OP is right, wild is unbearable to play - but still better than the new classic mode.
Yeah idk why they thought a classic mode would be fun. It’s fun for a few games till you realize the meta is already known and everyone’s playing the same few decks and it will always be people playing those same few decks
OP is right, wild is unbearable to play - but still better than the new classic mode.
Yeah idk why they thought a classic mode would be fun. It’s fun for a few games till you realize the meta is already known and everyone’s playing the same few decks and it will always be people playing those same few decks
They probably did it because they introduced classic or remade other games.
You have WoW classic, Warcraft 3 remake, Starcraft HD, Diablo 2 remake is next. So why not Hearthstone too as well while they are at it.
OP is right, wild is unbearable to play - but still better than the new classic mode.
Yeah idk why they thought a classic mode would be fun. It’s fun for a few games till you realize the meta is already known and everyone’s playing the same few decks and it will always be people playing those same few decks
They probably did it because they introduced classic or remade other games.
You have WoW classic, Warcraft 3 remake, Starcraft HD, Diablo 2 remake is next. So why not Hearthstone too as well while they are at it.
OP is right, wild is unbearable to play - but still better than the new classic mode.
Yeah idk why they thought a classic mode would be fun. It’s fun for a few games till you realize the meta is already known and everyone’s playing the same few decks and it will always be people playing those same few decks
And also because the community won't shut up about classic mode, people often don't realize the impact of such drastic decisions, that's why they unnerfed Raza and that's why there are people calling for Patches unnerf, too much blind nostalgia.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I love you Dreadsteed, I will never disenchant you!
OP is right, wild is unbearable to play - but still better than the new classic mode.
Yeah idk why they thought a classic mode would be fun. It’s fun for a few games till you realize the meta is already known and everyone’s playing the same few decks and it will always be people playing those same few decks
At least the decks feel nothing like what have been played for the last 5 years. Classic mode is essentially a mid-range burst meta. Not too many different viable decks, but at least the matchups are kind of fair
Regardless of the answer, my answer to you is very simple. Do you imagine that because we have 50000000 cards in the game people really like to play their own decks and create new decks? Let me share my experience as a MTG player (sinse the my 13 and i am now 26 years old). People has the misconception that every player knows how to properly build decks and that is easy. Its not. When i started in magic my first experience with actual real deck building was very rought. You know is easy to belive that just because you know how you want to focus your deck will pick the right cards.
So i put all my cards in my bed and start picking. I spend 4 hours in each iteration and those decks still sucks. I lose vs my little broder that was using an Intro pack that i buy for him. After 3 years of playing MTG i finally understand why people "NetDeck" so much in card games: its not bad to use what is tested already if you dont know what works. I usually dont pure netdeck because i have a certain play style that i like to keep and i just feel good when i can do X o Y move in Z scenario so i edit the recipes i use. But dont get me wrong when i see a recipe i can tell how the deck works as much as everyone but also i kinda understand why certain cards are picked over others.
In general people dont know about this kind of stuff and i dont try to said i am better on this than others or blablabla i dont even belive myself as a good player i just...well played too much. Back to the topic: If you lack of the skill that is needed to build a deck why would you even try to do it in first place? if you are interested in be a better player for sure you want to learn deck building but from a casual perspective even if you are competitive, learn how to build decks is a very time consuming task. So people skip the process, sometimes they take or put one card, and look what decks are working and learn how to use them. Thats it.
Its not like they want to win every day but they see this decks in videos, they like what they see and they learn how to use them faster because there is nothing to discover. Netdecking is not something bad. Its actually something good, It keeps people in the game, by sharing decks with other players the "top dogs" make sure that everyone is on the same page. Do this experiment: try to build a type of deck using cards atleast 20 cards that no one uses in similar decks and see how it performs( the other cards can be staples). You will understnad them why some cards are picked over others and are so staples in the meta.
I am well aware that the more choices a person have the more daunting task it is to pick and choose. It is easier to choose your favorite flavor of ice cream out of 2 than out 10 choices.
I haven’t played any physical TCG and Hearthstone is my first and only one. With physical TCG, I’d wager that I will see the other player’s face at least. With digital card game, what stopping me from thinking that the other player is nothing but a mindless drone? Am I to believe that out of millions of players a few hundreds of them actually went to the deck builder and built a deck on their own?
