I think a yugioh style format would be cool. Deck limit at 40 and increase the same card limit on common/rare cards to 3. Epic and legendary card limit would stay the same.
I just don't get why people play hearthstone and then want to change hearthstone into another game. If you want more cards, play elder scrolls: Legends or Magic the Gathering Arena. Hearthstone is successful, because it is a simple game and nearly everyone can understand how to play it. Most ideas people comeup with are just not fitting for hearthstone as this one as well. Why would you want to have a bigger deck? Legendaries would be drawn less, combos would be less viable since it will be less consistent to get them in your hand, etc. Unless, of course, you also would adjust the number of copies you can have in a deck.
Nah, Hearhtstone is finely adjusted for its gameplay including decksize, life total, mana gain, handsize and its mechanics.
As a brawl a bigger deck would be acceptable. As a complete mode not viable.
Nope even YGO that has 3 max of the same cards even then we use 40cards then ( max60) and even then sometimes consistency is an isue depending on the deck. What i apritiate from them is that they tried to add searchers ( Like sandshaper , Juicy Psychmellon or so) but they never did fully commited to idea . OR idea of GY for priest only so far is relevant to big/cloning galery/otk priest with spellstone and lot of diferent ressurect cards. I do wish for more "banish like" cards ( like gnomerafy not like Void contract) and some changes like actualy seeing what card are dead for oponent ,more detailed log, opcion to skip animation and text popups, more stable blizzard client and so on. And yea this turned out to be me biching about game features itself or there lack their off.
Yes, absolutely, 30 cards make too easy to build any deck too much consistent and refined decks with so few cards kill all the variety of the game and turn netdecking a braindead practice.
Only 2 cards and only 1 legendary restriction should be mantained and the size of the deck increased to 60, the only thing should be done is instead of fatigue the player lose the game if can't draw cards from your deck anymore.
This change alone turn the game 500% better.
fatigue killing you instantly? are you really a warrior main? it would make the game worse.. getting a "god hand" would be even more frustrating.
if the deck limit was 60 but you could put at minimum 30, nobody would use a 31 deck, look at yugioh, there's a lighsworn archtype there which is an aggressive archtype that mills your own deck, and there fatigue=loss too, the deck size in yugioh is 40-60.. can you guess how many card that self mill deck uses?
Given the simplicity required for the game, more than 30 is bad, specifically for Hearthstone. Personally, I would love 40 card decks. I come from other card games, and I love having more cards to play. With Magic: The Gathering, 60 card decks can contain 4 copies of most cards. It equates perfectly with Hearthstone, considering it's a 2 card maximum for most cards, with a 30 card deck. It just works.
On a serious note, this may be an interesting idea in Wild (with perhaps a 5 HP buff to go along with it and compensate for crazy power level of the combos there) but not in Standard.
30 proved to be a good measure between variety and consistency.
Also, one can still play Thief Priest or Rogue or Quest Mage and even DK Rexxar and enjoy variety there, with no need to make the majority of player's life worse.
Yes, absolutely, 30 cards make too easy to build any deck too much consistent and refined decks with so few cards kill all the variety of the game and turn netdecking a braindead practice.
Only 2 cards and only 1 legendary restriction should be mantained and the size of the deck increased to 60, the only thing should be done is instead of fatigue the player lose the game if can't draw cards from your deck anymore.
This change alone turn the game 500% better.
fatigue killing you instantly? are you really a warrior main? it would make the game worse.. getting a "god hand" would be even more frustrating.
if the deck limit was 60 but you could put at minimum 30, nobody would use a 31 deck, look at yugioh, there's a lighsworn archtype there which is an aggressive archtype that mills your own deck, and there fatigue=loss too, the deck size in yugioh is 40-60.. can you guess how many card that self mill deck uses?
You don't understand, I not talking about limits of 30 or 60, I talking about all decks be 60 cards, this make the game much more diverse and the netdecker will need to learn how to play instead follow a script of refined list what is pathetic easy to do with only 30 cards in decks.
