" with "Top 100 Legend" I think that's fair.

I don't think it's fair to say "I crafted a midrange shaman deck and was able to get to legend eventually. I'm getting an extra golden card this season! Envy me." is winning.

Even if you define "I got to legend" as winning, you can pay to get there faster.

I take issue with your definition of pay to win. For me paying to win is you spending money to improve your win rate through cash only objects or that objects that are extremely difficult to get and require an intense grind. HS cannot be the former, only the latter. But then again crafting midrange shaman isnt particularly hard. The hardest part would probably be getting spirit claws, which would take you at least one month and a half and at the same time you get most of the cards for discardlock.

Furthermore useless legendaries like Moroes can be disenchanted, which already gives you enough dust for most of your legendaries. Face hunter is also very cheap and enables by buying kharazan. So just by buying kharazan one can get the entirety of midrange shaman.

[Blueobelisk]

I take issue with your definition of pay to win. For me paying to win is you spending money to improve your win rate through cash only objects or that objects that are extremely difficult to get and require an intense grind. HS cannot be the former, only the latter. But then again crafting midrange shaman isnt particularly hard. The hardest part would probably be getting spirit claws, which would take you at least one month and a half and at the same time you get most of the cards for discardlock.

I get why cards in Hearthstone seem not pay to win because you can craft any 30 cards if you really dedicate yourself to it. The problem is, that means you can't craft other cards/decks.

Even so, pay to win defined by urban dictionary and other sources define pay to win by at least giving you some sort of advantage, even if it's attainable without money:

Games that let you buy better gear or allow you to make better items then everyone else at a faster rate and then makes the game largely unbalanced even for people who have skill in the game without paying.

Source.

[Twoddle]

Even so, pay to win defined by urban dictionary...

Urban dictionary is not a "source" certainly not a definitive one even though that definition is close to mine minus the grammar mistakes.

[Nikkaszal]

I could post more but I think mods would get mad.

Legend is a nice personal accomplishment, but it's not like you won at the game/season.

If you want to replace "Legend 1" with "Top 100 Legend" I think that's fair.

I don't think it's fair to say "I crafted a midrange shaman deck and was able to get to legend eventually. I'm getting an extra golden card this season! Envy me." is winning.

Even if you define "I got to legend" as winning, you can pay to get there faster.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah premise 3 is what I find to be the arguable premise. I actually think it's slightly reasonable to netdeck something and make it to top 100 legend. Legend 1, idk though. You have to not lose against other netdeckers.



Cool. It's not my goal either. But I don't think I "win" by getting an extra golden card by hitting rank 15.

You think the person at Legend 1 actually pays for his cards?

Those motherfuckers are SWIMMING in gold and dust because legend is a TIME sink, not a PAY sink. All the serious players (not necessarily the same as streamers) get their cards free because they have been playing forever and have resources up the wazoo

In addition, owning every card does not automatically equal being legend 1. That's the major fallacy.

[Tenris]

You think the person at Legend 1 actually pays for his cards?

Those motherfuckers are SWIMMING in gold and dust because legend is a TIME sink, not a PAY sink. All the serious players (not necessarily the same as streamers) get their cards free because they have been playing forever and have resources up the wazoo

In addition, owning every card does not automatically equal being legend 1. That's the major fallacy.

Exactly, thats why hearthstone is not pay2win because you can get everything through simply playing the game enough, you simply put money into the game to open up your options and remove that time sink. Yes it sucks being a new player and having new cards but we all experienced that at some point, what do people expect from playing a ccg thats over 2 years old?

[NED funded]

I get why cards in Hearthstone seem not pay to win because you can craft any 30 cards if you really dedicate yourself to it. The problem is, that means you can't craft other cards/decks.

Even so, pay to win defined by urban dictionary and other sources define pay to win by at least giving you some sort of advantage, even if it's attainable without money:



Source.

Ok I spent one month and a half grinding for kharazan. I have 4 legendaries I can disenchant (moroes, curator,medhiv and Prince maelchazzar) So 1600 dust and you have your deck. Furthermore you've made progress for a hybrid hunter and a discardlock. I would get your point if wallet warrior was shaman levels of broken but it isn't. I've playing for a year and it isn't really hard having a decent collection. The decks I have is old miracle rogue, secret paladin,midrange hunter/shaman and pirate warrior

[Kronik85]

Lol Patches is garbage. 1/1 with charge...yawn.

If you think he's garbage then you don't understand the game lol. Patches is one of the best cards in the set for aggro. Patches is the only card in Hearthstone that is completely free, it doesn't cost you mana, it doesn't cost you a card from your hand and all you have to do is avoid drawing him in your mulligan.

[Twoddle]

Why is winning defined by reaching rank 1 legend?

We have to make a start somewhere by accepting a premise. Winning is winning, unfortunately for some people simply playing the game is "winning" for others getting the card back each month is "winning" for others winning a game once in a blue moon is "winning".

