Why is f2p playstyle so often associated with being a noob or at least a new player? If a person does not want to spend their money on a free game, they are allowed to. It doesn't mean they have less skill or less cards than any other player. I am 100% f2p myself and I have at least 2 decks for all the classes (including legends) and trust me, I'm not playing that much.
Because once you have enough time as a F2Per then you no longer really LOOK like one. A person like me who has been playing mostly dailies since beta can easily get any card and deck they wish without a single dollar put into the game. A few months ago I finally had the means to put cash in and realized I had nothing I wanted to buy. I'm sitting on 4k dust now and really don't have a card I'm interested in crafting, and I'm the type that's trying to make Y'shaarj work (#$*)# that, I wish I could figure out a way to get all four gods in a deck).
Thus there's not even a point in talking about old-time F2Pness since you are literally at the same power level as folks who paid.
As such, whenever the mention of F2P comes in, what's REALLY being talked about is the first few months of the game when you are starting out, in a world full of folks who either paid money or spent a lot of time in the game to get their collections while you sit with some commons, a few rares, and Farsight.
ON TOP OF THAT, there's the matter of ability. Pros have proven time after time that they can take a fresh new F2P account and take it all the way to legendary. Even those that never made it to legendary can easily take a F2P deck to at least rank 15, and can run arena well enough to quickly fund it properly. Thus F2P + lots of skill really isn't much of an issue either.
Given all of that, the only real issue is when a player doesn't have either. They are new, so they don't have the ability to wield a cheap deck very well, and they are F2P so they can't make a top tier deck. That's well over 50% of all new players, so it is a big deal.
But that's why we assume that F2P = new+ lack of skill, because otherwise we wouldn't be here thinking of what sort of help they'll need.
On topic: I don't think that Pauper would 'fix' casual mode in any way. As everyone said before me, it's a place to build gimmick decks or just try out new ideas. Pauper would only limit it and force every player that wants to be innovative or creative to try their decks in ranked mode, which would only lead to netdecking being even more common. Casual mode searches for opponents of similar total level, so newer players should not experience too much trouble with playing there.
Pretty much. Also note that aggro decks are cheaper. Remove the doomhammers and Finley and face shaman becomes a Pauper deck that will steamroll ANYTHING a newbie could make.
As of Priest problem - I think the concept of the class (stealing your minions and/or duplicating cards from your deck) is pretty awesome. Unfortunately it seems like it's not enough to be competitive against aggro and tempo decks. People are also playing priest on casual because everyone is still looking for an archetype which would have a positive winrate. I'd like to find a viable Priest deck too, so it turns out I'm one of these people.
Priest is pretty much in Paladin's position JUST before TGT..and that's VERY messy to deal with. Their hero power is both the worst and best in the game depending on the situation, and a priest that's starting to win becomes nearly impossible to stop. They's only problem is that they can't get on to the board easily. Pre-Standard, Chinese priest ALMOST pulled it off, but the cards used were great vs aggro but very vulnerable vs control (deathlord for example). Standard stole their insane reset too and their early game, so they're back at square one.
Some say all they need to turn into Secret Paladin level of insanity is a good 2 drop. I'm inclined to agree.
And what exactly, is so bad about priests? I don't see anything that makes them horrible to face. If I had to choose one annoying class, I'd say Shaman because of all the aggro, not a more control-centric class. Also, if anything, wouldn't constantly facing off against a so-called sub-par class be a good thing? Makes it much easier to win and complete dailies for new players.
My theory is that people hate priests because midrange decks are popular. They don't run a lot of big threats and the few they have, the priest can easily handle. Priest, if built control, is also really good against control decks, though at that point it's all mindgames and some people really suck at baiting out removal (I mean...if you drop that Tirion on turn 8, yes, he is getting entombed), with the exception of control warrrior, of course.
My personal most hated class has been paladin for the longest time, now very closely contested by shaman - you either have removal for their flamewreathed faceless, or you've lost.
I don't think I've ever went up against a deck I recognized as a midrange deck. The only midrange deck I've seen in-game would probably be my own. Of course the highest rank I've gotten to is 8 so, maybe they're usually at higher ranks, or maybe I just have never been matched against one. Of course it could just be that I don't recognize a midrange deck on sight.
And what exactly, is so bad about priests? I don't see anything that makes them horrible to face. If I had to choose one annoying class, I'd say Shaman because of all the aggro, not a more control-centric class. Also, if anything, wouldn't constantly facing off against a so-called sub-par class be a good thing? Makes it much easier to win and complete dailies for new players.