2- 30 proved to be a good measure between variety and consistency.
1- When consistency is waaaaaaaaay too easy to get the game become boring quickly because the refined lists are get few weeks after release, like now for example, opponent play one single card or Baku/Genn effect show in start and you already know all cards in that deck.
2- 30 proved to be too few to promote challenges to play and build a deck and make netdecking a brainless decision.
More variety and decisions in games >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistency.
60 cards deck will make this game much, much better than now.
They should remove the max card cap... so you could make a deck with any number of cards... but keep the minimum at 30 cards... people will fill their decks with random cards to a whopping 300 card deck to avoid fatigue, but the chances of drawing a card would be lowered...
I for one would love a gamemode with infinite cards in decks... (sure keep the 2 cards max per card limit)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To live is to suffer, to survive is to find meaning in the suffer!
Right now all the archetypes which remain more than one expansion have their core cards which never change [unless something even more powerful is printed] and it's like a half of the deck. Look at your decks: you can't get rid of silence, combo cards, AoE etc. and only few slots can be traded for cards which suit more in current meta like mossy horror.
More cards slots would make it more difficult to create even/odd deck even forcing players to put some shitty cards just to close the deck. These decks saw no change between witchwood and boomsday and i bet Rastakan would not do so as well.
Chances of getting perfect hand will drop so you will not so often see even warlock droping 2 giants on turn 3&4 or every aggro droping keleseth on turn 1 or 2
On other hand having more slots would allow players to put more minions and make use of their synergy [beast for example] way more often than in just few specialized decks.
Right now all the archetypes which remain more than one expansion have their core cards which never change [unless something even more powerful is printed] and it's like a half of the deck. Look at your decks: you can't get rid of silence, combo cards, AoE etc. and only few slots can be traded for cards which suit more in current meta like mossy horror.
More cards slots would make it more difficult to create even/odd deck even forcing players to put some shitty cards just to close the deck. These decks saw no change between witchwood and boomsday and i bet Rastakan would not do so as well.
Chances of getting perfect hand will drop so you will not so often see even warlock droping 2 giants on turn 3&4 or every aggro droping keleseth on turn 1 or 2
On other hand having more slots would allow players to put more minions and make use of their synergy [beast for example] way more often than in just few specialized decks.
The main argument against larger decks is the concept that they would be less stable and more random. That's the first time I think that I'v seen someone basically say "yes and that's why we should have it".
To which I say, I'm not so sure the public would stomach that.
Note that Hearthstone has spent years slowly paring down it's randomness. Also folks from MTG declare the lack of deck randomness (that is you end up with less "OMG I LOSE!" hands here thanks to the lack of land cards) as one of the better features of this game.
The randomness is a little TOO stable thanks to cards like Baku/Genn and the Quests. But I believe that's better fixed by card balance and rotation rather than adding more inherent randomness to the system.
Also I don't see decks with more slots being more flexible. Either they will add more synergy cards (i.e. Deathrattle Hunter getting to add more high end beasts) or just add more card draw. Some decks will be unable to do either and, thus, add more 'trash' to fill the slots. Those will just fade away in preference to the decks that CAN fill all of the slots. In the end, 30 or 40 cards there will be a 'best cards to add' and once that's found that's THAT.
Note that other card games combine higher deck sizes with more copies of a card per set. MTG adds land and 4-per-card. Shadowverse lets you add 3 copies of legendaries to a deck. So on. Once you balance it out the decks end up similar to HS decks in stability vs randomness, and the areas where they don't are seen as a negative, not a positive.
Note: if HS was in beta, I COULD see myself advocating for, say, 45 card decks with 3 cards per deck and 2 copies of legendaries, but then I realize that the MASSIVE amount of extra legendaries I needed to get is specifically WHY I left shadowverse and thinking that I'd have to double up on the legendaries I'd need for a deck would make me cry (perhaps have it so that you only need one 'card' for legendaries, but they would 'double', so 'adding one legendary' would mean they show up twice in the deck. Or is that just too messed up :P)
If youve played Gwent, you know the best and most consistent decks have the least amount of cards. Adding more cards to a deck seems like a benefit on the surface, but it will make your deck less consistent. Also, control mirror games will last too long. Playing odd warrior is long enough with 30 cards.