I don’t enjoy what is happening at all. I notice that am most happy and enjoying the game when rotations hit because it FORCES people to build new decks. At least for a week or two.
I just realized something too, netdecking is so bad, players don’t even read up on changes to cards. I remember when Arcane Golem got its charge removed and people didn’t change their decks and when they played it, they usually hover at it like idiots.
OP is right, wild is unbearable to play - but still better than the new classic mode.
Yeah idk why they thought a classic mode would be fun. It’s fun for a few games till you realize the meta is already known and everyone’s playing the same few decks and it will always be people playing those same few decks
They probably did it because they introduced classic or remade other games.
You have WoW classic, Warcraft 3 remake, Starcraft HD, Diablo 2 remake is next. So why not Hearthstone too as well while they are at it.
OP is right, wild is unbearable to play - but still better than the new classic mode.
Yeah idk why they thought a classic mode would be fun. It’s fun for a few games till you realize the meta is already known and everyone’s playing the same few decks and it will always be people playing those same few decks
And also because the community won't shut up about classic mode, people often don't realize the impact of such drastic decisions, that's why they unnerfed Raza and that's why there are people calling for Patches unnerf, too much blind nostalgia.
That’s the thing about Nostalgia, it’s almost always blind. Rarely is revisiting something that you’ve already done before going to give you the feeling you had when you first had that experience. It’s usually the feeling of newness at the time which made it exciting and fun and when you are lacking fun, you think back to times when you had fun, but since it won’t be new or exciting, it won’t give you that fun for very long.
WoW classic is a bit different than hearthstone having a classic mode. Even in vanilla WoW, there was a lot of content, and many players never got to play during vanilla so they missed out on a lot of that content’s feeling because it was basically ez mode if they even decided to go through everything. You can play for a hundred hours and still have things to do. Hearthstone on the other hand, will take a couple hours and you could have played AND played against every deck in the classic mode meta, and every game feels the same since the only real rng aspect is the draw. It’s a couple hours of content at best, maybe a bit more if you really feel like grinding an additional ladder.
Well, I played wild until I reached Platinum rank and from there forward all I see are 3 decks, Secret Mage, Zoo Self-Damage Warlock and Resurrect Big Priest.
All the cards in the world made available and people just netdeck and play 3 decks. Why people buy packs with real money for if they end up using a very small limited pool of them?
I realize that am probably exaggerating things but playing Wild just proved to be the same as Standard. People netdecking with no promise of experimenting and making their own homebrewed decks. I am curious what happens with the physical TCG, if they too experience netdecking
Rant over.
Well, people suck the fun out of games because the vast vajority of them play only to win.
Let me give you an equivalent: Back when we were kids, my friends and I used to play an amazing (for its time) soccer game on the SNES, Kick Off 3. It had an amazing depth of play, really complicated combinations, a cool dribbling system and challenging AI...
Until we found a glitch. You could press the high cross button from a specific area around the center of the field and it would fly straight to the goal, 100% score chance without fail. The game soon devolved to who can get to the center in the right location and abuse this more times within the match limit. I tried to impose a no-glitch rule but the other kids lost their interest in the game and eventually gravitated to other ones. Why? Because without it they had no chance of beating my best friend and me who played more hours and thus could play better.
It's the same reason why 90% of soccer fans are with the top teams. People don't like to lose even when they don't play themselves.
Physical TCG used to be way better than this, (bar magic, which was more "serious" and people had the same shitty philosophy). The reason was they were ridiculously expensive, especially when you were <18 years old. You could not collect everything nor predict the way the meta would evolve (and there were not a lot of balance changes because it was difficult to do), so you usually picked a hero/faction/class or whatever the game had and you mained it. Everyone played different shit/what they liked, and it wasn't always competitive. In Hearthstone terms, everyone knew the others by deck, and few people had more than 3-4 real decks. You were the "Galvadon dude" or the "Barnabus main". In tournaments people from other areas would come and you could see in hearthstone terms matchups like Murlock Warlock VS spell damage Hunter. And guess what: It was awesome.
Nowadays, you only have 1 way out: To have a good amount of RL firends or internet friends decent enough to have an understanding amongst you and play a game the way you want to. Otherwise, all games devolve into maximum-efficiency play to win crap, no fun allowed, no experimentation, nothing. See what happened to Overwatch. That's why Blizzard try to make it into a PvE experience so that people can actually pick their playstyle and hero and still win.
