1) your argument works because you’re claiming the only reason people don’t play net decks all day is because they’re too expensive, and that’s your unproven claim. What if most people actually want to play fun decks but they’re too expensive? This feature would add a flow of fun decks. You’re assuming the majority of people are Spike players based on no actual evidence
2) the meta is always controlled by netdecks, that’s the condition for it being a netdeck. A rise in the number of netdeckers wouldn’t be a problem for fun-players, not a new one anyway. The netdeckers would rise up in the ladder, and the fun-players would largely remain on the lower level of the ladder or in casual, as it’s always been, so the number of netdeckers doesn’t really make this problem worse
keyvnn95 years ago @Shoemanband I am backing my claim with data from ViciousSyndicate, and we can all agree that it is reliable. There is one definitively best deck, there is only one good counter (Odd Paladin).
What are you backing yours with?
Shoemanband5 years ago @keyvnn9 You're assuming a lot of things about the meta to come to that conclusion: there is only one definite best meta deck, there is only one perfect counter to that meta deck, and players at lower ranks will overwhelmingly flush out other decks with these meta decks. In reality, all this would do is "solve" the meta faster and extend the high-level experience for people at low-level play. More netdecking doesn't lead to more or less diversity in the meta, that's solely the responsibility of the balance team and it's unrelated to an idea about adjusting the game's economy.
keyvnn95 years ago To be fair, Odd Paladin is a good counter, and is also relatively cheap, but then it turns into a dystopian rock-paper-scissors meta with Odd Paladin, Cube Hunter, and Taunt Druid or whatever.
keyvnn95 years ago @HAHA1n That’s not how it would work.
1. More players netdeck the best meta deck (Cube Hunter, which is relatively cheap)
2. Other decks that don’t do well against the best deck get slammed out of the meta
3. People aren’t incentivized to make new decks because they all have the best deck
4. Single counter deck exists, not playable because the people at high ranks don’t have resources to get it (too many Legendaries, etc)
5. 40% playrate of best deck in the meta prevents new players from getting any footing in ranked
HAHA1n5 years ago 1) More free players get the good decks
2) Good decks become weaker since more people play them
3) More decks start to show up
4) Rinse and repeat
5) Way more diverse meta
(Also more people can buy cards to counter good decks)
Gothe5 years ago @keyvnn9 and @GeneralGrievous if i could give my two cents on this matter; I think it would be possible for blizzard to somehow regulate and weed out certain cards. They did that with Hall of Fame cards, ones that they'd deemed are too powerful or limit future cards. Or for the Arena, how some cards are banned for being too powerful.
They can apply the same mentality to those cards, such as insanely powerful ones, such as Keleseth, would either not show up or very very very VERY rarely show up. I know this sin't a great fix, cuz, like @keyvnn9 said, how would they separate the really good cards (like dire mole) from the op, bordering broken cards (like Keleseth), that and and that blizzard is pretty slow to act on things.
In my opinion, i think it would be fine to allow all cards, since it states that the cards pools will rotate based on themes, and that means that all the cards that fit a theme wont even show up all at once (since there would probably be more than 10 cards fitting a theme.
keyvnn95 years ago @GeneralGrievous You can’t just disable the powerful cards. There are no ways to tell which cards are “bad” or not other than actual data, which would disable a HUGE amount of cards. Dire Mole, for one, isn’t a “scum” card, but sees TONS of play because it’s in some of the most popular decks that exist.
Also Blood Elf used to be a tier 1 tech card against Giggling.
GeneralGrievous5 years ago I personally love the idea of this (As a f2player) And yeah, it wouldn't be the toxic cards like keleseth or whatever, it would be like: Rager week! all ragers are half off! or Blood Elf Week! All blood elves are half off! stuff like that. And clearly Wild is superior given the player amount compared to standard and is 10 times more fun than standard that is full of net decks and toxic players. All the fun is in WILD!
Zgazsazer5 years ago love this, but blizzard will never print something like that. Less money in return x)
keyvnn95 years ago @LiteBlueJay Wild is either: Die turn 4, or get comboed by a control deck turn 7.
