Disclaimer: I'm speaking to you simply as another user of Hearthpwn and fellow player of Hearthstone. The views expressed in my comments are my own.
"Except there is only one conversation, that was yours with ShadowsOfSense's. I did not create a separate conversation, merely added to the one being had. I did not add any conditions, merely expanded upon what you said in your post, in which you compared his prediction of how the HS player base would respond to him being able to predict future winning lottery numbers."
There are 2 conversations. The one with Shadows and the one with you. You brought up conditions that were not present in Shadow's; therefore, making it a 2nd conversation. It does not follow to criticize me for saying one thing with Shadow and another with you, when only you brought up the condition.
"The only "apples and oranges" comparison in this entire chain of quotes was your initial comparison of Shadows' claim about the proposed game mode's popularity among HS players to being able to predict lottery numbers. So no matter how you interpret my comment, the fact remains that you compared two completely incomparable processes - also known as comparing apples and oranges - something you just asked me not to do. "
The fact remains that Shadow made his comment on his own conditions, since he presented no other conditions like you did.
Yo, on the other hand, brought up the condition of business studies.
"Since you decided to bring up the user Blue_Banana_whotookthisname, I'd also like to point out that you criticized him for using "circular reasoning" earlier (although he merely asked a question) yet nearly every single one of your counter-arguments has had some form of circular reasoning, including the post you just made. As of right now you have presented no evidence or logical arguments to support your claims, choosing instead to resort to hypocritical arguments and logical fallacies to defend yourself."
I did not criticize him for circular reasoning. I "trolled" him with circular reasoning. 2 different things again. And BTW, I admitted to have trolled in a previous post.
I should not be held to produce answers that are in the thread just to suit the demands of someone who is not willing to find them. It is a lazy attitude and inconsiderate as well. I have been very upfront about everything I have said. The only hypocritical argument I have made is: "I appreciate that", and that was more sarcastic than anything else. So I don't know what you refer to in plural. And I have not used any logical fallacies to defend myself. I am not bending down to the demands of a poster that is to lazy to find his own answers.
"I'm not sure what to make of this honestly. To say that your posts "must have struck a nerve" because I simply disagree with your proposal is rather immature. It's just such a dramatic assumption and is really just an excuse to dismiss my argument as you have done to countless users throughout the thread."
You leave me no other option but to think that. You fail to realize that Shadows did not suggest to have reached a conclusion based on consumer/business studies. He expressed his own prediction. And still you think your argument doesn't add a non-existent condition to Shadow's argument.
I have disagreed with Shadows, Banana, and you. Who are these other countless users throughout the thread?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Great art can never be created without great suffering.
I have provided reasoning behind my belief that very few people will play the suggested new mode, and have yet to find any answer from the OP as to why anyone would play the new mode.
You have talked around the point, and kicked up the metaphorical dust of picking apart every sentence from those who disagree with you to try and find something to discredit them, but you have yet to provide anything of substance that can answer the simple question - why does this gamemode need to be implemented? What about this gamemode would make it a good addition to the game?
Having said that, one suggestion I noticed above would be an interesting addition to the game, although it has nothing to do with Casual mode - the ability to create your own custom rulesets for deckbuilding within the client would be nice, just as a simpler way for two friends to compete against one another with wacky decks. You can obviously already do this by just communicating with each other, but the ability to set the rules in-game so that deckbuilding is easier, and to control RNG effects - for example, controlling the expansions that Piloted Shredder will drop from - would be a real bonus.
@ShadowsOfSense, I'm pretty sure at the point you're arguing with someone repeatedly over wording and semantics instead of the substance of the conversation itself it's probably a lost cause. Kudos to you and Vultrae for having patience though.
