L0rinda

Pack Prices to be Increased

Sign in to follow this  

38 posts in this topic

6nlbsJw.png

Pack prices in Europe are to be increased as of March 22 2017.

The extent of the price rise varies by region, but if paying in Euros, it is an 11 percent rise across the board. For GBP, the rise is over 20%, and has actually gone from £1.99 to £2.99 if buying two packs!

40 packs in Europe will now cost €49.99, up from €44.99. The price of the Un'Goro prelaunch bundle will remain the same until launch. All of the changes for all currencies can be found on the official forum post by Zaerhinon. 

udf9d30.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The increase is not really that severe, but it is still an increase. I am, of course, not happy about it. Oh well, greedy Blizzard being greedy as per usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, positiv2 said:

greedy Blizzard being greedy as per usual

Have you any insider knowledge whatsoever about the decision-making process behind the price increase?  Rhetorical question.  Global economy 101: dollar strong, pound weak.  Thing in UK cost more.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mimech said:

Have you any insider knowledge whatsoever about the decision-making process behind the price increase?  Rhetorical question.  Global economy 101: dollar strong, pound weak.  Thing in UK cost more.

I am not talking about the cost in pounds being increased more than the rest of europe (it will still be cheaper to buy in GBP than in EUR) - I'm talking about the fact that they are going to increase the prices itself. 

6 minutes ago, mimech said:

Global economy 101: dollar strong, pound weak

I could use a bit of global economy knowledge indeed, so what I am about to say might not be true - USDGBP is 0.82, which means one dollar is 0.82 pounds. From this value, I believe GBP is stronger than USD. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, positiv2 said:

 greedy Blizzard being greedy as per usual.

They build an entire game and let you play for free if you'd like, making absolutely no money unless you decide to purchase extra content. So greedy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, positiv2 said:

I could use a bit of global economy knowledge indeed, so what I am about to say might not be true - USDGBP is 0.82, which means one dollar is 0.82 pounds. From this value, I believe GBP is stronger than USD. 

That means it's weaker, as you get less dollars for the same number of pounds. If you wanted to travel from the UK to US and exchanged 100 pounds, you wouldn't get 100 dollars, you would get a little less, as 0.82 is not a full figure. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strength of curacy is measured by change in purchasing power.

 

If 1 GBP gets you 2 USD, and it has always been this way then there is no weaker or stronger curacy. A curacy becomes weaker or stronger when there is a change in this ratio. So if if it takes 1.1 GBP gets you 2 USD (and all prices in each country stay the same) then the GPB has weakened in comparison to the dollar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Plergoth said:

That means it's weaker, as you get less dollars for the same number of pounds. If you wanted to travel from the UK to US and exchanged 100 pounds, you wouldn't get 100 dollars, you would get a little less, as 0.82 is not a full figure. 

You got it confused. If 1 USD is 0.82 GBP, then the GBP is indeed stronger, because for 100 GBP you would get more than 100 USD, not less.

Think of it this way, if you want to "buy" 1 USD you would need 0.82 GBP, so for 100 USD you'd only need 82 GBP.

Currency sure can be confusing. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Plergoth said:

If you wanted to travel from the UK to US and exchanged 100 pounds, you wouldn't get 100 dollars, you would get a little less, as 0.82 is not a full figure. 

USDGBP is USD to GBP ratio. If USDGBP is 0.82, then 1 pound gets you 1.2 dollars, just like Ogerscherge said.

 

1 hour ago, Daedrik said:

They build an entire game and let you play for free if you'd like, making absolutely no money unless you decide to purchase extra content. So greedy.

Hearthstone is a pay2win game to some extent, forcing players to pay in order to have a material advantage over other players. 
Blizzard made 6.6 billion USD in 2016, so I don't think they really need that extra money they get from the pack increase. They are just greedy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, positiv2 said:

Hearthstone is a pay2win game to some extent, forcing players to pay in order to have a material advantage over other players. 
Blizzard made 6.6 billion USD in 2016, so I don't think they really need that extra money they get from the pack increase. They are just greedy.

Again, it's a free to play game that they spent millions of dollars developing. You can earn almost every card in the game (minus solo adventure cards, which aren't getting a price hike) just by playing the game. No one is being forced to pay to get cards, you can just play and earn them. If you don't like the company, the game, or the policies, no one's forcing you to play, either. Get over it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bring some torches and forkes!

We have a heretic who dares to say something against our almighty God Blizzard!

Let's burn him on a stake!