My theory is that people hate priests because midrange decks are popular. They don't run a lot of big threats and the few they have, the priest can easily handle. Priest, if built control, is also really good against control decks, though at that point it's all mindgames and some people really suck at baiting out removal (I mean...if you drop that Tirion on turn 8, yes, he is getting entombed), with the exception of control warrrior, of course.
My personal most hated class has been paladin for the longest time, now very closely contested by shaman - you either have removal for their flamewreathed faceless, or you've lost.
I don't think I've ever went up against a deck I recognized as a midrange deck. The only midrange deck I've seen in-game would probably be my own. Of course the highest rank I've gotten to is 8 so, maybe they're usually at higher ranks, or maybe I just have never been matched against one. Of course it could just be that I don't recognize a midrange deck on sight.
Midrange is typically a deck that relies on the..midgame. They aren't that needy for holding the board early game, but they fight mostly to keep you at bay and give them time, then they get stronger as things go on. They typiaclly will have turns 4-6 that are hard to deal with followed by a bursty finisher. The goal is to slam a control or combo deck just as they transition from their control phase to their attack phase, and slam them before they can use board wipes to regain the board or kill yo uwith their big boys.
And what exactly, is so bad about priests? I don't see anything that makes them horrible to face. If I had to choose one annoying class, I'd say Shaman because of all the aggro, not a more control-centric class. Also, if anything, wouldn't constantly facing off against a so-called sub-par class be a good thing? Makes it much easier to win and complete dailies for new players.
My theory is that people hate priests because midrange decks are popular. They don't run a lot of big threats and the few they have, the priest can easily handle. Priest, if built control, is also really good against control decks, though at that point it's all mindgames and some people really suck at baiting out removal (I mean...if you drop that Tirion on turn 8, yes, he is getting entombed), with the exception of control warrrior, of course.
My personal most hated class has been paladin for the longest time, now very closely contested by shaman - you either have removal for their flamewreathed faceless, or you've lost.
I don't think I've ever went up against a deck I recognized as a midrange deck. The only midrange deck I've seen in-game would probably be my own. Of course the highest rank I've gotten to is 8 so, maybe they're usually at higher ranks, or maybe I just have never been matched against one. Of course it could just be that I don't recognize a midrange deck on sight.
Midrange is typically a deck that relies on the..midgame. They aren't that needy for holding the board early game, but they fight mostly to keep you at bay and give them time, then they get stronger as things go on. They typiaclly will have turns 4-6 that are hard to deal with followed by a bursty finisher. The goal is to slam a control or combo deck just as they transition from their control phase to their attack phase, and slam them before they can use board wipes to regain the board or kill yo uwith their big boys.
I know what a midrange deck is, I was just saying I might just mistake them for some other deck. And I don't remember ever facing a deck like that.
I know what a midrange deck is, I was just saying I might just mistake them for some other deck. And I don't remember ever facing a deck like that.
Oh sorry. I kneejerk explanations the second I think I see a question :P.
Though I don't think you are mistaking any. We really don't have midrange decks at the moment, except for hunter. I THINK he may mean in the past. Priest was pretty good at handling midrange decks that showed up in the past and probably would be again if such decks were common.
For a newer players in particular, I'd like a "Casual" where players compete using the deck recipe decks. Reward new players for building/crafting their collection to a point where they have completed a recipe deck, and players of any level can try the "cookie cutter" decks out before making their own changes to play something similar on ladder.
I don't think I've ever went up against a deck I recognized as a midrange deck. The only midrange deck I've seen in-game would probably be my own. Of course the highest rank I've gotten to is 8 so, maybe they're usually at higher ranks, or maybe I just have never been matched against one. Of course it could just be that I don't recognize a midrange deck on sight.
I'd say C'thun druid can be considered pretty midrange, there's midrange shammy (ok, that's a slightly slower aggro deck in my opinion but hey, whatever) and midrange hunter. I meet all of them on the ladder around rank 15 quite often actually.
Well, it has been a while since I got to rank 10, been using many not-so-good decks recently, so I guess I haven't been faced off against them because of that.
I don't think I've ever went up against a deck I recognized as a midrange deck. The only midrange deck I've seen in-game would probably be my own. Of course the highest rank I've gotten to is 8 so, maybe they're usually at higher ranks, or maybe I just have never been matched against one. Of course it could just be that I don't recognize a midrange deck on sight.