Well, I played wild until I reached Platinum rank and from there forward all I see are 3 decks, Secret Mage, Zoo Self-Damage Warlock and Resurrect Big Priest.
All the cards in the world made available and people just netdeck and play 3 decks. Why people buy packs with real money for if they end up using a very small limited pool of them?
I realize that am probably exaggerating things but playing Wild just proved to be the same as Standard. People netdecking with no promise of experimenting and making their own homebrewed decks. I am curious what happens with the physical TCG, if they too experience netdecking
Rant over.
Well, people suck the fun out of games because the vast vajority of them play only to win.
Let me give you an equivalent: Back when we were kids, my friends and I used to play an amazing (for its time) soccer game on the SNES, Kick Off 3. It had an amazing depth of play, really complicated combinations, a cool dribbling system and challenging AI...
Until we found a glitch. You could press the high cross button from a specific area around the center of the field and it would fly straight to the goal, 100% score chance without fail. The game soon devolved to who can get to the center in the right location and abuse this more times within the match limit. I tried to impose a no-glitch rule but the other kids lost their interest in the game and eventually gravitated to other ones. Why? Because without it they had no chance of beating my best friend and me who played more hours and thus could play better.
It's the same reason why 90% of soccer fans are with the top teams. People don't like to lose even when they don't play themselves.
Physical TCG used to be way better than this, (bar magic, which was more "serious" and people had the same shitty philosophy). The reason was they were ridiculously expensive, especially when you were <18 years old. You could not collect everything nor predict the way the meta would evolve (and there were not a lot of balance changes because it was difficult to do), so you usually picked a hero/faction/class or whatever the game had and you mained it. Everyone played different shit/what they liked, and it wasn't always competitive. In Hearthstone terms, everyone knew the others by deck, and few people had more than 3-4 real decks. You were the "Galvadon dude" or the "Barnabus main". In tournaments people from other areas would come and you could see in hearthstone terms matchups like Murlock Warlock VS spell damage Hunter. And guess what: It was awesome.
Nowadays, you only have 1 way out: To have a good amount of RL firends or internet friends decent enough to have an understanding amongst you and play a game the way you want to. Otherwise, all games devolve into maximum-efficiency play to win crap, no fun allowed, no experimentation, nothing. See what happened to Overwatch. That's why Blizzard try to make it into a PvE experience so that people can actually pick their playstyle and hero and still win.
This is a wonderful explanation. You're absolutely right, this is the genuine problem with Hearthstone. You're no longer playing to have fun, you're playing to win. You stick with whatever's best each season because you want to hit higher ranks, not because you like the deck.
Players want to get rewards from having fun, not from winning. It's interesting to notice how the most popular games ever - things like CounterStrike, Fortnite, Fall Guys, Among Us, Smash Bros, Minecraft, and MtG - ALL of them follow this principle. The question is, could Hearthstone ever somehow lose this mentality? Because if it could, unfun-but-powerful decks would just die out because no one would want to play them. Ranked mode, the mode that pushes players to run those most-powerful decks, would need to change into something similar to above-mentioned MtG tournaments - not rewarding you for winning, but for interest, curiosity, and experimentation. The hearthstone meta would completely disappear. I think its possible. And necessary.
Well, I played wild until I reached Platinum rank and from there forward all I see are 3 decks, Secret Mage, Zoo Self-Damage Warlock and Resurrect Big Priest.
All the cards in the world made available and people just netdeck and play 3 decks. Why people buy packs with real money for if they end up using a very small limited pool of them?
I realize that am probably exaggerating things but playing Wild just proved to be the same as Standard. People netdecking with no promise of experimenting and making their own homebrewed decks. I am curious what happens with the physical TCG, if they too experience netdecking
Rant over.
Well, people suck the fun out of games because the vast vajority of them play only to win.
Let me give you an equivalent: Back when we were kids, my friends and I used to play an amazing (for its time) soccer game on the SNES, Kick Off 3. It had an amazing depth of play, really complicated combinations, a cool dribbling system and challenging AI...
Until we found a glitch. You could press the high cross button from a specific area around the center of the field and it would fly straight to the goal, 100% score chance without fail. The game soon devolved to who can get to the center in the right location and abuse this more times within the match limit. I tried to impose a no-glitch rule but the other kids lost their interest in the game and eventually gravitated to other ones. Why? Because without it they had no chance of beating my best friend and me who played more hours and thus could play better.