 

It truly is fantastic to see Blizzard Fanboys going into rage-mode if somebody dares to say something about the biggest love in their live...

Edited by WedgeAntilles
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, positiv2 said:

Blizzard made 6.6 billion USD in 2016, so I don't think they really need that extra money they get from the pack increase. They are just greedy.

Newsflash: Blizzard is a company, not a charity. They provide a product, and they have every right to charge whatever they want for their product. If you don't like it, you have every right not to buy it. That's your power as a consumer. 

The goal of any company is to make money. Wanting to make money is not greedy. 

Where do you think the money that Blizzard makes goes? Into Morhaime's pocket? Into Kaplan's? Into Brode's? Perhaps the extra revenue will be used to add more assets to the Hearthstone team. It might make the game better.

And even if Blizzard is just rubbing its hands together manically and cackling, it's still their right as a company to do so. They have no obligation to make the cheapest possible product if that isn't what's best for them, financially.

26 minutes ago, WedgeAntilles said:

Bring some torches and forkes!

We have a heretic who dares to say something against our almighty God Blizzard!

Let's burn him on a stake!

 

It truly is fantastic to see Blizzard Fanboys going into rage-mode if somebody dares to say something about the biggest love in their live...

 If you don't like Blizzard, you shouldn't support them by playing their games or spending money on their products. I'm not sure what you gain from belittling people who enjoy Blizzard games, or want to support the company. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Daedrik said:

Again, it's a free to play game that they spent millions of dollars developing

... and made billions off of it.

9 hours ago, Daedrik said:

minus solo adventure cards, which aren't getting a price hike

Actually, they do. Current price in € is 5.99, but it will rise to €6.99. Please, read the post next time.

9 hours ago, Daedrik said:

You can earn almost every card in the game (minus solo adventure cards, which aren't getting a price hike) just by playing the game.

Firstly, once the adventures are gone and pack expansions are the only ones, it will be significantly harder. For 2800 gold you could have had all the cards from the adventure expansion. With 2800, you can buy 28 packs, which is not even enough to get guarantee you a legendary. 
Secondly, it would take several years of actively playing the game, and even limiting yourself to arena, and even then only at a solid level. That's why there are so many jokes on F2P accounts on hearthstone, like "The first, and probably the hardest trick, is that you should have started playing Hearthstone when it was released so you could keep up with all the new expansions. Well now that may not be possible for everyone, so your best course of action would be inventing a time machine and going back in time." (link) - it's easier to invent a time machine to play HS as a F2P.

7 minutes ago, enviousmtg said:

The goal of any company is to make money. Wanting to make money is not greedy. 

I agree, but in this case, they already make a ton of money, and yet that's not enough for them, so they push the pack costs even higher. That is greedy.

9 minutes ago, enviousmtg said:

Where do you think the money that Blizzard makes goes? Into Morhaime's pocket? Into Kaplan's? Into Brode's? 

I guess it goes to Kotick's pocket, but then again, finances of massive companies like Blizzard is not my specialty.

13 minutes ago, enviousmtg said:

Perhaps the extra revenue will be used to add more assets to the Hearthstone team. It might make the game better.

It's not like they don't have the money they could spend on HS already. Also, the money could go to the development of Call of Duty rather than Hearthstone, and I couldn't care less about CoD.

19 minutes ago, enviousmtg said:

They have no obligation to make the cheapest possible product if that isn't what's best for them, financially.

I don't think paying €45 for digital cards can be  "cheapest possible", so increasing the cost by another €5 is not going to make players happy, I think that's clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I like Hearthstone, yes Blizzard is greedy, yes I like Blizzard still, yes I am f2p casual player, yes if you do not like any of it you are free to go on and make your own f2p card game with blackjack and hookers. 

Yes, I am triggered :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2017 at 6:22 AM, positiv2 said:

The increase is not really that severe, but it is still an increase. I am, of course, not happy about it. Oh well, greedy Blizzard being greedy as per usual.

