I agree -- I'm excited about the mode and disappointed at the lack of information.
At the very least, I'd love a run-down of all the abilities and equipment. Even if the exact numbers are subject to change, it would be fun to be able to do some party comp theorycrafting.
There's not enough added value in the pre-order, anyway. One free merc with a fancy portrait in each bundle is not reason enough to spend money on a new game mode.
And that's from someone who's actually excited for Mercenaries!
I'm not saying people will regret pre-ordering. Most pre-order people would have ended up spending that money on packs anyway. But for anyone who's on the fence, a diamond frame isn't going to push them over.
No specific predictions, but I suspect the mini-expansion cards will either be mostly ineffectual or will actually make things worse.
If the next round of nerfs actually takes care of some problems, there's a chance the mini-set cards will be viable without being crazy OP, but I'm not holding my breath.
What you're saying about Free-to-Play games is entirely correct, but the idea that weeding out players that won't pay a dime is a good idea is ridiculous. Blizzard has no idea why any individual player is F2P. Maybe they're F2P because they like to spend on cosmetics in game but weren't offered any (that's clearly true for some players, as Blizzard introduced Diamond cards and tons of new hero portraits). Maybe they're F2P because their financial situation is difficult right now, but in a few months they'll get a new job or promotion and have a little spending money to put into a game. Maybe they've just bored with traditional Hearthstone and looking for a new game mode that they'll love enough to spend money on.
Regardless of reason, the way F2P works is to cast a wide net and convert players into customers. They will have less success if they intentionally weed players out before they've even had a chance to try the game. That's why the question of cost to reach some "base fun play" state is important.
I think you believe the gold cost will be far more punishing than it actually will be. I honestly don't see any of the people in your examples balking at the cost of building a village. The people who refuse to try Mercenaries because of the gold cost are hard-line free players who hold on to their gold with a death grip because they cannot or will not ever spend money on Hearthstone.
The assumption that Mercenaries will be totally unplayable without spending gold is ridiculous. A brand new player with no gold reserves at all has to be able to jump in and play without grinding gold in some other mode. There's no way Blizzard would make the mistake of excluding fresh blood like that. So it stands to reason that Mercenaries itself will give you a way to earn enough gold to get further into Mercenaries. F2P people who are dedicated to Hearthstone may choose to buy Hearthstone packs with that gold, and I'm sure many will, but I think most people won't mind using it on the village.
That's the beauty of having a shared resource. You can reinvest the gold in Mercenaries if you like it, or you get a nice "thanks for trying it out" parting gift if you choose to use the gold elsewhere.
Or maybe they'll all end up costing gold, thus alienating any F2P player who might enjoy the mode but sees it as a risk of a crucial resource for other modes they already play.
I probably sound like a broken record, but there's really no reason for Blizzard to care about the feelings of free players who are going to pitch a fit over a little bit of gold. If they refuse to spend gold, that's a sign they will never, ever spend cash. Blizzard has nothing to gain from keeping that kind of non-customer happy.
Free-to-pay games aren't free because of a company's generosity. They are free in the hope that free players will eventually spend money. Gating content behind a small gold expenditure is actually a pretty smart way to weed out the ones who will never pay a dime.
Honestly, I'd rather just take them out of the game. If you change them enough to make them reasonable, the people who used to like them are going to be upset anyway. Just scrap the whole thing like Genn and Baku and let Wild deal with it.
If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might suspect this whole meta is just a sneaky way to drive people over to Mercenaries. If so, it's working in my case. I'm looking forward to a game where I can largely ignore PvP and metas and developers who decide to change the texture of the entire game on a whim.
Im assuming that this is a pack of mercs to be used immediately on purchase so anyone who swipes his or her credit card gets an early advantage in battle on top of a likely exclusive merc. So all in all, the money will roll out from exclusive mercs, and likely coin purchases.
There is no need to (incorrectly) assume anything. They flat-out stated that the pre-order mercs are NOT exclusive. You can earn them in-game in exactly the same way as any other merc.
You use coins from packs to get an early advantage in PvE, yes, but not in PvP, so I'm not sure why you would care about that. (Your own skill is the ONLY advantage you have in PvP.)