It's the same reason why 90% of soccer fans are with the top teams. People don't like to lose even when they don't play themselves.
Physical TCG used to be way better than this, (bar magic, which was more "serious" and people had the same shitty philosophy). The reason was they were ridiculously expensive, especially when you were <18 years old. You could not collect everything nor predict the way the meta would evolve (and there were not a lot of balance changes because it was difficult to do), so you usually picked a hero/faction/class or whatever the game had and you mained it. Everyone played different shit/what they liked, and it wasn't always competitive. In Hearthstone terms, everyone knew the others by deck, and few people had more than 3-4 real decks. You were the "Galvadon dude" or the "Barnabus main". In tournaments people from other areas would come and you could see in hearthstone terms matchups like Murlock Warlock VS spell damage Hunter. And guess what: It was awesome.
Nowadays, you only have 1 way out: To have a good amount of RL firends or internet friends decent enough to have an understanding amongst you and play a game the way you want to. Otherwise, all games devolve into maximum-efficiency play to win crap, no fun allowed, no experimentation, nothing. See what happened to Overwatch. That's why Blizzard try to make it into a PvE experience so that people can actually pick their playstyle and hero and still win.
This is a wonderful explanation. You're absolutely right, this is the genuine problem with Hearthstone. You're no longer playing to have fun, you're playing to win. You stick with whatever's best each season because you want to hit higher ranks, not because you like the deck.
Players want to get rewards from having fun, not from winning. It's interesting to notice how the most popular games ever - things like CounterStrike, Fortnite, Fall Guys, Among Us, Smash Bros, Minecraft, and MtG - ALL of them follow this principle. The question is, could Hearthstone ever somehow lose this mentality? Because if it could, unfun-but-powerful decks would just die out because no one would want to play them. Ranked mode, the mode that pushes players to run those most-powerful decks, would need to change into something similar to above-mentioned MtG tournaments - not rewarding you for winning, but for interest, curiosity, and experimentation. The hearthstone meta would completely disappear. I think its possible. And necessary.
Yeah, but how would evaluate the 'fun' level of the games to receive a proper reward? See, fun is still very subjective, and in order to make this method work we need to solve another problem, the monetization one. If players were rewarded (as in when the game itself gives you a reward like gold or xp, not personal gratification) for purely experimenting with decks, the game would favor much more the richer players, there's no objective and completely fair way of putting these things on a scale.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I love you Dreadsteed, I will never disenchant you!
Well, I played wild until I reached Platinum rank and from there forward all I see are 3 decks, Secret Mage, Zoo Self-Damage Warlock and Resurrect Big Priest.
All the cards in the world made available and people just netdeck and play 3 decks. Why people buy packs with real money for if they end up using a very small limited pool of them?
I realize that am probably exaggerating things but playing Wild just proved to be the same as Standard. People netdecking with no promise of experimenting and making their own homebrewed decks. I am curious what happens with the physical TCG, if they too experience netdecking
Rant over.
Well, people suck the fun out of games because the vast vajority of them play only to win.
Let me give you an equivalent: Back when we were kids, my friends and I used to play an amazing (for its time) soccer game on the SNES, Kick Off 3. It had an amazing depth of play, really complicated combinations, a cool dribbling system and challenging AI...
Until we found a glitch. You could press the high cross button from a specific area around the center of the field and it would fly straight to the goal, 100% score chance without fail. The game soon devolved to who can get to the center in the right location and abuse this more times within the match limit. I tried to impose a no-glitch rule but the other kids lost their interest in the game and eventually gravitated to other ones. Why? Because without it they had no chance of beating my best friend and me who played more hours and thus could play better.
It's the same reason why 90% of soccer fans are with the top teams. People don't like to lose even when they don't play themselves.
Physical TCG used to be way better than this, (bar magic, which was more "serious" and people had the same shitty philosophy). The reason was they were ridiculously expensive, especially when you were <18 years old. You could not collect everything nor predict the way the meta would evolve (and there were not a lot of balance changes because it was difficult to do), so you usually picked a hero/faction/class or whatever the game had and you mained it. Everyone played different shit/what they liked, and it wasn't always competitive. In Hearthstone terms, everyone knew the others by deck, and few people had more than 3-4 real decks. You were the "Galvadon dude" or the "Barnabus main". In tournaments people from other areas would come and you could see in hearthstone terms matchups like Murlock Warlock VS spell damage Hunter. And guess what: It was awesome.