I wouldn't really call it greed.  If you look at the trend in the euro, it has been decreasing in value compared to the dollar for quite some time, currently (before the price hike) it is cheaper to buy packs in euro's then it is in american dollars.  After the price hike, it will be slightly more expensive to buy in euros then american dollars.  I am not sure how much you know of the game industry, but in general, it costs a large amount of money to export games to other countries.  So when you consider that you are currently paying less for a game that costs Blizzard more to export, and if the current trend in conversion rate between euros and dollars is to continue (which it might or might not, I am no expert on finance so I can't even really speculate only extrapolate from the trend over the past few years), then it only makes logical sense for blizzard to implement a small price increase.  Blizzard as a corporation also has an obligation to their board of directors and stock holders to show growth and profit, and it is hard to defend making less money in a region that costs you more to export to then you do in your home region.  On top of that, Do you have the right to be unhappy about it, sure no one wants to pay more money for a service they are already using, but I don't think it is unreasonable or even unexpected.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VaraTreledees said:

If you look at the trend in the euro, it has been decreasing in value compared to the dollar for quite some time, currently (before the price hike) it is cheaper to buy packs in euro's then it is in american dollars.

The average difference for 40 packs I saw was around 2 USD cheaper for most of the european currencies I looked at before hike, and 3-5 after the hike. Getting 2 packs (taking $3=2 packs) less for the same amount of money on EU compared to US server is in my opinion quite significant. A bit finer pricing for some currencies would certainly be welcome. More frequent changes, like in the case of RBL, would be imo fine as well.
Most of the european currencies seem to be stable after the drop in October/November, but you do make a good point.

2 hours ago, VaraTreledees said:

I am not sure how much you know of the game industry, but in general, it costs a large amount of money to export games to other countries.

As far as I know, most of these costs come from localisations/translations, from shipping and other logistic issues, but none of these are the case, as there were no new languages added to HS, and Blizzard doesn't offer any physical goods tied directly to the items that are getting the price increase.

2 hours ago, VaraTreledees said:

I don't think it is unreasonable or even unexpected.  

I was actually quite surprised by this. Since LoE, Blizzard has been much more generous. They gave us launch quests, return quests and 4-wing adventures. Now, all of sudden, they took the adventures, removed classic cards from standard, and increased the cost of packs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2017 at 6:22 AM, positiv2 said:

The increase is not really that severe, but it is still an increase. I am, of course, not happy about it. Oh well, greedy Blizzard being greedy as per usual.

I believe these prices are also inclusive of ~20% VAT as well, correct?

Thanks, Brexit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually disagree that adventures are good for free to pay players. 2800 gold is roughly a month of daily quests+gold for wins and this is a lot of time.  I have started playing on Americas server two weeks ago mostly to try new arenas while I stockpile gold for Un Goro on European server.

It is impossible to craft any kind of reasonable deck because many key cards are in adventures. IMO, FTP players should be able to craft a top tier deck after few weeks of dedicated playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know how much uk corporate tax blizz pay?

I suddenly have a dreadful thought of what tax avoidance schemes they may be using to screw the UK over anyway.

Do I sound bitter yet?


Edit: Bleh, some basic investigation suggests they have been using registered Dutch subsidiaries with special status that are fiscally resident in Bermuda.
 

Edited by SuperFly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Strongpoint said:

I actually disagree that adventures are good for free to pay players. 2800 gold is roughly a month of daily quests+gold for wins and this is a lot of time.

But that is all you needed for an adventure. So you spent your gold earned in one single month for the expansion and had 7 more month to save for the next full card expansion. On the other side, you won't get far with 28 packs. You will pull out 2 legedaries, if you're lucky, while you got 5-6 for each adventure.

Blizzard should be honest and rename the upcoming season to "Year of the Mammon". I will simply go f2p and only play Wild in the future. Having saved up 5k gold for Ungoro packs and 10k dust (including refunds for Rag, Sylvanas, ...) should be enough in this format. There won't be that many new cards you need to stay competitive in Wild, while you have keep your collection continuously up to date in Standard.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kerkermeister said:

But that is all you needed for an adventure. So you spent your gold earned in one single month for the expansion and had 7 more month to save for the next full card expansion. On the other side, you won't get far with 28 packs. You will pull out 2 legedaries, if you're lucky, while you got 5-6 for each adventure.

I can see your point here but I am not sure that I can agree. Three expansions are worse for players because it is more packs to buy with money\gold but it comes from the fact that there will be far more cards.  More cards without more ways to get gold\free packs is a blow for FTP players.

As far as I know 28 packs offer 2800 dust in disenchanting value on average. Adventure wing gives less disenchanting value but it is not random and never give duplicates so it is balanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Strongpoint said:

I actually disagree that adventures are good for free to pay players. 2800 gold is roughly a month of daily quests+gold for wins and this is a lot of time.  I have started playing on Americas server two weeks ago mostly to try new arenas while I stockpile gold for Un Goro on European server.