Imagine with the current cards how badly will be the odd limitation if warrior need to build a 50 cards deck, he will have a lot of trouble to draw your removals with many suboptimal cards he will force to use because Baku, it is a form of balance the game, aggro will have a much better chance vs odd warrior and OTK/combo decks will be much more harder to work giving the odd warrior player a better chance of winning.
The game will be much more diverse, harder to brainless copy decks and much more skill will needed to manage the suboptimal resources instead refined netdecks.
I really don't see why so many people don't like the idea...
No, the game won’t be more diverse. Here’s why.
Classes like druid have many strong cards. If their deck size was increased to say 40, the combo decks would just start running auctioneer, barkskins, innervates, biology projects, etc. Druid loses almost nothing here, as they can still easily pull off their combo, it would just maybe take one extra turn.
A class like mage or rogue on the other hand gets destroyed by this. Both classes have not so many great cards, and for a deck like tempo mage to add 10 more garbage cards to the deck, it would screw the whole archetype over.
Fatigue decks and control decks would be gone, as some matchups would be impossible. Decks would have way too much value. You could argue that the control deck would just put in more removal, but there really isn’t that much more than what’s used in most control decks.
Other combo decks such as shudderwock would struggle and just immediately disappear from the meta. The class just doesn’t have enough draw and would get destroyed by aggro, as most decks would.
Aggro would pretty much never run out of resources, especially zoolock, as it can tap to get more cards, and there are many good aggro minions in the game. Not even control would be able to keep up.
So basically what you’re asking for is long, polarized matchups where aggro and midrange rules and combo and control are destroyed, leaving millions of players pissed off because you destroyed their favorite deck, and ruined their game. Sounds like a great idea!
Eternal doesn't have a cap. They even have a quest to win a game with a 200 card deck, if that tells you anything.
MTG doesn't have a cap either.
And if you ask anyone how many cards you SHOULD have in your deck, the answer is the same: the bare minimum.
In a card game, adding cards to your deck is generally a bad thing. The advantage of having more options does not outweigh the additional randomness in what cards you actually get. Any deck beyond very specific types or meme decks will want as few cards as they could get.
As it is, if we were to eliminate all caps on card decks in hearthstone, you'd be seeing 10-15 card decks at most.
Coming from a long history of playing Yu-Gi-Oh, which has a 40 card minimum limit, it would decrease draw consistency for slower decks unless you completely overhauled other key game mechanics such as beginning starting hand and numbers of copies of cards allowed in a deck (so more than 2 copies for non-legendaries). Imagine being slow control lock or priest vs an aggressive deck and having fewer chances of drawing your answers to wide boards.
I think a yugioh style format would be cool. Deck limit at 40 and increase the same card limit on common/rare cards to 3. Epic and legendary card limit would stay the same.
I just don't get why people play hearthstone and then want to change hearthstone into another game. If you want more cards, play elder scrolls: Legends or Magic the Gathering Arena. Hearthstone is successful, because it is a simple game and nearly everyone can understand how to play it. Most ideas people comeup with are just not fitting for hearthstone as this one as well. Why would you want to have a bigger deck? Legendaries would be drawn less, combos would be less viable since it will be less consistent to get them in your hand, etc. Unless, of course, you also would adjust the number of copies you can have in a deck.
Nah, Hearhtstone is finely adjusted for its gameplay including decksize, life total, mana gain, handsize and its mechanics.
As a brawl a bigger deck would be acceptable. As a complete mode not viable.
