Talk:Rarity

From Hearthstone Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Common[edit source]

Under the common card section it reads: "There are 168 unique common cards: 94 in the expert set (6 per class and 40 neutral) and 45 in the basic set (5 per class and 29 neutral)." Shouldn't it be: "74 in the basic set (5 per class and 29 neutral)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.100.4 (talkcontribs) 18:55, 22 March 2014‎

You're quite right - I've fixed it ;) -- Taohinton (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Basic[edit source]

The basic cards that are achieved through leveling a hero to 10 do not have a white gem on them... shouldn't they then go under free/basic cards, not common cards? I believe the reading would then be "There are 104 free cards (5 per class, 5 more per class if the hero is level 10, and 14 neutral)." That 14 may need to have 29 added to it, not certain. This will also change the card count under common cards, but I'm too new to the game to know this math well. I don't know a succinct way to write it, but perhaps a note should be added on how the basic cards achieved through leveling come every 2 levels through level 10. -Tsillec [01:10, 25 July 2014‎ User:72.78.17.63]

The confusion between free and basic cards seems to be a common one. Basic is a card set, while free is a card rarity. Basic cards are all either free or common, but in all cases do not feature a gem. This makes basic common cards look like free cards, since all free cards are basic. It might have been simpler if all basic cards were free, but this does not match the actual game data, and the wiki is written according to the game itself. I've expanded the explanation of this, since it's a 'common' misunderstanding. -- Taohinton (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
So there are 14 free basic neutral cards, and 29 common basic neutral . If the 29 common basic neutral cards are added to your deck automatically, why aren't those considered free too?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.100.4 (talkcontribs) 18:50, 9 November 2014‎
Regarding the wiki, as I've said above, this is simply what the game data itself states. As to why the developers chose to implement the cards this way, I'm not sure. -- Taohinton (talk) 04:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Legendary[edit source]

The Legendary section says: "Currently, all legendary cards are minion cards."
Shouldn't that be changed due to Ashbringer? (even though Ashbringer is an uncollectible card) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.111.6 (talkcontribs) 19:01, 12 August 2014‎

I actually tried to fix that a couple of days ago, but the wiki is currently bugging and not allowing me in most cases to edit this page. My edit would be to amend it to "all collectible legendary cards", since that accurately describes the situation. Until the editing issue resolves itself, feel free to make the edit. Feel free to add tables to the other rarity sections too, as currently seen in the Free section. -- Taohinton (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Card counts[edit source]

Shouldn't the summary of the amounts of legendary cards read "There are 42 legendary cards: 33 in the expert set (1 per class and 24 neutral), 6 in the Naxxramas set (all neutral), 2 in the promo set (both neutral), and 1 in the reward set (neutral)." or something along those lines? You can't get any of the promo or reward cards out of packs, so it seems like they should be segregated from the expert set.

Also, same thing with Captain's Parrot in the epic list.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.79.96 (talkcontribs) 14:26, 7 September 2014‎

Thanks for pointing that out. Looks like I forgot to sift them out when I added the Naxx cards. -- Taohinton (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

topic in discussion[edit source]

please add the lists for rares and epics, they'd be very useful! --79.56.151.57 01:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Due to technical limitations with the current table system all the tables on the one page were gumming up the works, with the result that the final ones were unable to be added. I've now created separate pages for the card lists, so that you can view a full list for each rarity. Glad you're finding them useful! -- Taohinton (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Common changed to Free in Basic set[edit source]

When looking at the Basic set in My Collection, I previously was able to filter on "Free" or "Common" to get the two subsets. I now get nothing when filtering on "Common", and all Basic cards when filtering on "Free". It looks like Blizzard decided to move all Basic cards into the Free rarity category.
I'm willing to go through the card data pages and change them as appropriate, but since it is a long list and I am new to this wiki I wanted to touch base first. Please let me know if there are objections to editing the card data to reflect the current situation.
BigHugger (talk) 09:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I took a look at the game data (here) and it seems that you are correct. Goldshire Footman used to be Common rarity, but is now tagged as "Free" with the release of Ungoro. Cards obtained from leveling seem to be all of Free rarity now. If you proceed to make your edits, you may document the history of the cards having been of Free & Common in the past. Thanks! Aegonostic (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Wow, way to dive in, BigHugger! Changes look great. - jerodast (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Muy excellente! Aegonostic (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, Jerodast and Aegnostic. And also thanks for the cleanup you did in the places that I overlooked, and the rephrasing of my awkard first attempts. BigHugger (talk) 09:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Never feel awkward about first attempts - the re-phrasings are probably just as awkward, and ultimately every single editor's work will become a tangled mish-mash of 5 other people's slightly different interpretations :) Tis the way of the wiki! - jerodast (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Arena balance[edit source]

User 181.29.48.231 has two times made a revision with a sarcastic comment on Ben Brode's quoted statement that "arena balance" is taken into account when considering rarity versus the reality of unbalancing cards like Firelands Portal and Kabal Talonpriest. (And, if I may add, Abyssal Enforcer before the last expansion came out). Now while I personally fully agree with that statement (and fear that Free from Amber will soon be on that list as well, the card is simply too good to be common in Arena), I undid the modification. Just like Jerodast did with the first attempt of 181.29.48.231 to get this feeling included.

My reason for undoing was not disagreement with the sentiment, but because of the way it was phrased. A wiki should be neutral. Opinion can be included, but only if it is opinion of someone (preferably someone with authority to make their opinion matter), attributed to that person. So if a similar statement were included as "opinion held by well known experienced arena players", and includes references linking to YouTube footage, Twitch highlights, or tweets, coming from people such as Kripp, Hafu, Adwcta, or Merps expressing that sentiment, then I would absolutely welcome it.

I personally know that at least Kripp has been lamenting on stream on the (paraphrasing his words) terrible job Blizzard does of balancing Arena. But I do not have links at hand, I do not have the time to go looking for them, and I also hope to find more references than Kripp alone.

I'll rephrase the design section to clarify that the statement in there is according to Ben Brode, and that Arena players are knwon to disagree, with a "citation needed" tag. -- BigHugger (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

All sounds good. One trick to being more neutral is to phrase it like "these guys say X is true" and not "X is true, so these guys were talking about it." That way the opinion is still stated without endorsing it. Obviously the choice to include any opinion requires us to judge its validity, popularity, and appropriateness, but in this case there's no doubt it's legitimate criticism.
Also, don't be afraid to totally re-word sections if it makes the ideas fit together better :) Pretty common when you have a short section about one topic then add a related topic or another angle on the first one. Ideally, it's supposed to sound like the two parts were planned and written together, so a lot of the time, literally doing that is the best way! - jerodast (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)