Old adventures used to give us cards (legendaries as well) not packs


Now we get 3x pack per wing and card back when we have whole adventure. Thanks for legendary every 40th pack that i don’t need…
oh - and we got zayl from whole dalaran heist. We want old system back!
What i mean by this post is old adventures (maybe not so fun like newest ones) were demanding but they gave you all you need for competetive for 3500 gold or 20$. Now all you can get is prepacks for 80$ and 3 packs for 700 gold (gold price of adventure wing) where you have absolutely no guarantee for any legendary. If you (in theory) had the worst RNG in history (which is quite real for some of the players) you won’t get any legendary in everything new adventures offer (i’m using dalaran heist as example since you have to pay for whole adventure). Blizzard-Activision new model of milking players from cash is awful and i’m not suprised many new players are scared off from Hearthstone.
Don’t get me wrong, i’m not saying (like doomcaller) that end is near for HS and and this game will soon be shut off. No - playerbase (at least i think so) is stable and every veteran will stay here just because they paid a lot to get cards they wanted or their F2P collection is high enough to make fun/competetive/troll decks (whatever their desire is). But this is interesting that they want more money, but they discourage potential new players and their money by such absurd paywalls. Veterans won’t be big enough as funding source to keep such big company as blizzard for years…
I know i know - my posts won’t change anything, only investors and shareholders can make something about that…honestly.


Yes, but now you don’t need to buy the adventure to get the cards. You are not forced to buy the adventure. The new adventures are just extra content for those who want it - why are you complaining? Don’t like it, don’t buy it.


but the adventures arent mandatory to get must have cards
if you want cards get packs

this adventure mode is there in case you want to play something else besides ranked ladder or brawls


Old adventures were garbage single player content which you HAD to purchase to get must have cards.

You don’t play these new adventures for the reward, you only play it for the extra solo content.


Thats true, especially for someone like me who is not a fan of HS solo content. But, the old system did have its benefits, 8 months between xpacs made it far easier to save up between them, even with 40g quests and purchasing them (adventures) with gold in the equation


What (to several of you)?

  1. Rewards should be lower so that you shouldn’t have to buy the expansion to get the cards? Instead, you should spend even more money on packs to get the dust to get the cards you want? Weren’t the old cards craftable, just like any other card? The only difference was that if you wanted Thaurissan, etc…, you could get them for far less actual money than buying dust for Legendaries now.

  2. The old: You don’t like it, don’t play it, chestnut. Are you committing to never complaining about anything in HS? Can we all respond with “If you don’t like it don’t play it” when you do?

  3. It’s transparent what Blizzard is doing with this. Stop printing competitive cards in $20 expansions, and people will buy those expansions AND more packs.


Nope. While the adventure was standard legal you HAD to purchase the adventure to get the cards it contained. Only when they rotated could you craft the cards within them.


Ah, my bad on that part. I mean, it was still less money overall to get the good ones, unless you very specifically wanted just one? Isn’t still one legendary per 20 packs (~$20), and less than 1600 dust?

Legit: not trying to argue with you, just reinforce my point. Thanks for the correction.

(edited my post to correct my mistake)


All good. The problem with the current system is that averages (can) take a long time to even out.

For example, my SoU 100 pack day 1 opening. Got my 1 in 10 guaranteed legend in my 7th pack, then hit the pity timer. Still came out of that opening session with 5 legends (so I opened 4 in my last 53 packs). So I was still close to average overall, but it took an extra 50 packs to get there.

Adventures guaranteed you 4 or 5 legends along with epics rares, many good ones included, for that price without dupes on any rarity. You spend your $20, you get 40 (unique) cards. No ifs, ands or buts.


Yeah, pretty much my point, and why I don’t want this post to be shut down by trite arguments.

The old adventures were just way more bang for your buck. I get that there are maybe some F2P players that might find more marginal value out of the current system, but I just think it’s obvious what Blizzard is doing. This is just de-valuation, because they make more money off of packs.


I agree on all counts, I just hope (not that they visit here often) if the feedback is listened to, they dont interpret it as having 3x expansions & 3x (old-school) adventures in a year - I can just see the dollar signs in their eyes!

I liked the alternating model, despite not being a fan of the solo content. But even the 2 xpac 1 adventure model was good.

My biggest gripe though, and it is pretty minor with my thoughts on solo content, is they are charging for them again as we were told they would be free content with the change to 3 xpacs per year.



Honestly, I didn’t much mind shelling out $1-200 a year when I still felt that they were really behind making a better product, as long as we keep paying them for it. Maybe that makes me their chump, I dunno.


I would rather have the old adventures with the cards locked behind a pay wall considering that in the new system instead of getting 2 expansions and 1 adventure a year now we have 3 expansions and each one has must have cards if you want to experience more than 1 deck.

It is far cheaper to pay $20-$30 for an adventure that you are guaranteed certain cards than having a full expansion that would take about $270 to have a full collection while $50 preorder doesn’t do it nor guarantees that you will open the cards you really want.

Old system was far better for the consumer but this new system is what activision believes makes them more money and it’s against the consumer.

I agree, many people forgot or are unaware they did made this announcement and did not follow through.


People are tired of each expansion at a faster rate. We can no longer go back to two expansions a year.


If it means most people will be able to afford to play more than 2 decks then sign me up! I believe people will be less bored if they had the resources to play something more than just the one or two decks they can afford with 3 expansions per year.


This speaks to something I think is core to forums these days:

One side: Got mine, don’t change/criticize/question this (unless you’re me)

The other: Can this be better, and for more people?

I feel like we’re on the same side here, and hope that Blizzard will listen (they won’t, but y’know, hope is all we have)


Who is this “we” you speak of?


Fair point, but couldn’t that be leveled at everybody on this site who claims that people like HS as-is?


Zalae said it best (paraphrased) - “more cards doesnt mean more diversity, it means more refined decks” - in the K&C era iirc.

Thats true. Having more options doesnt mean a more diverse meta, that is continually proven false. It just means the meta decks are stronger!

The BEST metas tend to occur when the card count is at its lowest!!! Yes, rotation helps with that, but the simple fact is more cards =/= more diversity. Never has, never will!


An adventure with no independent cards is not increasing the price of anything.

What has increased the price is that there are more traditional (non-adventure) sets with more cards coming out more frequently. Blame that.

The adventure has nothing to do with it. If they did throw in a new old-style adventure with it’s own cards, that be would be even yet more cost on top of it.

Basically OP has looked back to a time they preferred better, and pointed out the wrong thing that was different about it. The important thing that was different was the slower pace of traditional sets.