In regards to the lobby thing, that was why I think it would be a cool feature. My friends and I will make dumb rules and then build decks for them when we're tired of meta decks, and it would be perfect for people who might want a change of pace from the norm; building it into a ruleset enforced lobby lets you do that with friends as well as with people you've never met. This also give Blizzard the ability to actually implement game modes centered around it with enough participation; for example if you look at ARAM in League, or the Zombies variant of Halo, they were huge custom variations that grew in the lobby itself and eventually saw full implementation in their respective games. You could legitimately have a game mode created on something like the Hearthpwn forums or r/hearthstone, and then tested and tweaked in a live environment. And at that point, you can straight up implement tournaments based on odd rulesets that at least assure you're going to have some amount of protection against people accidentally adding a card outside of the format. And if you're new you don't necessarily have to hop straight into it, you can do all the normal ladder stuff; but if you're feeling sad about your lack of collection you can do what Killzun is proposing and create the exact experience you think would let you play against other people who have a similar set of restrictions.
Also it avoid ripping out existing game modes because... reasons (wherever they are).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Articles I suggest every player reads to improve at the game;
SO, I went out of my way and gather some posts in the thread real quick as an example of suggestions to change casual:
Post 25, 42, 47, 51, and 52.
This is a thread with a poll. Simple reasons have been given to suggest a change. Most people want to leave it "as is".
I'm still baffled at how some posters just don't read through the thread and insist on obligating another poster to bend to their demands.
K.I.S.S. Rock N Roll
"Thread with a poll" is one reason why a lot of us don't think Casual itself needs fixing. As you said yourself most people are fine with it "As is", which means that even in a vocal community like Hearthpwn it's not so much of an issue that people think replacing the system is required.
As far as why posters don't read through every single post, in many cases I imagine (and granted this is my own view of it) after multiple pages the relevant posts are the ones toward the end. I generally try to go back a page or three after viewing the OP, but it's not necessarily a matter of obligating a poster to bend to someone's demand to ask question that may potentially require you to repeat what may have been stated before.
Also as far as those proposed changes, only one of them (#52) actually requires you to change anything about how Casual works. Literally everything else is fixed with a lobby system. Casual means exactly that; you are entering the unranked version of that particular format. The existing implementation is not the problem, but a lobby format gives you exactly what you want; a way for players to pick the environment they play their deck in based on what they feel is reasonable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Articles I suggest every player reads to improve at the game;
SO, I went out of my way and gather some posts in the thread real quick as an example of suggestions to change casual:
Post 25, 42, 47, 51, and 52.
This is a thread with a poll. Simple reasons have been given to suggest a change. Most people want to leave it "as is".
I'm still baffled at how some posters just don't read through the thread and insist on obligating another poster to bend to their demands.
K.I.S.S. Rock N Roll
There are the suggestions, great. Where are the good reasons to implement them?
If I have understood correctly, the system described in the post #25 summarizes what you'd like to have implemented. I have nothing against the new game mode part, just the part where you, without any heavy enough reason, want to go changing Casual mode's name. The system I'd like to have in the game:
SO, I went out of my way and gather some posts in the thread real quick as an example of suggestions to change casual:
Post 25, 42, 47, 51, and 52.
This is a thread with a poll. Simple reasons have been given to suggest a change. Most people want to leave it "as is".
I'm still baffled at how some posters just don't read through the thread and insist on obligating another poster to bend to their demands.
K.I.S.S. Rock N Roll
There are the suggestions, great. Where are the good reasons to implement them?
If I have understood correctly, the system described in the post #25 summarizes what you'd like to have implemented. I have nothing against the new game mode part, just the part where you, without any heavy enough reason, want to go changing Casual mode's name. The system I'd like to have in the game:
Ranked Standard - Casual Standard
Ranked Wild - Casual Wild
Pauper
Wtf is the problem with this one?
Because I'm tired of seeing ladder decks in casual.
I've answered your question and I am done talking to you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Great art can never be created without great suffering.
You don't necessarily see ladder decks even because it superficially looks that way. You don't know if that tempo mage is testing 2 summoning stones that he never drew.
You don't necessarily see ladder decks even because it superficially looks that way. You don't know if that tempo mage is testing 2 summoning stones that he never drew.
Still tempo mage, is it not? EleGiggle
That reply is completely meaningless.
That's your opinion. You are entitled to it. My opinion is that it's still tempo mage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Great art can never be created without great suffering.