It is impossible to craft any kind of reasonable deck because many key cards are in adventures. IMO, FTP players should be able to craft a top tier deck after few weeks of dedicated playing.

Let's compare Adventure vs Expansion.

League of Explorer had one Legendary Card with huge Meta-Impact: Reno Jackson

And another which is very usefull in quite a lot of decks Sir Finley Mrrgglton

It took us 2800 gold to get these cards.

And there were other cards which were usefull too.

Let's compare it to an expansion. In most expansions there are two or three legendaries with a big meta-impact. And sometimes a few class specific ones.

You need around 3000 gold to get just one legendary card. There are 15 - 20 legendaries in each expansion.

Your chances of getting the meta-defining ones are around 15%, if there are lots of important class legendaries higher.

Since you can disentchant not needed cards (which is not that much in the beginning, since you have 0, meaning your first 20 - 30 packs there aren't many cards you own 3 times+) you can safely asume that you need around 60 packs (with 2 legendaries you probably don't need) until you can craft one meta-defining legendary.

With 2-3 meta-defining cards you need around 120 packs. That is 12 000 gold.

(And if there are more then 3 legendaries you fast reach 15 000+)

That is 4 - 5 times the amount of gold you need to get the important legendaries compared to the adventure.

12000 necessary gold vs 2800 necessary gold.

No, that definitly isn't a HUGE advantage for the adventures. *sarcasm*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WedgeAntilles said:

League of Explorer had one Legendary Card with huge Meta-Impact: Reno Jackson

And another which is very usefull in quite a lot of decks Sir Finley Mrrgglton

It took us 2800 gold to get these cards.

Finley is in 3rd wing, which means it takes 700g less - it takes only 2100 to get these two cards.

2 hours ago, WedgeAntilles said:

You need around 3000 gold to get just one legendary card.

You need 16 packs on average to get a legendary card, assuming you disenchant everything. If you do not disenchant everything (if you keep the good cards that you do not have), the value of packs goes higher.

2 hours ago, WedgeAntilles said:

There are 15 - 20 legendaries in each expansion.

To make it a bit more accurate - 23 for Un'Goro, 20 for Mean Streets, 21 for Whispers. So, it's more like 20-25, and the average Mammoth standard is 21.3 (let's round it down to 21).

2 hours ago, WedgeAntilles said:

Since you can disentchant not needed cards (which is not that much in the beginning, since you have 0, meaning your first 20 - 30 packs there aren't many cards you own 3 times+) you can safely asume that you need around 60 packs (with 2 legendaries you probably don't need) until you can craft one meta-defining legendary.

With 2-3 meta-defining cards you need around 120 packs.
(And if there are more then 3 legendaries you fast reach 15 000+)

Well, after your 60 packs (though it's a number I disagree with you on), your collection will be much closer to being full, which means you'll need way less packs after the first legendary.
With 3 meta-defining legendaries from an expansion with 21 legendaries, you have a bit over 14% chance to get one of the meta-defining ones whenever you get a legendary. With the average of 20 packs per legendary, once you open 80 packs, you will have almost 50% chance to open a legendary you need/want. This further reduces the amount of packs needed.

Additionally, you seem to be missing that card packs can be grinded in arena even with less than 7 wins average, but to get adventures, you have to get more than 7 wins each time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Aleco