You are probably correct that they expect most of their profit to come from pack purchases, as that's the only thing you can buy directly with cash. But no matter how many packs you buy, the only way to level up a merc is by playing the game. Coins can improve abilities and equipment, but they cannot buy levels for your mercs.
On one hand, I had no trouble absorbing the information in the reveal video, and I think it's weird that everyone has been acting so confused.
On the other hand, people obviously are confused, so Blizzard clearly failed to create the reveal experience they were hoping for.
The worst part about a bad reveal is that confused fans quickly become angry fans. The parts they misunderstand get blown way out of proportion, and the tiniest negative preconception seems to become absolute fact, even if little or no confirmation appeared in the reveal. Sometimes a bad reveal can definitively contradict people's preconceptions, and they will still swear up and down that their fears were confirmed.
In this case, the whole "pay to win" outcry has been particularly strange to me. They clearly state -- both in the video and on the dev blog -- that PvP matchmaking will not match you against a vastly stronger opponent. Slightly stronger (or weaker)? Maybe, occasionally, but only to prevent long queue times -- similar to the way Hearthstone might occasionally match you with someone one rank higher or lower on ladder. I'd love to hear anyone's ideas on how it could realistically be better than that.
And make no mistake, that small possibility of a small power differential would not disappear if they removed all monetization from the game. You would still occasionally encounter a free player who has been grinding longer than you. There's no way around it.
The other weird complaint is, "How dare they steal my precious gold?!" The obvious answer is: If Hearthstone cards are more important to you than building a town in Mercenaries, don't build the town. There's no reason to be mad about it. Free players have to make these decisions all the time. You aren't required to play Mercenaries at all. But if you choose to play, there's nothing wrong with asking you to pay a bit of gold. It's pretty unrealistic to expect this humongous new game mode to be given to you for free. If a little gold is all you have to fork over to get your town up and running, that's actually quite generous on Blizzard's part. Free games are not a human right.
What bothers me the most is all the misinformation people are willing to believe -- and even more willing to spread -- just because they are upset or distrustful or plain or ignorant.
I've seen so many people ranting about things that aren't even true, it makes me wonder how they even know Mercenaries exists. They certainly haven't taken the time to find out any actual facts about it.
I agree -- I'm excited about the mode and disappointed at the lack of information.
At the very least, I'd love a run-down of all the abilities and equipment. Even if the exact numbers are subject to change, it would be fun to be able to do some party comp theorycrafting.
That's a bit self-contradictory. If losing is not fun and people are playing to win, then they ARE playing to have fun.
Awesome! Thank you very much.
I know Mercenaries is still a few weeks away, but there are already a couple of threads in General.
When does it get its own section in Game Modes?
I get at least 2 out of 3 every time even though I hate it.
If it were actually fun, wouldn't more people do it all the time, not just when quests tell them to?
There's not enough added value in the pre-order, anyway. One free merc with a fancy portrait in each bundle is not reason enough to spend money on a new game mode.
And that's from someone who's actually excited for Mercenaries!
I'm not saying people will regret pre-ordering. Most pre-order people would have ended up spending that money on packs anyway. But for anyone who's on the fence, a diamond frame isn't going to push them over.
No specific predictions, but I suspect the mini-expansion cards will either be mostly ineffectual or will actually make things worse.
If the next round of nerfs actually takes care of some problems, there's a chance the mini-set cards will be viable without being crazy OP, but I'm not holding my breath.
Games are still lasting until turn 5 in Wild? What gives? You guys are barely keeping up with Standard!
Even if you play around it, eating your Coin gives the Paladin a huge advantage.
I think you believe the gold cost will be far more punishing than it actually will be. I honestly don't see any of the people in your examples balking at the cost of building a village. The people who refuse to try Mercenaries because of the gold cost are hard-line free players who hold on to their gold with a death grip because they cannot or will not ever spend money on Hearthstone.
The assumption that Mercenaries will be totally unplayable without spending gold is ridiculous. A brand new player with no gold reserves at all has to be able to jump in and play without grinding gold in some other mode. There's no way Blizzard would make the mistake of excluding fresh blood like that. So it stands to reason that Mercenaries itself will give you a way to earn enough gold to get further into Mercenaries. F2P people who are dedicated to Hearthstone may choose to buy Hearthstone packs with that gold, and I'm sure many will, but I think most people won't mind using it on the village.