@Killzun, I'd say you're arguing semantics if you're going to consider the two responses completely disconnected and separate from each other. After reading through the chain a few times just to make sure I wasn't missing something this was what resulted;
1. ShadowsOfSense stated that "hardly anyone" would play the new content, albeit without explaining that it was an opinion based on an estimation of how popular such a feature would be. Because, and this is a guess, we should know that ShadowsOfSense does not secretly have a poll running somewhere asking "Do you want to play a mode with ONLY BASIC AND CLASSIC CARDS?".
2. You then proceed to explain they can't know that for sure (which is fair enough), but proceed to challenge them to give you the winning lottery numbers if they're so certain. Which means that you consider an opinion based on qualitative analysis of how people have handled anything that doesn't give them sustained rewards with... fortune telling?
3. Vultrae points out (also fairly) that your response was exactly that what you were asking for was something that cannot be predicted by prior events. If we were talking about a proposed mode for a game that 0 people have played, then it might be close to the same thing (not really, but I'm being generous); however this game has been out for years, with multiple updates and game modes introduced, with lots of posted feedback from other players. Which gives a lot of contextual information to inform people exactly how much demand there is for a mode that's severely limited (there are Pauper tournaments, the turn out is not exactly indicative of being wildly demanded and they have an EVEN LESS restrictive format than the one you proposed). Which means we can make predictions and projections based on past behavior and responses. Which is absolutely nothing even remotely comparable to giving you a string of numbers that were unrelated to past numbers.
So after all that, sure we cannot with 100% certainty give you ShadowsOfSense's exactly chain of reasoning for coming to the conclusion they did that the game mode would not be popular. But using deductive reasoning that it's very likely that they haven't either a) asked every single player their opinion and gotten exact numbers, b) been to the future where this feature has been implemented and shown as unpopular, or c) IS ACTUALLY JUST PSYCHIC ENOUGH TO KNOW LOTTERY NUMBERS... it's pretty safe to say we should take it as what it was given; an opinion based on what they think would be the case.
If you're going to argue semantics, then tell someone not to make apples and oranges comparisons, maybe you should really do a better job of not making apples and oranges comparisons in the EXACT SAME reply chain. Between adamantly refusing to use basic comprehension and reasoning to interpret people's arguments, and then making ad hominem attacks to make it just seem like people are singling you out because they "don't like" your posts... your arguments are holding as much water as a bucket with a hole in the bottom. You're welcome to disagree with opinions on a forum, but please do try to keep up.
You are welcome to your opinion as well. But I stand by my comments. I did not appreciate Shadows/Banana's tone and thought them to be a trolled response, I responded in the same manner. Vultrae jumps in and then you jump in.
This was in no manner, shape, or form to be a study for the development of a new game mode. It was done with the intention of getting a "feel" of what other players were experiencing. If you don't agree you can vote "No" and perhaps express your opinion. I will not respond to demands that are lazy and will respond to posts in like manner of the tone I perceive them to be.
That is my prerogative, you can agree or disagree. So can I.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Great art can never be created without great suffering.
SO, I went out of my way and gather some posts in the thread real quick as an example of suggestions to change casual:
Post 25, 42, 47, 51, and 52.
This is a thread with a poll. Simple reasons have been given to suggest a change. Most people want to leave it "as is".
I'm still baffled at how some posters just don't read through the thread and insist on obligating another poster to bend to their demands.
K.I.S.S. Rock N Roll
There are the suggestions, great. Where are the good reasons to implement them?
If I have understood correctly, the system described in the post #25 summarizes what you'd like to have implemented. I have nothing against the new game mode part, just the part where you, without any heavy enough reason, want to go changing Casual mode's name. The system I'd like to have in the game:
Ranked Standard - Casual Standard
Ranked Wild - Casual Wild
Pauper
Wtf is the problem with this one?
Because I'm tired of seeing ladder decks in casual.
I've answered your question and I am done talking to you.
So you aren't tired of seeing specific decks in specific game mode, you are tired of seeing specific decks in any game mode that has a specific name. That's equal to actually being tired of the game mode with specific decks having a specific name. Am I the only one that thinks that makes no sense?
So yes, you are answering my questions, which I'm grateful for, but being tired of a game mode's name isn't a valid reason to change it.