      We take a look back on the first week of the KFT metagame to share everything you can do to dominate the next one.
      With the first week of Knights of the Frozen Throne behind us we are just now starting to glimpse what the upcoming meta has in store for us. It’s still far too early to claim that all the new decks and archetypes have been finely tuned, but we have learned a lot from our first week with the new cards in KFT.
      The first change we encountered in the new meta was the dominance of the dedicated control deck. Towards the end of the Un’Goro metagame the most dominant decks were almost entirely aggressive or midrange in nature, yet nearly all of the most played decks from the first week of KFT have been controlling. Everybody was very excited to try the new Death Knight cards, and since these cards have high mana costs they tended to end up in naturally controlling or midrange decks.
      Once it became obvious that nearly every deck on the ladder was big and greedy, the next few days became a battle to become even bigger and greedier. At one point while watching Dog’s stream I saw him put N'Zoth into his Control Mage deck with only two Deathrattle cards in the entire deck (Pyros and the Frozen Champions from Sindragosa) to get back from N’Zoth’s battlecry! Talk about greedy.
      As fun as it was to have a Control-dominated meta for the first few days of KFT, this kind of greed wouldn’t go unpunished for very long. Thanks to a lack of Aggro decks, the overwhelming popularity of Jade Druid, and the new cards Simulacrum and Ghastly Conjurer, a more consistent Quest Mage deck emerged as a way to punish the slow meta. As players started to gear more and more towards beating slow decks, the pendulum began to swing back towards the aggro side of things. In the past few days the number of Pirate Warriors on ladder has greatly risen, and I haven’t spotted a single Frost Lich Jaina or Uther of the Ebon Blade in over 100 games.
      Towards the end of the Un’Goro metagame no one class was vastly more dominant than the others, but the same is certainly not true for the early days of KFT. Druid has become the most popular by a wide margin. According to the current Reaper Live report a staggering 36% of the Legend meta is made up of Druid decks. Thanks in no small part to the new cards Ultimate Infestation and Spreading Plague, Druid now boasts highly competitive Midrange and Control decks to compliment the Aggro deck which was already top tier in Un’Goro.
      A major reason why all three decks are so difficult to play against is how difficult it is to mulligan against a Druid. You can never know for sure if you should be keeping cards which are strong against Jade Druid or Aggro Druid, which surely plays a part in the success of both decks. Druid might be quite strong at the moment but it is certainly not unbeatable, and according to the Reaper Live report there are multiple decks which have a positive winrate against two of three Druid builds.
      Meta Beaters
      The perfect deck for this early meta will have the defensive tools to outclass Aggro decks such as Pirate Warrior and Aggro Druid in the early game while still being fast enough to kill Jade Druid and Kazakus Priest decks before they get the chance to dominate the late game. Aggro decks make up only 25% of the current meta, which means it’s still much more important to slant your deck towards the speedy end of things so that you can beat up on the slower decks which are still popular. All of these signs point towards an aggressively slanted Midrange deck as the best choice for the current meta, and the data from Reaper Live agrees. The deck with the best winrates across the board is not a Druid deck at all, but an aggressive Midrange Murloc Paladin deck.
      Midrange Murloc Paladin
      2x Murloc Tidecaller 2x Righteous Protector 2x Vilefin Inquisitor 2x Hydrologist 2x Rockpool Hunter 2x Murloc Warleader 2x Rallying Blade 1x Stonehill Defender 1x Wickerflame Burnbristle 2x Blessing of Kings 2x Corpsetaker 2x Gentle Megasaur 1x Bolvar, Fireblood 1x Finja, the Flying Star 2x Spikeridged Steed 1x Sunkeeper Tarim 2x Bonemare 1x Tirion Fordring Shockingly, Midrange Paladin has positive matchups against every deck in the meta except for Token Shaman and Aggro Druid, but even these matchups sit at a very manageable 48%. The deck was already a strong choice in the Un’Goro meta but it picked up some exciting new toys in KFT to build upon its previous success. Defensive minions like Righteous Protector and Corpsetaker allow the deck stall aggressive decks into the midgame, where Midrange Paladin shines. A Bonemare or a Spikeridged Steed on a Skelemancer is commonly a game ending play, and all of the powerful legendary minions the deck had access to in the Un’Goro meta have gone nowhere.
      Midrange Paladin also packs an impressive number of early Murlocs which are capable of applying tons of pressure. The dream 1-2-3-4 of Murloc Tidecaller into Rockpool Hunter into Murloc Warleader into Gentle Megasaur has to potential to kill as early as turn 4 against any opponent who doesn't pack interaction for the early game . With Murloc Paladin boasting such high win rates across the board, don’t be surprised if you see Hungry Crab start popping up as the tech card of choice in the near future.
      Big Priest