You think the person at Legend 1 actually pays for his cards?

Those motherfuckers are SWIMMING in gold and dust because legend is a TIME sink, not a PAY sink. All the serious players (not necessarily the same as streamers) get their cards free because they have been playing forever and have resources up the wazoo

In addition, owning every card does not automatically equal being legend 1. That's the major fallacy.

I would wager that most of them do or did. Also you are reinforcing the point that for someone without cards he has to either grind or pay, that's pay-to-win. No one said you need every card, just having all potential cards immediately available allows you to tweak your deck as you see fit to maximise winning chances.

Exactly, thats why hearthstone is not pay2win because you can get everything through simply playing the game enough, you simply put money into the game to open up your options and remove that time sink. Yes it sucks being a new player and having new cards but we all experienced that at some point, what do people expect from playing a ccg thats over 2 years old?

Paying eliminates the grind.

[Blueobelisk]

In addition, owning every card does not automatically equal being legend 1. That's the major fallacy.

I didn't say that. "All italians can cook pasta" doesn't mean "if you can cook pasta you're italian." Reread the premise.

You think the person at Legend 1 actually pays for his cards?

Those motherfuckers are SWIMMING in gold and dust because legend is a TIME sink, not a PAY sink. All the serious players (not necessarily the same as streamers) get their cards free because they have been playing forever and have resources up the wazoo

How does that affect if I want to "win"?

If I want to be the richest man in USA, you telling me "the people on Forbe's Top 100 list were BORN with that money! They didn't need to try to make a company or invest to get there. They had it from day 1 of their lives! No, from their fucking grandparents generations ago!" Cool story. That doesn't really affect new people trying to become rich.

Exactly, thats why hearthstone is not pay2win because you can get everything through simply playing the game enough, you simply put money into the game to open up your options and remove that time sink.

Isn't that exactly what pay to win is? You just defined the term.

Ok I spent one month and a half grinding for kharazan. I have 4 legendaries I can disenchant (moroes, curator,medhiv and Prince maelchazzar) So 1600 dust and you have your deck. Furthermore you've made progress for a hybrid hunter and a discardlock. I would get your point if wallet warrior was shaman levels of broken but it isn't. I've playing for a year and it isn't really hard having a decent collection. The decks I have is old miracle rogue, secret paladin,midrange hunter/shaman and pirate warrior

Adventures aren't really a good comparison to Expansions since you flat out own all the cards if you complete it, as opposed to gambling that your 50 packs from Mean Streets are gonna give you all 132 cards.

Besides that, you're saying:
1. "I've been playing a while and accumulsted a few good decks." Cool, there are other decks though.
2. "Wallet warrior isn't broken so crafting those legendaries isn't necessary. No need to pay for that deck." ...Okay lol. I'll just take you word for the deck you never played.
3. "I can disenchant some cards to help make other decks." Cool. But disenchanting isn't a zero sum game so don't act like you can be wallet warrior today, dragon reno priest tomorrow, and n'zoth paladin the next day, and back to wallet warrior the day after.

Your points are all invalid as to whether or not money helps you "win".

[Tenris]

Isn't that exactly what pay to win is? You just defined the term.

Yeh exactly which means hearthstone isint pay2win like others in the thread are saying thats what I meant.

[NED funded]

I didn't say that. "All italians can cook pasta" doesn't mean "if you can cook pasta you're italian." Reread the premise.



How does that affect if I want to "win"?

If I want to be the richest man in USA, you telling me "the people on Forbe's Top 100 list were BORN with that money! They didn't need to try to make a company or invest to get there. They had it from day 1 of their lives! No, from their fucking grandparents generations ago!" Cool story. That doesn't really affect new people trying to become rich.



Isn't that exactly what pay to win is? You just defined the term.



Adventures aren't really a good comparison to Expansions since you flat out own all the cards if you complete it, as opposed to gambling that your 50 packs from Mean Streets are gonna give you all 132 cards.

Besides that, you're saying:
1. "I've been playing a while and accumulsted a few good decks." Cool, there are other decks though.
2. "Wallet warrior isn't broken so crafting those legendaries isn't necessary. No need to pay for that deck." ...Okay lol. I'll just take you word for the deck you never played.
3. "I can disenchant some cards to help make other decks." Cool. But disenchanting isn't a zero sum game so don't act like you can be wallet warrior today, dragon reno priest tomorrow, and n'zoth paladin the next day, and back to wallet warrior the day after.

Your points are all invalid as to whether or not money helps you "win".

1. OK?
2. Is wallet warrior top meta? As far as I can remember midrange shaman was the only tier 1 deck and that doesn't require 5 legendaries.
3.never said otherwise. My point was that one can be competitive investing min 2 months.

Also adventures are part of hearthstone so I don't really see what's the point in trying to tackle that argument.