It was hard to keep up once the conversation stopped talking about the topic and started getting into debate semantics but...
Was it addressed the reasons me and a few others had for why the specific idea of Pauper was a bad idea:
Such a mode would result in a selection of cards that would result in a purely aggro/face deck, resulting in an extremely stale experience for anyone. This is due to the good common/rare cards being cheap and effective while the good control cards being epic/legendary.
And I'd like to add another I haven't yet: that new players would be even MORE torn to pieces in such a mode by stronger players.
The reason why I believe the other is in the Spoiler. If you already agree you can skip it and go right to my suggestions below.
That last one is due to evidence I've seen of another game that had this exact same mode. They had 'tiers' of battle rooms based on the power level of your deck with rarer cards adding more power. The lowest tier was impossible to put in the Legendary* cards and locked you down basically to commons and rares, maybe one epic if you go mostly common.
The result was that some higher end players quickly developed a deck that would easily tear through any other deck in that format. It helped that the game wasn't balanced around such a playstyle, so while the deck was trash in the higher tiers it was vastly overpowered in the lowest tier.
Thus two things happened: new players could not play in that mode unless they specifically focused on crafting a deck that would be worthless outside of that one format and practiced enough of the game to master it. Otherwise, they would be just food for the newbie grinders with years experience of the game. Think Rank 20 farmers who didn't have to go to the trouble of deranking. Thank goodness that the game had a strong PvE mode so newbies could build their decks there instead.
The second thing: only one deck could exist. Very small card base, with most of the interesting cards blocked, in a single format that didn't represent the majority of the game. One deck took over, and that was literally the ONLY deck you could play there and expect a win from. And, of course, pure weeny aggro deck that a dog could play (and note, I respect aggro shaman and face hunter here, so when *I* say "brainless deck" I means something HS hasn't seen).
So basically their pauper mode resulted in a mode where only one deck was ever played, no newbies had any reason to visit, and no hope for balancing.
I'm all for changing the name of 'Casual' to "Unranked" or "Practice" and leaving it as a mode to try out ranked decks: they DO need a mode for that after all. I'm all for additional modes for those who don't want ladder. An entirely new mode of basic/common cards? No! Make a brawl of it. Make tournaments of it, but new mode..which takes time to code and develop which could be put into other features, has to be good, and pauper is not.
I'd honestly rather the next big mode to be added in be a custom mode as others have suggested. Set up rooms that random people or specific friends can go to and host games based on rules you decide on. Theme it like a Common Room in an inn with tables people can sit in and play among a few others. Think Starcraft UMS styled customization, though not needed a separate program to make it happen. But instead being able to customize like crazy. Ban cards or decks. Ban classes. Change stats. If they can pull it off, change abilities, at least basic ones. Add taunt to every minion, or remove charge from every minion. Make fireball do 1 damage. Play with only 15 cards in your deck and 100 health. If they COULD let you customize EVERYTHING then that's great, but whatever they could add in is fine, though they could add to it later.
That would not only allow for the variety people crave since they could just alter things however they wish, but also help with friend finding since you could meet with others in tables rather than random people in one match you'll never see again. It would also make tournaments easier to form since everyone could sit in one table.
And if you want to play in a pauper mode, you could set it up.. then find out why it's such a horrible mode.
Valid points. And the poll shows most people want to leave it "as is".
I still want to rename into "Practice" for each format. Which really just leaves it the same but with a different name.
The new Casual would require new code, which does mean more work.
However, I still hold that an option for new players and F2P players needs to be implemented. I have an enormous collection of cards in the game. I like to make janky decks on my iPad/iPhone and play in casual mode (I don't play ranked with the iPad/iPhone because of disconnects, but I also don't play ladder decks in those devices - except when I get annoyed at seeing ladder decks and then play CW, CP, MR, FM in casual - but will concede if I see someone with a basic deck, they don't deserve the punishment). It is horrible when I'm playing a janky deck and I face someone with a basic/starter deck, I'm then looking at do I concede or do I play and let them see the other possible decks that are out there?
On the other hand, there are times where I want to practice but not lose rank. And would like to face more competitive decks against competitive players. I don't want to face basic decks or janky decks.