@Shoemanband It’s a problem with Hearthstone that this makes worse.
nimrod1111 5 years ago It could be divided into a wild and a standard merchant.
LiteBlueJay5 years ago Easy solution: Make it randomly choose cards from ALL cards available in the game. Both in Wild and Standard. Now you'll rarely get anything good. Plus, Wild is the best format, so more players!
Shoemanband5 years ago @keyvnn9 That's more of a problem with Hearthstone itself than with this system. If the cost of the game goes down, more people will be able to afford to craft better cards, and by extension more casual and f2p players can afford to build the decks they want. Players want to play the best decks to win the most, and the best decks are available online. That's just a natural trait of competitive collectible card games and is something Blizzard themselves promotes with their deck recipes and blog posts.
This system doesn't directly contribute to this issue because a majority of cards in the game are off-meta, so this system is more likely to discount those types of cards than competitive ones. This could actually make more off-meta decks popular since they are also more affordable and the system could be manipulated to promote those types of decks.
keyvnn95 years ago I know what this means.
You would see the cards each week and then look up which ones are in the best decks. In my example, Keleseth was the Legendary. It could also be Baku or Genn or Tarim or Malfurion the Pestilent or F. L. Jaina (you wouldn’t craft that knowing how bad Mage was) or Malygos or literally anything else. You would look it up and then craft it. Same for the other rarities. This means that MANY more people will play the ‘best decks’ in the meta.
JingleQuells 5 years ago @kevynn9 that's not how this works, you don't get to choose the cards.
Murghlinwall (4.3)5 years ago @keyvnn9, it wouldn't really because they'd be doing something random and different each week and it would very rarely be the cards to create the most oppressive netdecks
keyvnn95 years ago *Opens google* hs top decks
...keleseth good?
...hs zoo best deck
*Opens Hearthstone again*
Crafts Keleseth, Doubling Imp, Doomguard, and then every other zoo card they find.
This promotes netdecking the best deck.
Ragnarok5 years ago I would love seeing this! Mabybe every expansion the tavern will expand with a new person, merchant, gameplay.
This is Great! UPVOTE
SirCat5 years ago Yes. Yes! Promoted. 5 stars. Throw this in the game.
Wow this is an awesome idea
@keyvnn9
1) your argument works because you’re claiming the only reason people don’t play net decks all day is because they’re too expensive, and that’s your unproven claim. What if most people actually want to play fun decks but they’re too expensive? This feature would add a flow of fun decks. You’re assuming the majority of people are Spike players based on no actual evidence
2) the meta is always controlled by netdecks, that’s the condition for it being a netdeck. A rise in the number of netdeckers wouldn’t be a problem for fun-players, not a new one anyway. The netdeckers would rise up in the ladder, and the fun-players would largely remain on the lower level of the ladder or in casual, as it’s always been, so the number of netdeckers doesn’t really make this problem worse
ADD IT BLIZZARD ADD IT!!!
Yes
just yes
@Shoemanband I am backing my claim with data from ViciousSyndicate, and we can all agree that it is reliable. There is one definitively best deck, there is only one good counter (Odd Paladin).
What are you backing yours with?
@keyvnn9 You're assuming a lot of things about the meta to come to that conclusion: there is only one definite best meta deck, there is only one perfect counter to that meta deck, and players at lower ranks will overwhelmingly flush out other decks with these meta decks. In reality, all this would do is "solve" the meta faster and extend the high-level experience for people at low-level play. More netdecking doesn't lead to more or less diversity in the meta, that's solely the responsibility of the balance team and it's unrelated to an idea about adjusting the game's economy.
To be fair, Odd Paladin is a good counter, and is also relatively cheap, but then it turns into a dystopian rock-paper-scissors meta with Odd Paladin, Cube Hunter, and Taunt Druid or whatever.
@HAHA1n That’s not how it would work.
