And what? You couldn’t find any of the hundreds of posts that have been created to that effect? Did you even look?
(22 words)
1 Like
There’s probably multiple reasons why they don’t allow trading between players. The top most reason probably is to avoid a black market operation, where account thieves would be looking to claim any account they can and trade off the cards to top buyers.
But why don't they just make rules and configurations to defeat that?
Have you met human beings yet? We’re the most conniving, loophole generating species in the universe. You could have a layer of 200 account rules to defeat account thieves/sellers, and they’d still steal the accounts and sell off the cards for profit, and probably find some loophole to maximize their efforts.
Wizards also have no introduced card selling in MTG Arena, but Gods Unchained does use blockchain tech to allow you to own every card you get. Does that prevent theft? I don’t know, but I read a moment ago it allows cards to move around the world, know where they’ve been, and even be digitally signed by pros and such.
It'd be cool if...
It’d be cool though to trade cards or buy them from others, but what can of worms will that open? Well I’m the last person who wants to monologue on for a few more paragraphs theorycrafting exploits and ideas to counter exploits … followed by counter counter exploits, pros, cons, etc.
2 Likes
Allow trades only for players who have played for a year, players who have logged in daily and played a certain number of hours a day, for x months, and who have reached rank 10 and above in the preceding month. The details can be tweaked but you get the idea.
And boy what do you know, this would actually increase their MAU!
See! Not difficult to get a win-win situation, eh!
Just because a good idea has its constraints doesn’t mean it should just be simply discarded. Work around the constraints to make things work. That’s what a capable human does.
1 Like
So… the people who no longer need to trade cards?
1 Like
Ok, you may want to re-read my earlier reply, then let me know your point. Your half-sentence is too cryptic to understand
I’ve read your earlier reply, and all your conditions single out not only long time players, but long time players who have a consistent high ranking.
Yes, yes, this is where you tell me that rank 10 and above isn’t that high, but I’ve been playing since the beginning and I don’t make those criteria. I don’t log in daily, I don’t play over an hour, and I’ve never gotten to rank 10. And guess what? I don’t need any legendaries.
So, if I don’t need any legendaries, what makes you think that players who DO make those criteria need any? They don’t. Every time someone comes up with the idea for trading, it’s to help new players get the legendaries they need. So, in order to give trading to the players, you exclude new players, the ones who need the legendaries?
Oh, but you said you can tweak the details, but then you still risk opening the gates for third party vendors, you know, the guys who have the money to pay someone to hit those conditions, while the ones who need legendaries don’t have time nor money for.
Trading is something that Hearthstone doesn’t need, because of the crafting system. You sell your unwanted cards for dust and buy the ones you need with dust. Trading just opens a way for sleazy (and capable) vendors to make a profit.
3 Likes
I am rank 5 and I do need certain cards. Just because you don’t need it at below lvl 10, doesn’t mean those above level 10 surely won’t need it too. And certainly that is also no reason to say that who need it should be ignored.
If players really wanted to pay vendors to reach such a difficult condition, it would be darn costly. It would then be cheaper for them to buy those card bundles and dust them off by themselves. Or just buy pre-loaded accounts from the same vendors, who will find it more economically sensible to sell complete accounts rather than to trade cards.
I just politely ask that you think through it before shooting off the possibilities. If the conditions are tweaked, for instance, only 3 cards can be traded in a month, up to 15 cards a year, what kind of vendor will really think it is a feasible business idea to spend so much to grind, only to get 15 trades a year? None. These vendors would be better off grinding an account and selling it for cash. Gets them much more money that way. And more efficient for them.
I just think that the approach of “oh this is good, but there’s a disadvantage to it, so let’s ignore this possibility entirely” is a very haphazard way of coming to any conclusion. After all, the light bulb was invented because everyone thought it was impossible to find a material that could burn for that long, yet Thomas believed in it and kept on looking for an answer until it worked. hope you see my point.
What? No, I clearly said that the vendors would pay someone to play for them to hit those conditions.
And no, I don’t need legendaries because I don’t need them below lvl 10, I don’t need them because I have them. I don’t have the time to reach a high rank, not to not play smart and get my gold to buy packs.
It’s not a factor from “let’s ignore this entirely” but “there’s too many ways people can take advantage from this, so this will have too much backlash”. You underestimate how inventive and capable greed is.