I'd say C'thun druid can be considered pretty midrange, there's midrange shammy (ok, that's a slightly slower aggro deck in my opinion but hey, whatever) and midrange hunter. I meet all of them on the ladder around rank 15 quite often actually.
C'thun druid isn't midrange. It's Tempo. A typical way of telling the difference is if it's mostly interested in constantly dropping mininons on curve. Aggro drops a lot of 1-3 drops, whatever the turn. Midrange won't mind throwing removal early on and just keeping the board clean or weak, or just stalling the game with things like taunts (think freezing traps and Houndmasters). Combo mostly wants to draw cards early on. Control is content to keep your board clear, like midrange, or let you build up before a board clear.
Tempo.. 2 drop minion, 3 drop minion, 4 drop minion, 5 drop minion. If they have hte hand they want, they'll just keep dropping minions until they can see a turn where they can keep their minions on the board while ruining your board. Mana wyrm into frost bolt to preserve the wyrm into Flamewaker, into a ton of spells to keep th eflamewaker around, into ... That's a Tempo deck.
C'thun druid wants to drop either C'thun followers or innervate a bigger C'thun follower or just a very good card like DotC. They win on the C'thu nplay, but rarely when they have an empty board. Instead they win by you not being able to clear their minions, thus letting them snowball into a wall you can't deal with. THEN 'Cthun drops and you die.
So it's really a Tempo deck. Tempo decks having minions from turn 1-10 is normal for them. They also tend to have poor card draw and fall flat if they EVER lose the board completely as they have crap recovery tools. That's C'thun druid in a nutshell.
Midrange hunter can lose the board at turn 3. They won't mind if they can drop a Tiger turn 5, highmane 6, 7, then double HufferAndFriends. Their first few turns are rather weak, making them vulnerable to aggro. And they aren't that interested in letting the game go much past turn 10 as they start to lose steam not long afterwards. THAT is a midrange deck
Midrange is weak and stally in the early game, then ramps up hard in the midgame and tries to not let it get to the end game, though they aren't THAT weak if they have to. They can give up the board so long as they can have their power plays.
Tempo keeps up the pressure all game long, from turn 1 to turn 10. They don't have to kill you right away since so long as they have the board they WILL kill you the second you slip up. They CANNOT lose the board.. ever.
To make casual truly casual, and not just the same decks in ranked mode, is very simple. No rewards. Doesn't count towards your quests, no gold for wins. It would be a true for fun mode.
To make casual truly casual, and not just the same decks in ranked mode, is very simple. No rewards. Doesn't count towards your quests, no gold for wins. It would be a true for fun mode.
But why should the players who play for fun get no rewards?
If you want a new game mode, great, suggest a new game mode, but no, Casual mode is fine and shouldn't be replaced by that new game mode.
To make casual truly casual, and not just the same decks in ranked mode, is very simple. No rewards. Doesn't count towards your quests, no gold for wins. It would be a true for fun mode.
But why should the players who play for fun get no rewards?
If you want a new game mode, great, suggest a new game mode, but no, Casual mode is fine and shouldn't be replaced by that new game mode.
Casual is dependent on Standard or Wild. There would be no change to the Standard and Wild "Casual" other than calling it by "Practice". IT STAYS THE SAME.
The only change is to have a REAL Casual mode outside Standard and Wild and be an area in and of itself outside the same crap you see in the other formats. It can have its own crap, which is fine.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Great art can never be created without great suffering.
To make casual truly casual, and not just the same decks in ranked mode, is very simple. No rewards. Doesn't count towards your quests, no gold for wins. It would be a true for fun mode.
But why should the players who play for fun get no rewards?
If you want a new game mode, great, suggest a new game mode, but no, Casual mode is fine and shouldn't be replaced by that new game mode.
Casual is dependent on Standard or Wild. There would be no change to the Standard and Wild "Casual" other than calling it by "Practice". IT STAYS THE SAME.
The only change is to have a REAL Casual mode outside Standard and Wild and be an area in and of itself outside the same crap you see in the other formats. It can have its own crap, which is fine.
Wait, so you want to rename Casual to Practice (btw that name is already used for Innkeeper), and then create a new game mode called Casual? That would just create unnecessary confusion. Why not keep Casual Casual and create a new game mode called Pauper?
Casual needs no fix at all, because of reasons already mentioned by others (testing purposes first of all).
