I believe the reference to declining playerbase was just as far back as the new rewards track revamp, not as far back as April. So the playerbase may well have declined since April. The article doesn’t look at that.
1 Like
Where are you getting historical Legend population data from?
1 Like
It’s on hearthstone decks . net, google HOW MANY PLAYERS REACH LEGEND IN HEARTHSTONE? [NOVEMBER 2020]
1 Like
No offense, but you picked the largest month in the graph. April represents the largest ever Legend population in Hearthstone history.
April also represents the worst balance in Hearthstone history, and therefore the easiest month to ever get Legend, just play DH.
The Legend population does track the total population, so I would absolutely expect there to have been a population decline, just not the 50% you suggested.
4 Likes
Nope it isn’t free. A real free game is Dota or CS. All you can buy is cosmetics. Nothing else. You can play any weapon any hero without restriction.
Blizzards only free2play game is Starcraft right now.
I don’t think the balance really has much to do with how many people hit legendary, if anything people were probably really bored with that meta and with there being so many demon hunters that they stopped playing. It’s simple, expansion comes out, people are happy for a while, you get a spike, then they get bored, then it dips again.
Theres also other factors, like I read an article that tracked the amount of viewers of the pro leagues, they had also reported far fewer people were watching, while this isn’t a direct indication, maybe people are playing but just not very interested in the pro league anymore.
Then you also have that VS hasn’t had enough data to produce a wild report in so long and they put that down to concurrent nerfs that disrupt their data stream, but I think there is more to it.
It just seems natural that the population is declining, you’ve seen the reasons why it would decline, firstly the Hong Kong fiasco then the whole thing that just happened, I want to keep some of their integrity in tact because I don’t want more people leaving the game haha.
some people here don’t play other games, they only play hs because they’re paid by blizzard to do so !
Battlefield heroes heroes. Now that was a real mans free game.
First, remember that I agreed that there’s likely been a decline.
Second, why are you making stuff up about VS? Their inability to get enough data for Wild is an issue with the rapid pace of balance patches, not player activity.
Third, I will highly disagree regarding balance. The more imbalance in the game’s decks, the more imbalanced players’ end of month finishes are going to be, and April was at least one Standard Deviation less balanced than any other time since 2016.
Who? I want to get payed by Blizz!
1 Like
This might sound bad but it is true. “The restriction is part of the game”.
It is fair to say that part of the appealing of a TCG is to grow over time and managing your collection, not everybody has to have everything.
And in that sense HS is free.
1 Like
But there has always been numerous balance patches. Even in prior times when they released a handful of balance patches, there was always a meta report.
Now you are lying.
And look at the VS website right now.
And tell me what last week’s Standard report says (note it’s already Monday here where I am).
Spoiler alert, no report due to the balance changes…
Second spoiler alert, there’s also been less Standard reports this year, all lapses coinciding with balance changes.
Yes it attributes to it for sure, but so what you have to wait 1 week longer for your report. It was really such a huge gap between wild ranked report 23 and 24, there were quiet periods throughout that time, with hardly any nerfs whereas under normal circumstances last year, they would have had the number of games to spit out a report given the same amount of nerfs.
No. Again let’s go and take a look at the weeks prior to release of Scholomance and Darkmoon.
Spoiler alert, no Standard reports those weeks as well due to working on new expansion content.
Yeah but point is there will always be enough players to have a standard report, subject to nerfs, but in wild I believe those quiet times between and without nerfs, were also encompassed by far fewer games on the ladder. Hence why I don’t think they had the ability to draft up a report. You can already see in their latest report that you can’t see match up win-rates for many decks. When I started looking at the VS reports, it was always pretty fleshed out as long as you cared about more than top 1000 legend.
You could argue that the data on aggro druid and reno priest doesn’t even reflect the actual percentages since nerfs to reader and polkelt. So they could have released reports around nerfs and it wouldn’t have really mattered as long as you understood the circumstances.
1 Like
You have my attention.
How much blank is there compared to the reports from 2019?
If you try by all the packs this is the very expesive game to play. I just play the free part and have no of the good deck parts.
1 Like
I guess I’m willing to concede the fact that they are fleshed out, but they don’t include as many decks. You’re probably correct, hate to admit I’m maybe wrong here. Looking at the archived reports just now. It’s also hard to factor in that people have been saying that it is easier to get to legend now overall.
I will never agree with those who say that the game is expensive, because it is free… Something free cant be expensive.
Pretty much this. The complaint about cost is coming from people who have incorrect perspectives on what Hearthstone “is”. The people who think it is expensive are coming from the perspective that Hearthstone is a “video game”. You can see this frequently in the bad logic they use to justify their arguments. A constant refrain from this group is something along the lines of, “I can buy XYZ Triple-A video game for $60 but that doesn’t get you even one Hearthstone expansion!”
The root of their inaccuracy is that they are mistakenly calling a Collectible Card Game a “Video Game” simply because they are playing it on a computerized medium. But Hearthstone is not a “Video Game”. It is a CCG that is played on a computer, so any attempt to equate the price of Cyberpunk to Hearthstone is flawed and inaccurate prima facie.
Related to this initial mistake in logic is the equally flawed opinion that a person is somehow required to have 100% complete collections of every card in the game. That’s such a wrongity-wrong opinion it calls into question the fundamental understanding of even what sort of game they are playing. CCGs are games that are designed to be fully and completely enjoyed … casually or competitively … with INCOMPLETE collections.
So when people complain about the ‘cost’ of Hearthstone it is almost universally because the person is cumbering themselves with bad logic and misplaced expectations. The game is free, can be played for free, and doesn’t require the player to spend a penny unless they want to.
Are there improvements that can be made? Sure. That’s true of any system. But the accusation that Hearthstone is somehow uniquely expensive is probably wrong. It’s strictly middle of the road average in cost for a digital CCG and is a much better cost/value than any physical CCG. If you approach HS from the correct perspective then it’s cost is either “free” (if you’re smart) or “average” (compared to other dCCGs). It is only ‘expensive’ if someone is comparing it to something they shouldn’t.
4 Likes