Nowadays, you only have 1 way out: To have a good amount of RL firends or internet friends decent enough to have an understanding amongst you and play a game the way you want to. Otherwise, all games devolve into maximum-efficiency play to win crap, no fun allowed, no experimentation, nothing. See what happened to Overwatch. That's why Blizzard try to make it into a PvE experience so that people can actually pick their playstyle and hero and still win.
This is a wonderful explanation. You're absolutely right, this is the genuine problem with Hearthstone. You're no longer playing to have fun, you're playing to win. You stick with whatever's best each season because you want to hit higher ranks, not because you like the deck.
Players want to get rewards from having fun, not from winning. It's interesting to notice how the most popular games ever - things like CounterStrike, Fortnite, Fall Guys, Among Us, Smash Bros, Minecraft, and MtG - ALL of them follow this principle. The question is, could Hearthstone ever somehow lose this mentality? Because if it could, unfun-but-powerful decks would just die out because no one would want to play them. Ranked mode, the mode that pushes players to run those most-powerful decks, would need to change into something similar to above-mentioned MtG tournaments - not rewarding you for winning, but for interest, curiosity, and experimentation. The hearthstone meta would completely disappear. I think its possible. And necessary.
Just give everyone the monthly ranked rewards for playing 5 games each month and see what happens. Rankings would only matter in high-level Legend rank and you would only play ranked for maximum xp gain (which is time-based, and would be changed to not be win-based, so you don't need to play aggro nor care too much for your winrate). And that's it. But then, many people would lose motivation to play the mode, so that's a double-edged sword. And for the record, MtG tournaments are usually also an unfun top-tier show-off; that's always the case when rewards are involved. It really only is casual modes that are different.
I don't have high hopes for ladder to ever change into what you describe, but I would be happy to see this or more variety in general. My only reason to switch to non-tier decks is to finish achievements (so that's at least a tiny step in the right direction) or to play something completely weird for fun (Academic Espionage is still my favorite care in the game, drawing 1 mana DK Jaina is just too stupid), but I am no different in that I like winning.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yeah idk why they thought a classic mode would be fun. It’s fun for a few games till you realize the meta is already known and everyone’s playing the same few decks and it will always be people playing those same few decks
They probably did it because they introduced classic or remade other games.
You have WoW classic, Warcraft 3 remake, Starcraft HD, Diablo 2 remake is next. So why not Hearthstone too as well while they are at it.
Sign Here
And also because the community won't shut up about classic mode, people often don't realize the impact of such drastic decisions, that's why they unnerfed Raza and that's why there are people calling for Patches unnerf, too much blind nostalgia.
I love you Dreadsteed, I will never disenchant you!
At least the decks feel nothing like what have been played for the last 5 years. Classic mode is essentially a mid-range burst meta. Not too many different viable decks, but at least the matchups are kind of fair
Editor of the Heartpwn Legendary Crafting Guide:
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/card-discussion/205920-legendary-tier-list-crafting-guide
I am well aware that the more choices a person have the more daunting task it is to pick and choose. It is easier to choose your favorite flavor of ice cream out of 2 than out 10 choices.
I haven’t played any physical TCG and Hearthstone is my first and only one. With physical TCG, I’d wager that I will see the other player’s face at least. With digital card game, what stopping me from thinking that the other player is nothing but a mindless drone? Am I to believe that out of millions of players a few hundreds of them actually went to the deck builder and built a deck on their own?
I don’t enjoy what is happening at all. I notice that am most happy and enjoying the game when rotations hit because it FORCES people to build new decks. At least for a week or two.
I just realized something too, netdecking is so bad, players don’t even read up on changes to cards. I remember when Arcane Golem got its charge removed and people didn’t change their decks and when they played it, they usually hover at it like idiots.
Sign Here
That’s the thing about Nostalgia, it’s almost always blind. Rarely is revisiting something that you’ve already done before going to give you the feeling you had when you first had that experience. It’s usually the feeling of newness at the time which made it exciting and fun and when you are lacking fun, you think back to times when you had fun, but since it won’t be new or exciting, it won’t give you that fun for very long.
