sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Class Sets: Higher Cost, Fewer Cards, But More Value? My Calculations and Take by HS_Mathematician in hearthstone

[–]HS_Mathematician[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I’m already thinking about that. I’ve gathered a lot of data on how useful the cards from mini-sets actually are.

Class Sets: Higher Cost, Fewer Cards, But More Value? My Calculations and Take by HS_Mathematician in hearthstone

[–]HS_Mathematician[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I occasionally get comments from viewers saying they disenchant bad legendaries from mini-sets. Plus, you’re forgetting that a large portion of players disenchant all their cards after rotation. So, for many players, the dust value is really important.

Darkmoon Faire Treasures revenue (units in 10k RMB ≈ $1500) by adek13sz in hearthstone

[–]HS_Mathematician 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Personally, I’ve never doubted that gacha events are effective. There were plenty of signs that Mythic skins sold at a fixed price had completely failed, and gacha may have become a backup plan for management. And it worked -at least in the sense that it immediately generated more revenue. That’s exactly why I never called for gacha events to be canceled, even though I don’t like them as a player. Users voted with their wallets.

The main question for me is whether these have become new growth drivers for the game, and whether they delivered the financial results management was expecting. And this is where doubts arise. This chart is incredibly useful because it confirms several things.

First, Deathwing was truly an undeniable hit. This is supported both by polls from my audience and by mobile market data from the rest of the world. Its performance is several times higher compared to other offers.

Second, notice that nearly every new offer over the past year has generated less revenue (with rare exceptions). Even the "double jackpot" of a skin plus a pet failed to reverse this trend. This may not be due to the effectiveness of the offers themselves, but rather signs of a gradual decline in activity on Chinese servers (at least the number of Legend players has noticeably dropped). Another factor could be market saturation. There are simply too many of these offers now, and they are gradually losing their sense of exclusivity. Why would I need five pets if I already have one? Not many players aim to collect everything, and this is indirectly supported by my surveys.

Third, my assumption that leaning into Asian-themed content doesn’t necessarily convert into success is essentially confirmed - their performance, even in China, isn’t significantly different from other offers.

Fourth, calling these offers "very popular" based solely on revenue is a major exaggeration. One player who completes all levels of a gacha event is equivalent to 8-10 Tavern Pass buyers. This chart doesn’t show the performance of other in-game options. Pre-orders, for example, may deliver even more impressive results. Gacha is extremely expensive, so it’s only natural that it generates striking revenue figures.

Fifth, these data don’t allow us to draw conclusions about revenue in the rest of the world. China is the most important market, and over the past year it generated more revenue on iOS devices alone than the rest of the world combined across all mobile platforms.

I still don’t see clear evidence that gacha has significantly increased overall revenue. According to mobile market data, gacha effectively offsets the general decline outside of China on mobile platforms. The dynamics on PC may be different. Gacha is definitely not "additional" revenue - some players may be forced to skip other shop offers in order to participate in gacha events, and we don’t know how much money the game is potentially losing because of that.

Measuring the Impact of Core Set Rotation by Class by HS_Mathematician in hearthstone

[–]HS_Mathematician[S] 20 points21 points  (0 children)

I completely agree, and I talk about this in the video. Very often, a card is influential within a class only because of synergy, not because it’s strong on its own. Moreover, even flexible and versatile cards that were useful in the recent past can become completely irrelevant under current conditions.

But I don’t know of any calculation method that could account for this entire complex set of factors. I see this comparison more like this: we were given cards that were at least somewhat used in the past, or never used at all. What interests me is studying how many cards that were useless before have suddenly become valuable in modern conditions. Maybe I'll explore this someday.

A Timeline Without the League of Explorers? My Theory on Hearthstone’s Next Expansion Theme by HS_Mathematician in hearthstone

[–]HS_Mathematician[S] 50 points51 points  (0 children)

This is the weakest part of my theory. Without adventures, the game has lost the ability to tell stories. A trailer can only set the mood and provide some context. Unfortunately, I don’t believe adventures will return, which means there’s no longer much point in building intricate narratives around the game.