Nope even YGO that has 3 max of the same cards even then we use 40cards then ( max60) and even then sometimes consistency is an isue depending on the deck. What i apritiate from them is that they tried to add searchers ( Like sandshaper , Juicy Psychmellon or so) but they never did fully commited to idea . OR idea of GY for priest only so far is relevant to big/cloning galery/otk priest with spellstone and lot of diferent ressurect cards. I do wish for more "banish like" cards ( like gnomerafy not like Void contract) and some changes like actualy seeing what card are dead for oponent ,more detailed log, opcion to skip animation and text popups, more stable blizzard client and so on. And yea this turned out to be me biching about game features itself or there lack their off.
fatigue killing you instantly? are you really a warrior main? it would make the game worse.. getting a "god hand" would be even more frustrating.
if the deck limit was 60 but you could put at minimum 30, nobody would use a 31 deck, look at yugioh, there's a lighsworn archtype there which is an aggressive archtype that mills your own deck, and there fatigue=loss too, the deck size in yugioh is 40-60.. can you guess how many card that self mill deck uses?
That will make a game longer and longer.....
OP claims more cards leads to “more thinking” but provides ZERO justification for this statement.
Should I let my cats pounce on the keyboard? Pretty sure they could RNG into a better thread.
There is a reason that when my opponent has Prince Malchezaar, I consider the match to be an auto-win.
Free to try and find a game, dealing cards for sorrow, cards for pain.
Given the simplicity required for the game, more than 30 is bad, specifically for Hearthstone. Personally, I would love 40 card decks. I come from other card games, and I love having more cards to play. With Magic: The Gathering, 60 card decks can contain 4 copies of most cards. It equates perfectly with Hearthstone, considering it's a 2 card maximum for most cards, with a 30 card deck. It just works.
Come visit my Card Emporium. Strange things, you will find inside...
Come take the test, if you're daring. Feel free to show me your results in a message.
I use Archbishop Benedictus when I want more cards in my deck.
On a serious note, this may be an interesting idea in Wild (with perhaps a 5 HP buff to go along with it and compensate for crazy power level of the combos there) but not in Standard.
Players in constructed want consistency.
30 proved to be a good measure between variety and consistency.
Also, one can still play Thief Priest or Rogue or Quest Mage and even DK Rexxar and enjoy variety there, with no need to make the majority of player's life worse.
You don't understand, I not talking about limits of 30 or 60, I talking about all decks be 60 cards, this make the game much more diverse and the netdecker will need to learn how to play instead follow a script of refined list what is pathetic easy to do with only 30 cards in decks.
1- When consistency is waaaaaaaaay too easy to get the game become boring quickly because the refined lists are get few weeks after release, like now for example, opponent play one single card or Baku/Genn effect show in start and you already know all cards in that deck.
2- 30 proved to be too few to promote challenges to play and build a deck and make netdecking a brainless decision.
More variety and decisions in games >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistency.
60 cards deck will make this game much, much better than now.
Really need? It is not obvious? More cards = more variety = more complexibility = more thinking.
And 60 cards deck is way more harder for follow guides than ultra refined and way consistency and easy 30 cards decks.
They should remove the max card cap... so you could make a deck with any number of cards... but keep the minimum at 30 cards... people will fill their decks with random cards to a whopping 300 card deck to avoid fatigue, but the chances of drawing a card would be lowered...
I for one would love a gamemode with infinite cards in decks... (sure keep the 2 cards max per card limit)
To live is to suffer, to survive is to find meaning in the suffer!
That's the post i wanted to make!
Right now all the archetypes which remain more than one expansion have their core cards which never change [unless something even more powerful is printed] and it's like a half of the deck. Look at your decks: you can't get rid of silence, combo cards, AoE etc. and only few slots can be traded for cards which suit more in current meta like mossy horror.
More cards slots would make it more difficult to create even/odd deck even forcing players to put some shitty cards just to close the deck. These decks saw no change between witchwood and boomsday and i bet Rastakan would not do so as well.
Chances of getting perfect hand will drop so you will not so often see even warlock droping 2 giants on turn 3&4 or every aggro droping keleseth on turn 1 or 2
On other hand having more slots would allow players to put more minions and make use of their synergy [beast for example] way more often than in just few specialized decks.