Just starting players should be able to play in an even ground arena, while they get used to mechanics and playing against decks they have a better chance to win. Instead of playing against someone like me, with a big collection and who hits rank 5 often. Needless to say, facing a player that hits legend consistently.
Also, (I believe this was discussed in another thread) and option to choose a class to ban would also help make the game more refreshing. For example, you log in and you are able to choose not to play against Warriors (For that day, not choose at login). And you can choose classes on a rotational basis, so no one is able to abuse not facing a certain class. The class ban resets after all classes have been selected and you start over again.
The whole thing I have mentioned over and over again is that casual is being exploited by ladder decks and gold farmers, which ruins the game for other players wanting to move away from ladder.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Great art can never be created without great suffering.
Valid points. And the poll shows most people want to leave it "as is".
I still want to rename into "Practice" for each format. Which really just leaves it the same but with a different name.
The new Casual would require new code, which does mean more work.
However, I still hold that an option for new players and F2P players needs to be implemented. I have an enormous collection of cards in the game. I like to make janky decks on my iPad/iPhone and play in casual mode (I don't play ranked with the iPad/iPhone because of disconnects, but I also don't play ladder decks in those devices - except when I get annoyed at seeing ladder decks and then play CW, CP, MR, FM in casual - but will concede if I see someone with a basic deck, they don't deserve the punishment). It is horrible when I'm playing a janky deck and I face someone with a basic/starter deck, I'm then looking at do I concede or do I play and let them see the other possible decks that are out there?
On the other hand, there are times where I want to practice but not lose rank. And would like to face more competitive decks against competitive players. I don't want to face basic decks or janky decks.
Just starting players should be able to play in an even ground arena, while they get used to mechanics and playing against decks they have a better chance to win. Instead of playing against someone like me, with a big collection and who hits rank 5 often. Needless to say, facing a player that hits legend consistently.
Also, (I believe this was discussed in another thread) and option to choose a class to ban would also help make the game more refreshing. For example, you log in and you are able to choose not to play against Warriors (For that day, not choose at login). And you can choose classes on a rotational basis, so no one is able to abuse not facing a certain class. The class ban resets after all classes have been selected and you start over again.
The whole thing I have mentioned over and over again is that casual is being exploited by ladder decks and gold farmers, which ruins the game for other players wanting to move away from ladder.
You aren't seeing a single person actually argue against the points you mentioned: that new players need a place to play on their own. What they are arguing is your ideas on how to do it. Changing the mode currently held as Casual isn't necessary as it does serve a purpose to many (though I agree it could be renamed). Pauper would NOT do what you want. I can attest to that as I've seen it tried. People REALLY get too hyped up on the "hearthstone takes no skill" meme and really don't get that a player 2 years into the game will run rings around a 10 day old player no matter the collection. It's why pros can take the same accounts new players get and slam it into Legendary. THAT is a bigger issue than a new player facing someone's "Divine shield rogue.. WITH RAG!!!" deck.
Find a system that keeps people like me and you out, even if it means keeping legendaries in, and I promise it'll be MUCH more viable for new players.
As far as the class issue. .given that the entire top end of ranked is decided on one day really, adding a dice roll over whether your freeze mage gets an easy no-warrior climb to top 100 or not wouldn't be very welcome. Meanwhile, if I'm playing casually, and do NOT want to play 50 warriors in a row, an arena styled message telling me "Oh sorry, it's Warrior-day again" would not help either.
Personally I prefer the other idea presented elsewhere:rank 25-6 there's a Preference towards a class you didn't immediately face. You fought a warrior this match, next match it'll TRY to find a non-warrior. If it can't, it'll still give you the warrior, but if there's a mage in range, you get that instead. Next match it'll try for no warrior/mages. Third match, warrior is back in rotation. Again, just a preference, just like how it'll try for people your rank then expand if that proves difficult. Thus for non-competitive folks it'll give a bit more variety to their games without making it that easy to exploit.
Why stop it at 5-legend. At that point, you're pushing to be competitive. ANYTHING you give to a competitive player will be exploited and at that point, you're playing for more than just fun games.