That's the beauty of having a shared resource. You can reinvest the gold in Mercenaries if you like it, or you get a nice "thanks for trying it out" parting gift if you choose to use the gold elsewhere.
I probably sound like a broken record, but there's really no reason for Blizzard to care about the feelings of free players who are going to pitch a fit over a little bit of gold. If they refuse to spend gold, that's a sign they will never, ever spend cash. Blizzard has nothing to gain from keeping that kind of non-customer happy.
Free-to-pay games aren't free because of a company's generosity. They are free in the hope that free players will eventually spend money. Gating content behind a small gold expenditure is actually a pretty smart way to weed out the ones who will never pay a dime.
Honestly, I'd rather just take them out of the game. If you change them enough to make them reasonable, the people who used to like them are going to be upset anyway. Just scrap the whole thing like Genn and Baku and let Wild deal with it.
If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might suspect this whole meta is just a sneaky way to drive people over to Mercenaries. If so, it's working in my case. I'm looking forward to a game where I can largely ignore PvP and metas and developers who decide to change the texture of the entire game on a whim.
These are nowhere near as interesting or satisfying as getting the Lucid Nightmare mount in WoW.
Fabulous card back, though.
There is no need to (incorrectly) assume anything. They flat-out stated that the pre-order mercs are NOT exclusive. You can earn them in-game in exactly the same way as any other merc.
You use coins from packs to get an early advantage in PvE, yes, but not in PvP, so I'm not sure why you would care about that. (Your own skill is the ONLY advantage you have in PvP.)
You are probably correct that they expect most of their profit to come from pack purchases, as that's the only thing you can buy directly with cash. But no matter how many packs you buy, the only way to level up a merc is by playing the game. Coins can improve abilities and equipment, but they cannot buy levels for your mercs.
On one hand, I had no trouble absorbing the information in the reveal video, and I think it's weird that everyone has been acting so confused.
On the other hand, people obviously are confused, so Blizzard clearly failed to create the reveal experience they were hoping for.
The worst part about a bad reveal is that confused fans quickly become angry fans. The parts they misunderstand get blown way out of proportion, and the tiniest negative preconception seems to become absolute fact, even if little or no confirmation appeared in the reveal. Sometimes a bad reveal can definitively contradict people's preconceptions, and they will still swear up and down that their fears were confirmed.
In this case, the whole "pay to win" outcry has been particularly strange to me. They clearly state -- both in the video and on the dev blog -- that PvP matchmaking will not match you against a vastly stronger opponent. Slightly stronger (or weaker)? Maybe, occasionally, but only to prevent long queue times -- similar to the way Hearthstone might occasionally match you with someone one rank higher or lower on ladder. I'd love to hear anyone's ideas on how it could realistically be better than that.
And make no mistake, that small possibility of a small power differential would not disappear if they removed all monetization from the game. You would still occasionally encounter a free player who has been grinding longer than you. There's no way around it.
The other weird complaint is, "How dare they steal my precious gold?!" The obvious answer is: If Hearthstone cards are more important to you than building a town in Mercenaries, don't build the town. There's no reason to be mad about it. Free players have to make these decisions all the time. You aren't required to play Mercenaries at all. But if you choose to play, there's nothing wrong with asking you to pay a bit of gold. It's pretty unrealistic to expect this humongous new game mode to be given to you for free. If a little gold is all you have to fork over to get your town up and running, that's actually quite generous on Blizzard's part. Free games are not a human right.
If this is true, it only shows how unhealthy the game is most of the time. (And I don't doubt it.)
Interesting theory. How does one then point out stupidity and narcissism without being labeled a stupid narcissist?
What bothers me the most is all the misinformation people are willing to believe -- and even more willing to spread -- just because they are upset or distrustful or plain or ignorant.
I've seen so many people ranting about things that aren't even true, it makes me wonder how they even know Mercenaries exists. They certainly haven't taken the time to find out any actual facts about it.
It was always a stupid, narcissistic practice anyway.
That is why I said 862 was unlikely. Thanks for playing.