Also, if what we are talking about here is a mode that allows new and "poor" players to play without getting overwhelmed by expensive cards, Classic set needs to be banned as well: Classic legendaries and epics look as overwhelming and expensive as those from new sets, in the eyes of the new player.
You should keep only Basic Cards if the purpose is a newbie-friendly environment. And create a new game mode for that.
Anyway, first principle of engineering: don't fix what works fine already...
To make casual truly casual, and not just the same decks in ranked mode, is very simple. No rewards. Doesn't count towards your quests, no gold for wins. It would be a true for fun mode.
But why should the players who play for fun get no rewards?
If you want a new game mode, great, suggest a new game mode, but no, Casual mode is fine and shouldn't be replaced by that new game mode.
Casual is dependent on Standard or Wild. There would be no change to the Standard and Wild "Casual" other than calling it by "Practice". IT STAYS THE SAME.
The only change is to have a REAL Casual mode outside Standard and Wild and be an area in and of itself outside the same crap you see in the other formats. It can have its own crap, which is fine.
Wait, so you want to rename Casual to Practice (btw that name is already used for Innkeeper), and then create a new game mode called Casual? That would just create unnecessary confusion. Why not keep Casual Casual and create a new game mode called Pauper?
So much confusion!!! lol. There is no confusing, put the fire out.
There is no casual, casual as it stands right now is just rank without ranks. All you see is ladder decks in casual. That's not casual, that's unranked ladder.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Great art can never be created without great suffering.
Casual needs no fix at all, because of reasons already mentioned by others (testing purposes first of all).
Also, if what we are talking about here is a mode that allows new and "poor" players to play without getting overwhelmed by expensive cards, Classic set needs to be banned as well: Classic legendaries and epics look as overwhelming and expensive as those from new sets, in the eyes of the new player.
You should keep only Basic Cards if the purpose is a newbie-friendly environment. And create a new game mode for that.
Anyway, first principle of engineering: don't fix what works fine already...
You don't mind seeing ladder decks in casual. I do. And others do as well. Like I said in the paragraph before, all you see in casual for the most part is ladder decks. The option I'm referring to, while it benefits F2P players, also benefits ALL other players that would like to have a break from ladder decks and its FotM.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Great art can never be created without great suffering.
I'm just going to leave a tiny insight here of my friend's/family member's experience with hearthstone:
1. I started hearthstone coming from magic the gathering and YGO so I had a lot of experience "sucking it up" since I don't have a lot of spare income, and I haven't spent a dime until WoG prerelease, it was harsh but still fun, but I rationalize it by saying I already liked card games before facing the F2P experience of HS for the first 2 years before I spent some cash in the WoG prerelease deal.
2. My sister starts playing HS this year, I encourage her, I build budget decks for her, she enjoys the animations, the feelings that adveture events give, even tries tavern brawls that she knows are going to be hard for her for having a tiny collection (the we start at full mana legendary parade for example). But she just doesn't commit to the game, she plays like 2 hours a week, and just if she's in the mood of loosing 70% of the time, the begginer experience was fine until she started playing casual gaining class levels because eventually she stoped playing new players like her and started facing netdecks that are efficient. The highest ranked rank she has reached is 18, and because I put her there. SO, she's a player that wont spend money on blizzard's game because of the feelsbad of casual.
3. My girlfriend starts playing HS a couple of months ago, she build her own mage deck, she enjoys it, she starts facing netdecks and unstoppable strategies for a collection with only a couple of rares while in casual, she has better things to do than to lose every night against way stronger decks than her's in a sub format that is supose to be for begginers, now she's playing ori and the blind forest and every night she tells me how much fun she had during the nevel she went through, so, less money for blizzard because of the casual experience.
4. I've invited 7 friends into the game, only 3 stayed, 2 of them spent money in the game, 1 because he felt like jumping into ranked fast was worth it (so 1 in 9 people I know), the second one did it just to get good, so hedidn't actually WANTED to spend money on the game he felt he HAD TO, and that just generates animosity against the community that made him spend money just to stay on level, he doesn't play regularly any more.
So all in all, I think the game as casual as it is (and believe me, HS is a very straight forward game) the casual sub-format is not actually helping people stay in the game wich that was what was promoted when the game started, a place where new and unprepared players could play and get gold and experience without the pressure of ranked play.