Also, the light bulb was invented by Volta when he was looking for a way to generate heat, but found that it gave more light than heat. Edison only improved on previous designs (like with most of his inventions, or rather patents).
Ok, you clearly refuse to see the possibility. In that case, I ask that you do not play a naysayer in denying the possibilities. If you can’t contribute, at least don’t try to deny the possibility entirely. And by the way, I was referring to the search for a lasting material for the light bulb. Who cares if it was patented by him only; he was the one who persisted and found the right material for the bulb.
Oh, I see the possibility, especially on how it can be abused. It has nothing to do with naysaying, but finding a way in how Joe Average doesn’t get shafted.
1 Like
I don’t think the idea has been thought through. If you’ve ever played a TCG before, then you’ve seen what actual printed cards leads to: Tons of demand for specific cards, with TONS of excess of the chaff.
If we could trade cards, it would be a similar thing: Everybody would want the same cards. There wouldn’t be enough, so people would end up dusting the same cards to craft the same cards. It would be no different. Thus there is nothing to gain from such a proposition.
You’d have to really pull one over on somebody not in the know. Which in the day and age of the internet, just isn’t going to happen. So there’s not even a perceived gain in being able to do so.
They created the most infuriating gaming experience ever ! It’s only fun and satisfiying when you win which is one of the multiple definitions of trash design. It’s a pay to win game. They want your money to keep it ''free", to maintain servers, to pay the devs…
Let’s start from a low threshold, allowing players who meet certain modest criteria (e.g. rank 10 and more than 1 year’s play) to trade 4 cards a year:
- 1 legendary
- 1 epic
- 1 rare
- 1 common
Ask yourself: Can trading 4 cards a year cause the game economy to crash?! Think with your brain people! If you have an amygdala, use it for crying out loud.
Now you realise it is possible to allow trading cards while increasing MAU! And hey the game’s economy didn’t crash! And then, you start tweaking it from there until you reach an optimal position. Go, fetch!
But why would they ever add trading? It would only decrease their sales. Hearthstone was never supposed to be a TCG, and the game is built around not being able to trade cards.
Would it be nice and make the game cheaper? Maybe. Would the devs or the business people telling them what to do ever let that happen? No.
So what’s the point of this thread again?
Kill the game? I’m pretty sure the current meta is killing a lot of the game without anyone suggesting anything.
1 Like
How is the current meta bad? How was the last meta bad? WIll you be happy with game in any states, because if you think the meta is bad now, you’ll probably hate the game forever.
To attract new players who are already keeping away from the game by the exorbitant cost of the game.
You: How?
By making the cost a bit less painful (still very painful, but less so) for new players.
You: And what does this achieve?
- Higher MAU (if they make logging in regularly a condition to trade cards)
- higher new player base
You: And what would achieving both items above do?
Makes their annual reporting to board and quarterly results shine.
You: So what?
Note to self: stop feeding them with answers and let them learn to think!
He’s never said anything about being unhappy with the current meta. He’s only saying that the lack of trading ability kills the game (especially for new players!). Go re-read what he is replying to, and in what context his response is.
You’ve set up a straw man argument and steered away from his original topic.
See what topic you’ve moved to? The meta.
See what topic OP was on, and still is on? Card trading.
You sure got distracted by yourself. Perhaps you got ahead of yourself?
Oh, let me use my amygdala. Again, this does not help new players. Also, there are three expansions per year, and every time a new legendary becomes a key card in the meta. Too bad you already used your legendary trade. Four cards a year? What’s the point of trading then? People won’t even use it because it’s not worth the hassle. So, want to pull up the trade to once a month? Once a tri-mester?
But let’s just use our amygdala to further explore trading. So, how are you going to do this? Most logic would be legendary for legendary. That means trading a crap legendary you have for a good legendary. But who will take a crap legendary? Well, no one, except for third party vendors, who’ll dust it, and with the rewards from your “low threshold” will craft good legendaries that they’ll sell, I’m sorry, “trade”, for other crap legendaries, and so on. And since offer will be so rare, prices will go up.
Your intentions are good, but my malintent is better. Whatever you try to come up with, I’ll find a way to rip you off.
1 Like
Hhahahaa. Now that is hilarious. You should probably edit your post to reflect that you quoted the incorrect person. You quoted me, but in response to someone else. The subject of your reply does not match the quote above it.
Oops. Happy editing!