WoW classic is a bit different than hearthstone having a classic mode. Even in vanilla WoW, there was a lot of content, and many players never got to play during vanilla so they missed out on a lot of that content’s feeling because it was basically ez mode if they even decided to go through everything. You can play for a hundred hours and still have things to do. Hearthstone on the other hand, will take a couple hours and you could have played AND played against every deck in the classic mode meta, and every game feels the same since the only real rng aspect is the draw. It’s a couple hours of content at best, maybe a bit more if you really feel like grinding an additional ladder.
Well, people suck the fun out of games because the vast vajority of them play only to win.
Let me give you an equivalent: Back when we were kids, my friends and I used to play an amazing (for its time) soccer game on the SNES, Kick Off 3. It had an amazing depth of play, really complicated combinations, a cool dribbling system and challenging AI...
Until we found a glitch. You could press the high cross button from a specific area around the center of the field and it would fly straight to the goal, 100% score chance without fail. The game soon devolved to who can get to the center in the right location and abuse this more times within the match limit. I tried to impose a no-glitch rule but the other kids lost their interest in the game and eventually gravitated to other ones. Why? Because without it they had no chance of beating my best friend and me who played more hours and thus could play better.
It's the same reason why 90% of soccer fans are with the top teams. People don't like to lose even when they don't play themselves.
Physical TCG used to be way better than this, (bar magic, which was more "serious" and people had the same shitty philosophy). The reason was they were ridiculously expensive, especially when you were <18 years old. You could not collect everything nor predict the way the meta would evolve (and there were not a lot of balance changes because it was difficult to do), so you usually picked a hero/faction/class or whatever the game had and you mained it. Everyone played different shit/what they liked, and it wasn't always competitive. In Hearthstone terms, everyone knew the others by deck, and few people had more than 3-4 real decks. You were the "Galvadon dude" or the "Barnabus main". In tournaments people from other areas would come and you could see in hearthstone terms matchups like Murlock Warlock VS spell damage Hunter. And guess what: It was awesome.
Nowadays, you only have 1 way out: To have a good amount of RL firends or internet friends decent enough to have an understanding amongst you and play a game the way you want to. Otherwise, all games devolve into maximum-efficiency play to win crap, no fun allowed, no experimentation, nothing. See what happened to Overwatch. That's why Blizzard try to make it into a PvE experience so that people can actually pick their playstyle and hero and still win.
This is a wonderful explanation. You're absolutely right, this is the genuine problem with Hearthstone. You're no longer playing to have fun, you're playing to win. You stick with whatever's best each season because you want to hit higher ranks, not because you like the deck.
Players want to get rewards from having fun, not from winning. It's interesting to notice how the most popular games ever - things like CounterStrike, Fortnite, Fall Guys, Among Us, Smash Bros, Minecraft, and MtG - ALL of them follow this principle.
The question is, could Hearthstone ever somehow lose this mentality? Because if it could, unfun-but-powerful decks would just die out because no one would want to play them. Ranked mode, the mode that pushes players to run those most-powerful decks, would need to change into something similar to above-mentioned MtG tournaments - not rewarding you for winning, but for interest, curiosity, and experimentation. The hearthstone meta would completely disappear.
I think its possible. And necessary.
Myra's Unstable Element master race
Yeah, but how would evaluate the 'fun' level of the games to receive a proper reward? See, fun is still very subjective, and in order to make this method work we need to solve another problem, the monetization one. If players were rewarded (as in when the game itself gives you a reward like gold or xp, not personal gratification) for purely experimenting with decks, the game would favor much more the richer players, there's no objective and completely fair way of putting these things on a scale.
I love you Dreadsteed, I will never disenchant you!
Just give everyone the monthly ranked rewards for playing 5 games each month and see what happens. Rankings would only matter in high-level Legend rank and you would only play ranked for maximum xp gain (which is time-based, and would be changed to not be win-based, so you don't need to play aggro nor care too much for your winrate). And that's it. But then, many people would lose motivation to play the mode, so that's a double-edged sword. And for the record, MtG tournaments are usually also an unfun top-tier show-off; that's always the case when rewards are involved. It really only is casual modes that are different.
I don't have high hopes for ladder to ever change into what you describe, but I would be happy to see this or more variety in general. My only reason to switch to non-tier decks is to finish achievements (so that's at least a tiny step in the right direction) or to play something completely weird for fun (Academic Espionage is still my favorite care in the game, drawing 1 mana DK Jaina is just too stupid), but I am no different in that I like winning.