      2x Forbidden Shaping 1x Silence 2x Pint-Size Potion 2x Potion of Madness 2x Shadow Visions 2x Shadow Word: Pain 2x Shadow Word: Death 1x Barnes 2x Eternal Servitude 2x Priest of the Feast 2x Shadow Word: Horror 2x Dragonfire Potion 2x Shadow Essence 1x Free From Amber 1x The Lich King 2x Obsidian Statue 1x Ysera 1x Y'Shaarj, Rage Unbound In what I consider to be another big surprise, Big Priest is the only other deck with positive winrates against two of the three popular Druid decks . A brand new deck in KFT thanks to Eternal Servitude, Shadow Essence, and Obsidian Statue, the deck boasts a dominant 71% winrate against Midrange Druid and a very respectable 53% against Token Druid. Its 45% win rate against Jade Druid isn’t embarrassing either, which means this deck still has some game against the most popular deck in the format.
      Big Priest seems like a very luck-oriented deck on its surface as it features high-roll cards like Barnes and Shadow Essence to pull powerful minions from its deck at a discounted cost, yet in practice the deck is shockingly consistent. It doesn’t have any true misses off a Barnes, who himself is the only awkward card to hit off Shadow Essence. Even if it doesn’t hit one of these cards early, double Dragonfire Potion and double Pint-Size Potion plus Shadow Word: Horror allows the deck to draw out the game until they can play their huge minions naturally.
      With all that said, the deck still has a tendency to defeat itself by drawing the wrong combination of cards. It gets absolutely run over by Pirate Warrior and Quest Mage and isn’t able to run tech cards like Golakka Crawler or Dirty Rat due to the nature of Barnes and Shadow Essence. Fortunately for fans of Big Priest, these two bad matchups make up just 10% of the meta while the positive matchups for Big Priest account for roughly 40% of the meta, making Big Priest an excellent choice for the early KFT metagame.
      Tech of the Week
      The one piece of technology which has remained consistently powerful throughout the first week of KFT is The Black Knight. Thanks to the extremely widespread play of Bonemare there are almost no decks in the metagame which lack a juicy target for The Black Knight to gobble up. This Aggro Druid list which hit #1 Legend not only runs Bonemare, but also runs The Black Knight to pave the way for its cheaper minions to sneak in those last few points of damage. It doesn’t really seem to matter if your Aggro, Midrange, or Control, The Black Knight is a game winning tech card in the current meta. 
      Deck to Watch
      The success of Midrange Paladin can be attributed to the fact that it is both fast enough to go underneath the current Control decks and defensive enough to go over the top of the current Aggro decks. Any other deck which is capable of accomplishing this same feat would also be very well positioned, which makes me believe that Nostam's Midrange Hunter is poised to take off.
      2x Alleycat 2x Hungry Crab 2x Tracking 2x Crackling Razormaw 2x Golakka Crawler 2x Kindly Grandmother 2x Animal Companion 2x Bearshark 2x Eaglehorn Bow 2x Kill Command 2x Houndmaster 1x Nesting Roc 2x Tundra Rhino 1x Deathstalker Rexxar 2x Savannah Highmane 2x Bonemare This deck has all the tools it needs to blast its way through Jade Druid with the proper draw. Bearshark curves amazingly into Houndmaster, and Bonemare is like a Houndmaster on steroids. It runs a healthy curve of one and two drops to contest the board early, and pack all four crabs so it can steal some free wins off of Aggro decks. Deathstalker Rexxar seems at his absolute best in this style of deck, as he provides the deck with the card draw engine it needs to not run out of steam against controlling decks.
      I still think the list has a bit of room to improve. Hunter is currently the least played class in the entire meta which also means it is the least tested. I’m not sure that double Tundra Rhino shines in this list without Deathstalker Rexxar already in play. The deck also might be in need one more tool to outvalue opposing Midrange decks in the mid to late game, as it doesn’t pack many tools to catch up once it’s fallen behind.
      Conclusion
      Our goal with this report was to get you up to speed on the current trends in the meta and to provide you with the analysis you’ll need to stay ahead of the competition. As this was our first meta report for Hearthstone we would love to hear your feedback on what you felt worked or what you thought might have been missing. Please feel free to tell us in the comments what you found to be helpful and if there if there is anything you’d like to see in the next meta report!
      Until next time,
      Aleco
    • By Zadina

      Choose your Champion returns for the Hearthstone Global Games finals.
      Once again, as with every major Hearthstone competition hosted by Blizzard, we can choose our favourite representative and potentially win card packs! This time it's the Hearthstone Global Games finals with four teams of four people from four different countries.
      The finalists are: the United States, Ukraine, South Korea and the Czech Republic.
      Head over to this site and pick the country that you think is most likely to win. The voting will last until August 23 at 23:59 PDT. You will get a free Knights of the Frozen Throne pack just for participating in the voting. Since the Global Games are already on the semi-finals stage, you can win up to a maximum of two packs only (given that the two semi-finalists will progress to the finals and there's no progressing after that).
      The finals will take place at Gamescom on August 25. Choose wisely!
    • By Vlad
      This thread is for comments about our Sindragosa guide for Knights of the Frozen Throne.
    • By Vlad
      This thread is for comments about our Blood Queen Lana'thel guide for Knights of the Frozen Throne.
    • By Vlad
      This thread is for comments about our Professor Putricide guide for Knights of the Frozen Throne.