Casual needs fixing, and I believe it could be done really easily, link the combined account level to what type of players you can face, just like with WoW's battlegrounds, there should be "level gaps" combined level 9 to 20, 21 to 50, etc etc. So you will face players with the same TIME/EXPERIENCE ration in the game as you do, doesn't matter if you have 5 hours a day or just a couple of games every day. and the ones that want to playtest high level cards will face only people that have commited the same time to get similar level cards. NOW, you will see from time to time the "wallet warrior" that just bought into HS and is level 20 but has a ton of cards, he will level up quickly anyway so he will face the real level gap he has to and at least he won't be able to go back and push on non-wallet players.
Side note: People keep saying "but you can go arena and earn gold and dust" did you actually played arena when you started? have you ever played draft format in other games? Arena is an individual format in itself, and finnishing 2-3 or 1-3 in arena as a new player is even a worst feelsbad than losing in casual because 150gold is a LOT for a new player.
EDIT: Made bold the starting phrase of the key part in my wall of text so my main opinion can be read easily.
Casual needs no fix at all, because of reasons already mentioned by others (testing purposes first of all).
Also, if what we are talking about here is a mode that allows new and "poor" players to play without getting overwhelmed by expensive cards, Classic set needs to be banned as well: Classic legendaries and epics look as overwhelming and expensive as those from new sets, in the eyes of the new player.
You should keep only Basic Cards if the purpose is a newbie-friendly environment. And create a new game mode for that.
Anyway, first principle of engineering: don't fix what works fine already...
You don't mind seeing ladder decks in casual. I do. And others do as well. Like I said in the paragraph before, all you see in casual for the most part is ladder decks. The option I'm referring to, while it benefits F2P players, also benefits ALL other players that would like to have a break from ladder decks and its FotM.
Your post did not bring much of an argument... it's not that you mind and I don't.
You are the one who wants to modify something that, according to your own poll, is ok as it is. So you should provide why, and you just failed so far (I understand your reasons, but not your solution). If you modify Casual as you suggested, the majority of players in your poll would not benefit from it, at all. Actually, you would ruin Casual mode because then we could not genuinely test stuff anymore, out of ladder.
The point of Casual is playing in a "real" environment, while losing nothing in the worst case, and gaining something (gold/quests) in the best case. Trying your own cards and deck recipes in the process. Most of us (again, cf. poll) would not play Casual if it wasn't exactly that way.
If you are suggesting a new game mode with reduced card sets, call it Classic Mode or whatever, fine (because then you would not alter anything, just add something).
Otherwise the arguments for modification of existing Casual are so far insufficient and your own poll is against you.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Pauper is totally valid...........in brawl.
Because once you have enough time as a F2Per then you no longer really LOOK like one. A person like me who has been playing mostly dailies since beta can easily get any card and deck they wish without a single dollar put into the game. A few months ago I finally had the means to put cash in and realized I had nothing I wanted to buy. I'm sitting on 4k dust now and really don't have a card I'm interested in crafting, and I'm the type that's trying to make Y'shaarj work (#$*)# that, I wish I could figure out a way to get all four gods in a deck).
Thus there's not even a point in talking about old-time F2Pness since you are literally at the same power level as folks who paid.
As such, whenever the mention of F2P comes in, what's REALLY being talked about is the first few months of the game when you are starting out, in a world full of folks who either paid money or spent a lot of time in the game to get their collections while you sit with some commons, a few rares, and Farsight.
ON TOP OF THAT, there's the matter of ability. Pros have proven time after time that they can take a fresh new F2P account and take it all the way to legendary. Even those that never made it to legendary can easily take a F2P deck to at least rank 15, and can run arena well enough to quickly fund it properly. Thus F2P + lots of skill really isn't much of an issue either.
Given all of that, the only real issue is when a player doesn't have either. They are new, so they don't have the ability to wield a cheap deck very well, and they are F2P so they can't make a top tier deck. That's well over 50% of all new players, so it is a big deal.
But that's why we assume that F2P = new+ lack of skill, because otherwise we wouldn't be here thinking of what sort of help they'll need.
Pretty much. Also note that aggro decks are cheaper. Remove the doomhammers and Finley and face shaman becomes a Pauper deck that will steamroll ANYTHING a newbie could make.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
What's wrong with casual?
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
Oh sorry. I kneejerk explanations the second I think I see a question :P.
Though I don't think you are mistaking any. We really don't have midrange decks at the moment, except for hunter. I THINK he may mean in the past. Priest was pretty good at handling midrange decks that showed up in the past and probably would be again if such decks were common.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
For a newer players in particular, I'd like a "Casual" where players compete using the deck recipe decks. Reward new players for building/crafting their collection to a point where they have completed a recipe deck, and players of any level can try the "cookie cutter" decks out before making their own changes to play something similar on ladder.