1. More players netdeck the best meta deck (Cube Hunter, which is relatively cheap)
2. Other decks that don’t do well against the best deck get slammed out of the meta
3. People aren’t incentivized to make new decks because they all have the best deck
4. Single counter deck exists, not playable because the people at high ranks don’t have resources to get it (too many Legendaries, etc)
5. 40% playrate of best deck in the meta prevents new players from getting any footing in ranked
1) More free players get the good decks
2) Good decks become weaker since more people play them
3) More decks start to show up
4) Rinse and repeat
5) Way more diverse meta
(Also more people can buy cards to counter good decks)
@keyvnn9 and @GeneralGrievous if i could give my two cents on this matter; I think it would be possible for blizzard to somehow regulate and weed out certain cards. They did that with Hall of Fame cards, ones that they'd deemed are too powerful or limit future cards. Or for the Arena, how some cards are banned for being too powerful.
They can apply the same mentality to those cards, such as insanely powerful ones, such as Keleseth, would either not show up or very very very VERY rarely show up. I know this sin't a great fix, cuz, like @keyvnn9 said, how would they separate the really good cards (like dire mole) from the op, bordering broken cards (like Keleseth), that and and that blizzard is pretty slow to act on things.
In my opinion, i think it would be fine to allow all cards, since it states that the cards pools will rotate based on themes, and that means that all the cards that fit a theme wont even show up all at once (since there would probably be more than 10 cards fitting a theme.
@GeneralGrievous You can’t just disable the powerful cards. There are no ways to tell which cards are “bad” or not other than actual data, which would disable a HUGE amount of cards. Dire Mole, for one, isn’t a “scum” card, but sees TONS of play because it’s in some of the most popular decks that exist.
Also Blood Elf used to be a tier 1 tech card against Giggling.
I personally love the idea of this (As a f2player) And yeah, it wouldn't be the toxic cards like keleseth or whatever, it would be like: Rager week! all ragers are half off! or Blood Elf Week! All blood elves are half off! stuff like that. And clearly Wild is superior given the player amount compared to standard and is 10 times more fun than standard that is full of net decks and toxic players. All the fun is in WILD!
love this, but blizzard will never print something like that. Less money in return x)
@LiteBlueJay Wild is either: Die turn 4, or get comboed by a control deck turn 7.
@Shoemanband It’s a problem with Hearthstone that this makes worse.
It could be divided into a wild and a standard merchant.
Easy solution: Make it randomly choose cards from ALL cards available in the game. Both in Wild and Standard. Now you'll rarely get anything good. Plus, Wild is the best format, so more players!
@keyvnn9 That's more of a problem with Hearthstone itself than with this system. If the cost of the game goes down, more people will be able to afford to craft better cards, and by extension more casual and f2p players can afford to build the decks they want. Players want to play the best decks to win the most, and the best decks are available online. That's just a natural trait of competitive collectible card games and is something Blizzard themselves promotes with their deck recipes and blog posts.
This system doesn't directly contribute to this issue because a majority of cards in the game are off-meta, so this system is more likely to discount those types of cards than competitive ones. This could actually make more off-meta decks popular since they are also more affordable and the system could be manipulated to promote those types of decks.
I know what this means.
You would see the cards each week and then look up which ones are in the best decks. In my example, Keleseth was the Legendary. It could also be Baku or Genn or Tarim or Malfurion the Pestilent or F. L. Jaina (you wouldn’t craft that knowing how bad Mage was) or Malygos or literally anything else. You would look it up and then craft it. Same for the other rarities. This means that MANY more people will play the ‘best decks’ in the meta.
@kevynn9 that's not how this works, you don't get to choose the cards.
@keyvnn9, it wouldn't really because they'd be doing something random and different each week and it would very rarely be the cards to create the most oppressive netdecks
*Opens google* hs top decks
...keleseth good?
...hs zoo best deck
*Opens Hearthstone again*
Crafts Keleseth, Doubling Imp, Doomguard, and then every other zoo card they find.
This promotes netdecking the best deck.
3.6? Wow this is odd
I would love seeing this! Mabybe every expansion the tavern will expand with a new person, merchant, gameplay.
This is Great! UPVOTE
Yes. Yes! Promoted. 5 stars. Throw this in the game.