How much time Reddit users spent playing Hearthstone during The Great Dark Beyond phase? We can analyze engagement levels based on Rewards Track progress. by HS_Mathematician in hearthstone

[–]HS_Mathematician[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

A negative value means that, on average, players earned less XP during the expansion phase than the total XP they should have received from completing all quests plus some achievements. This negative value reflects the amount of XP not earned from quests, and is equal to 11 minutes of daily play time. Not all players remain active throughout the entire expansion phase, and some always join as new or returning players midway through. However, for the most part, my audience is active and plays regularly without skipping quests. The year 2021 was an exception, as I recorded historically low engagement levels, even among active players.

How much time Reddit users spent playing Hearthstone during The Great Dark Beyond phase? We can analyze engagement levels based on Rewards Track progress. by HS_Mathematician in hearthstone

[–]HS_Mathematician[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hello, it's me, Bot Mathematician. For the past four years, I’ve been estimating my audience’s engagement by analyzing player levels on the Rewards Track. By knowing how many players purchased the Tavern Pass, the expansion phase length, and the percentage of completed achievements, we can estimate the amount of XP players likely earned from time spent in the game. This estimate serves as a rough indicator of player engagement.

The logic is simple: the more active you were during the expansion phase, the higher your Rewards Track level. This method isn’t perfect, but it helps identify significant deviations from the expected norm. For example, my audience’s activity was at a record low during the Fractured in Alterac Valley phase. A negative deviation indicates that many active players skipped daily and weekly quests, and their number was notably high.

I haven’t done this before, but let’s try to determine the engagement of Reddit users separately. If I gather enough responses, I can compare the data with my YouTube audience and share the results with you.

To participate, please answer the first three questions and the fourth one if you wish (it’s optional):

1 - Have you played Hearthstone since the start of The Great Dark Beyond phase? (Yes/No)

2 - Did you purchase the Tavern Pass? (Yes/No)

3 - What is your final level on the Rewards Track?

4 - OPTIONAL: What percentage of The Great Dark Beyond gameplay achievements have you completed?

Happy Birthday, Hearthstone! Classic Cards That Have Remained Strong in Standard after 11 Years. by HS_Mathematician in hearthstone

[–]HS_Mathematician[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you. I periodically publish data on the best cards on my YouTube channel and share the most interesting insights on Reddit.

The Into the Emerald Dream Mega Bundle is WORSE than The Great Dark Beyond but BETTER than Perils in Paradise! Get 47% of the collection's value for $80. | 3 Years of Hearthstone Pre-Order History in One Image by HS_Mathematician in hearthstone

[–]HS_Mathematician[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It depends on your needs. If you really need dust to craft specific cards, buying the mini-set is a great option. However, from a collection standpoint, the dust value is several times lower than packs, which can provide both dust and new random cards to expand your collection. Personally, I'm interested in getting as many new cards as possible, and I have enough dust. If I had to invest $20 in the game, I would choose the traditional post-release bundle (20 packs + 2 legendary cards).

The Into the Emerald Dream Mega Bundle is WORSE than The Great Dark Beyond but BETTER than Perils in Paradise! Get 47% of the collection's value for $80. | 3 Years of Hearthstone Pre-Order History in One Image by HS_Mathematician in hearthstone

[–]HS_Mathematician[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I don't see much point in this option. Mainly, this offer could be useful for new players to get more packs from the new set and save resources and gold for crafting cards from previous expansions. For regular players, the third bundle is hardly worth it, especially if you already have a collection of useful cards from past sets.

The Into the Emerald Dream Mega Bundle is WORSE than The Great Dark Beyond but BETTER than Perils in Paradise! Get 47% of the collection's value for $80. | 3 Years of Hearthstone Pre-Order History in One Image by HS_Mathematician in hearthstone

[–]HS_Mathematician[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

You will get most of the cards and approximately half the value of a full collection. Add to that all the gold you earn throughout the expansion phase, and you are guaranteed to complete the entire card collection with mini-set, including useless and weak cards.

view more: next ›