CCGing since '98.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
To make casual truly casual, and not just the same decks in ranked mode, is very simple. No rewards. Doesn't count towards your quests, no gold for wins. It would be a true for fun mode.
Great art can never be created without great suffering.
Casual needs no fix at all, because of reasons already mentioned by others (testing purposes first of all).
Also, if what we are talking about here is a mode that allows new and "poor" players to play without getting overwhelmed by expensive cards, Classic set needs to be banned as well: Classic legendaries and epics look as overwhelming and expensive as those from new sets, in the eyes of the new player.
You should keep only Basic Cards if the purpose is a newbie-friendly environment. And create a new game mode for that.
Anyway, first principle of engineering: don't fix what works fine already...
Great art can never be created without great suffering.
Great art can never be created without great suffering.
I'm just going to leave a tiny insight here of my friend's/family member's experience with hearthstone:
1. I started hearthstone coming from magic the gathering and YGO so I had a lot of experience "sucking it up" since I don't have a lot of spare income, and I haven't spent a dime until WoG prerelease, it was harsh but still fun, but I rationalize it by saying I already liked card games before facing the F2P experience of HS for the first 2 years before I spent some cash in the WoG prerelease deal.
2. My sister starts playing HS this year, I encourage her, I build budget decks for her, she enjoys the animations, the feelings that adveture events give, even tries tavern brawls that she knows are going to be hard for her for having a tiny collection (the we start at full mana legendary parade for example). But she just doesn't commit to the game, she plays like 2 hours a week, and just if she's in the mood of loosing 70% of the time, the begginer experience was fine until she started playing casual gaining class levels because eventually she stoped playing new players like her and started facing netdecks that are efficient. The highest ranked rank she has reached is 18, and because I put her there. SO, she's a player that wont spend money on blizzard's game because of the feelsbad of casual.
3. My girlfriend starts playing HS a couple of months ago, she build her own mage deck, she enjoys it, she starts facing netdecks and unstoppable strategies for a collection with only a couple of rares while in casual, she has better things to do than to lose every night against way stronger decks than her's in a sub format that is supose to be for begginers, now she's playing ori and the blind forest and every night she tells me how much fun she had during the nevel she went through, so, less money for blizzard because of the casual experience.
4. I've invited 7 friends into the game, only 3 stayed, 2 of them spent money in the game, 1 because he felt like jumping into ranked fast was worth it (so 1 in 9 people I know), the second one did it just to get good, so hedidn't actually WANTED to spend money on the game he felt he HAD TO, and that just generates animosity against the community that made him spend money just to stay on level, he doesn't play regularly any more.
So all in all, I think the game as casual as it is (and believe me, HS is a very straight forward game) the casual sub-format is not actually helping people stay in the game wich that was what was promoted when the game started, a place where new and unprepared players could play and get gold and experience without the pressure of ranked play.
Casual needs fixing, and I believe it could be done really easily, link the combined account level to what type of players you can face, just like with WoW's battlegrounds, there should be "level gaps" combined level 9 to 20, 21 to 50, etc etc. So you will face players with the same TIME/EXPERIENCE ration in the game as you do, doesn't matter if you have 5 hours a day or just a couple of games every day. and the ones that want to playtest high level cards will face only people that have commited the same time to get similar level cards. NOW, you will see from time to time the "wallet warrior" that just bought into HS and is level 20 but has a ton of cards, he will level up quickly anyway so he will face the real level gap he has to and at least he won't be able to go back and push on non-wallet players.
Side note: People keep saying "but you can go arena and earn gold and dust" did you actually played arena when you started? have you ever played draft format in other games? Arena is an individual format in itself, and finnishing 2-3 or 1-3 in arena as a new player is even a worst feelsbad than losing in casual because 150gold is a LOT for a new player.
EDIT: Made bold the starting phrase of the key part in my wall of text so my main opinion can be read easily.
There is nothing left if you can not has the right to bear your arms - werebear 2016-eternity campaign
If you modify Casual as you suggested, the majority of players in your poll would not benefit from it, at all. Actually, you would ruin Casual mode because then we could not genuinely test stuff anymore, out of ladder.
Most of us (again, cf. poll) would not play Casual if it wasn't exactly that way.
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.