The main argument against larger decks is the concept that they would be less stable and more random. That's the first time I think that I'v seen someone basically say "yes and that's why we should have it".
To which I say, I'm not so sure the public would stomach that.
Note that Hearthstone has spent years slowly paring down it's randomness. Also folks from MTG declare the lack of deck randomness (that is you end up with less "OMG I LOSE!" hands here thanks to the lack of land cards) as one of the better features of this game.
The randomness is a little TOO stable thanks to cards like Baku/Genn and the Quests. But I believe that's better fixed by card balance and rotation rather than adding more inherent randomness to the system.
Also I don't see decks with more slots being more flexible. Either they will add more synergy cards (i.e. Deathrattle Hunter getting to add more high end beasts) or just add more card draw. Some decks will be unable to do either and, thus, add more 'trash' to fill the slots. Those will just fade away in preference to the decks that CAN fill all of the slots. In the end, 30 or 40 cards there will be a 'best cards to add' and once that's found that's THAT.
Note that other card games combine higher deck sizes with more copies of a card per set. MTG adds land and 4-per-card. Shadowverse lets you add 3 copies of legendaries to a deck. So on. Once you balance it out the decks end up similar to HS decks in stability vs randomness, and the areas where they don't are seen as a negative, not a positive.
Note: if HS was in beta, I COULD see myself advocating for, say, 45 card decks with 3 cards per deck and 2 copies of legendaries, but then I realize that the MASSIVE amount of extra legendaries I needed to get is specifically WHY I left shadowverse and thinking that I'd have to double up on the legendaries I'd need for a deck would make me cry (perhaps have it so that you only need one 'card' for legendaries, but they would 'double', so 'adding one legendary' would mean they show up twice in the deck. Or is that just too messed up :P)
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
No, the game won’t be more diverse. Here’s why.
Classes like druid have many strong cards. If their deck size was increased to say 40, the combo decks would just start running auctioneer, barkskins, innervates, biology projects, etc. Druid loses almost nothing here, as they can still easily pull off their combo, it would just maybe take one extra turn.
A class like mage or rogue on the other hand gets destroyed by this. Both classes have not so many great cards, and for a deck like tempo mage to add 10 more garbage cards to the deck, it would screw the whole archetype over.
Fatigue decks and control decks would be gone, as some matchups would be impossible. Decks would have way too much value. You could argue that the control deck would just put in more removal, but there really isn’t that much more than what’s used in most control decks.
Other combo decks such as shudderwock would struggle and just immediately disappear from the meta. The class just doesn’t have enough draw and would get destroyed by aggro, as most decks would.
Aggro would pretty much never run out of resources, especially zoolock, as it can tap to get more cards, and there are many good aggro minions in the game. Not even control would be able to keep up.
So basically what you’re asking for is long, polarized matchups where aggro and midrange rules and combo and control are destroyed, leaving millions of players pissed off because you destroyed their favorite deck, and ruined their game. Sounds like a great idea!
Eternal doesn't have a cap. They even have a quest to win a game with a 200 card deck, if that tells you anything.
Free to try and find a game, dealing cards for sorrow, cards for pain.
MTG doesn't have a cap either.
And if you ask anyone how many cards you SHOULD have in your deck, the answer is the same: the bare minimum.
In a card game, adding cards to your deck is generally a bad thing. The advantage of having more options does not outweigh the additional randomness in what cards you actually get. Any deck beyond very specific types or meme decks will want as few cards as they could get.
As it is, if we were to eliminate all caps on card decks in hearthstone, you'd be seeing 10-15 card decks at most.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
Coming from a long history of playing Yu-Gi-Oh, which has a 40 card minimum limit, it would decrease draw consistency for slower decks unless you completely overhauled other key game mechanics such as beginning starting hand and numbers of copies of cards allowed in a deck (so more than 2 copies for non-legendaries). Imagine being slow control lock or priest vs an aggressive deck and having fewer chances of drawing your answers to wide boards.