We have to remember that there's different types of players. some want variety and new things. Others want stability so that they can plan better. Some say "UGG another tempo warrior I have to play." Others go "TEmpo warrior? More food for my anti-TW deck, HAHAHA". We're not making a game that's perfect for you, or for me. We're making a game that's pretty good for many people.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Great art can never be created without great suffering.
I have provided reasoning behind my belief that very few people will play the suggested new mode, and have yet to find any answer from the OP as to why anyone would play the new mode.
You have talked around the point, and kicked up the metaphorical dust of picking apart every sentence from those who disagree with you to try and find something to discredit them, but you have yet to provide anything of substance that can answer the simple question - why does this gamemode need to be implemented? What about this gamemode would make it a good addition to the game?
Having said that, one suggestion I noticed above would be an interesting addition to the game, although it has nothing to do with Casual mode - the ability to create your own custom rulesets for deckbuilding within the client would be nice, just as a simpler way for two friends to compete against one another with wacky decks. You can obviously already do this by just communicating with each other, but the ability to set the rules in-game so that deckbuilding is easier, and to control RNG effects - for example, controlling the expansions that Piloted Shredder will drop from - would be a real bonus.
You can find me here! Good luck everyone!
@ShadowsOfSense, I'm pretty sure at the point you're arguing with someone repeatedly over wording and semantics instead of the substance of the conversation itself it's probably a lost cause. Kudos to you and Vultrae for having patience though.
In regards to the lobby thing, that was why I think it would be a cool feature. My friends and I will make dumb rules and then build decks for them when we're tired of meta decks, and it would be perfect for people who might want a change of pace from the norm; building it into a ruleset enforced lobby lets you do that with friends as well as with people you've never met. This also give Blizzard the ability to actually implement game modes centered around it with enough participation; for example if you look at ARAM in League, or the Zombies variant of Halo, they were huge custom variations that grew in the lobby itself and eventually saw full implementation in their respective games. You could legitimately have a game mode created on something like the Hearthpwn forums or r/hearthstone, and then tested and tweaked in a live environment. And at that point, you can straight up implement tournaments based on odd rulesets that at least assure you're going to have some amount of protection against people accidentally adding a card outside of the format. And if you're new you don't necessarily have to hop straight into it, you can do all the normal ladder stuff; but if you're feeling sad about your lack of collection you can do what Killzun is proposing and create the exact experience you think would let you play against other people who have a similar set of restrictions.
Also it avoid ripping out existing game modes because... reasons (wherever they are).
Articles I suggest every player reads to improve at the game;
MTG/Hearthstone biases to avoid
Reframing negative Hearthstone experiences to improve at the game
Who's the Beatdown?
SO, I went out of my way and gather some posts in the thread real quick as an example of suggestions to change casual:
Post 25, 42, 47, 51, and 52.
This is a thread with a poll. Simple reasons have been given to suggest a change. Most people want to leave it "as is".
I'm still baffled at how some posters just don't read through the thread and insist on obligating another poster to bend to their demands.
K.I.S.S. Rock N Roll
Great art can never be created without great suffering.
Articles I suggest every player reads to improve at the game;
MTG/Hearthstone biases to avoid
Reframing negative Hearthstone experiences to improve at the game
Who's the Beatdown?
Wtf is the problem with this one?
Great art can never be created without great suffering.
Great art can never be created without great suffering.
Great art can never be created without great suffering.
It was hard to keep up once the conversation stopped talking about the topic and started getting into debate semantics but...
Was it addressed the reasons me and a few others had for why the specific idea of Pauper was a bad idea:
Such a mode would result in a selection of cards that would result in a purely aggro/face deck, resulting in an extremely stale experience for anyone. This is due to the good common/rare cards being cheap and effective while the good control cards being epic/legendary.
And I'd like to add another I haven't yet: that new players would be even MORE torn to pieces in such a mode by stronger players.
The reason why I believe the other is in the Spoiler. If you already agree you can skip it and go right to my suggestions below.
That last one is due to evidence I've seen of another game that had this exact same mode. They had 'tiers' of battle rooms based on the power level of your deck with rarer cards adding more power. The lowest tier was impossible to put in the Legendary* cards and locked you down basically to commons and rares, maybe one epic if you go mostly common.
The result was that some higher end players quickly developed a deck that would easily tear through any other deck in that format. It helped that the game wasn't balanced around such a playstyle, so while the deck was trash in the higher tiers it was vastly overpowered in the lowest tier.
Thus two things happened: new players could not play in that mode unless they specifically focused on crafting a deck that would be worthless outside of that one format and practiced enough of the game to master it. Otherwise, they would be just food for the newbie grinders with years experience of the game. Think Rank 20 farmers who didn't have to go to the trouble of deranking. Thank goodness that the game had a strong PvE mode so newbies could build their decks there instead.
The second thing: only one deck could exist. Very small card base, with most of the interesting cards blocked, in a single format that didn't represent the majority of the game. One deck took over, and that was literally the ONLY deck you could play there and expect a win from. And, of course, pure weeny aggro deck that a dog could play (and note, I respect aggro shaman and face hunter here, so when *I* say "brainless deck" I means something HS hasn't seen).
So basically their pauper mode resulted in a mode where only one deck was ever played, no newbies had any reason to visit, and no hope for balancing.
I'm all for changing the name of 'Casual' to "Unranked" or "Practice" and leaving it as a mode to try out ranked decks: they DO need a mode for that after all. I'm all for additional modes for those who don't want ladder. An entirely new mode of basic/common cards? No! Make a brawl of it. Make tournaments of it, but new mode..which takes time to code and develop which could be put into other features, has to be good, and pauper is not.
I'd honestly rather the next big mode to be added in be a custom mode as others have suggested. Set up rooms that random people or specific friends can go to and host games based on rules you decide on. Theme it like a Common Room in an inn with tables people can sit in and play among a few others. Think Starcraft UMS styled customization, though not needed a separate program to make it happen. But instead being able to customize like crazy. Ban cards or decks. Ban classes. Change stats. If they can pull it off, change abilities, at least basic ones. Add taunt to every minion, or remove charge from every minion. Make fireball do 1 damage. Play with only 15 cards in your deck and 100 health. If they COULD let you customize EVERYTHING then that's great, but whatever they could add in is fine, though they could add to it later.
That would not only allow for the variety people crave since they could just alter things however they wish, but also help with friend finding since you could meet with others in tables rather than random people in one match you'll never see again. It would also make tournaments easier to form since everyone could sit in one table.
And if you want to play in a pauper mode, you could set it up.. then find out why it's such a horrible mode.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
Valid points. And the poll shows most people want to leave it "as is".
I still want to rename into "Practice" for each format. Which really just leaves it the same but with a different name.
The new Casual would require new code, which does mean more work.
However, I still hold that an option for new players and F2P players needs to be implemented. I have an enormous collection of cards in the game. I like to make janky decks on my iPad/iPhone and play in casual mode (I don't play ranked with the iPad/iPhone because of disconnects, but I also don't play ladder decks in those devices - except when I get annoyed at seeing ladder decks and then play CW, CP, MR, FM in casual - but will concede if I see someone with a basic deck, they don't deserve the punishment). It is horrible when I'm playing a janky deck and I face someone with a basic/starter deck, I'm then looking at do I concede or do I play and let them see the other possible decks that are out there?
On the other hand, there are times where I want to practice but not lose rank. And would like to face more competitive decks against competitive players. I don't want to face basic decks or janky decks.
Just starting players should be able to play in an even ground arena, while they get used to mechanics and playing against decks they have a better chance to win. Instead of playing against someone like me, with a big collection and who hits rank 5 often. Needless to say, facing a player that hits legend consistently.
Also, (I believe this was discussed in another thread) and option to choose a class to ban would also help make the game more refreshing. For example, you log in and you are able to choose not to play against Warriors (For that day, not choose at login). And you can choose classes on a rotational basis, so no one is able to abuse not facing a certain class. The class ban resets after all classes have been selected and you start over again.
The whole thing I have mentioned over and over again is that casual is being exploited by ladder decks and gold farmers, which ruins the game for other players wanting to move away from ladder.
Great art can never be created without great suffering.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.