I need to emphasize that this idea doesn't destroy meta decks. It's only to improve the variety of the same decks being played as well as surface new ones.
I think you don't understand what "Ranked" means. The most important thing about ranked gameplay is skill. Right now there is no advanced deckbuilding. No new good decks have appeared scince like a month from the release of MSoG. And the most idiotic thing is that you will face Face Warrior from rank 20 to rank 5, where you will face Face Shaman or Jade Shaman or whatever. So, I guess skill doesn't matter in this game. Only your card collection and Deck winrate.
Ok? Do you think reno decks take no skill as well? Because this idea will be horrible for those.
This was a discussion of an idea for ranked play. If you want to complain about the meta theres hundreds of other posts for you. I'm not arguing about the meta.
What if the meta was entirely the most skillful decks in the game? Well fuck those, because no one wants to play the common decks, then the meta shifts to a bunch of easy skill decks.
Maybe try reading the original post and adding an original thought.
So you're saying this ideal would kill a deck that you can exchange out any of the 30 cards in it with another of the dozen so tech cards, and the deck wouldn't be playable???? What?
While reno decks exchange cards a good amount they still have at least a 20 card skeleton. Honestly this idea would hit every top deck. Reno decks also have the factor that some cards are played in multiple classes, making the problem worse.
So you have 10 cards you can change out. There's no issue there. Also you seem to think this would remove the "competitive" factor in ranked. It still has a ladder to climb, it's competitive by nature.
@gabugga I'm looking for at least another view on improving ranked if you don't agree with the one posted, as I said in the post. If you've got nothing but reasons on why this isn't a good ideal tell me how you would improve ranked yourself.
@gabugga I'm looking for at least another view on improving ranked if you don't agree with the one posted, as I said in the post. If you've got nothing but reasons on why this isn't a good ideal tell me how you would improve ranked yourself.
Fixing ranked is vague. It depends on what you want to fix.
If your only issue is trying to fix variety of cards being played in ranked, then that's easily doable by making the power level of cards/decks relative across the board. Top decks will still be commonly played but you will see a lot more different decks. Right now 2 classes aren't even playable.
However that isn't even what people complain about. They just don't like aggro. Which is fixable by a million different ideas if people wanted it to be "fixed". I think its good to have strong aggro decks in a meta where 2 reno decks are top tier.
Me personally, I just want all classes to have a viable ranked deck.
@gabugga I'm looking for at least another view on improving ranked if you don't agree with the one posted, as I said in the post. If you've got nothing but reasons on why this isn't a good ideal tell me how you would improve ranked yourself.
Fixing ranked is vague. It depends on what you want to fix.
If your only issue is trying to fix variety of cards being played in ranked, then that's easily doable by making the power level of cards/decks relative across the board. Top decks will still be commonly played but you will see a lot more different decks. Right now 2 classes aren't even playable.
Me personally, I just want all classes to have a viable ranked deck.
Buffing cards to make them "actually" playable would be the best thing for this game. But I've already given up hope on team 5 doing that. As they've said many times they basically will never do this. I'm not going to say they won't, but it sounds very unlikely.
Also about the whole win streak to legend or save points. I'm not a fan of these. I don't think ranked has to be easier to be more enjoyable. It just needs a better system to give it more substance. Honestly the joy of ranked dries up really fast.
greedy 20++ legendary deck confirm dominated in this kind of system. it become minion fighting games, just decide by who run out removal 1st.
That is a good point. Still, there are way's around this. You can add rarity into the equation. Not to mention if 20 card legendary decks worked in general we would be seeing them much more. Another point would be these decks would still take skill to play, and not many people would be playing them as they are legendaries.
greedy 20++ legendary deck confirm dominated in this kind of system. it become minion fighting games, just decide by who run out removal 1st.
I do see what you're saying tho. These 20 card legendary decks would climb ladder at a faster rate because no one is playing these cards, and with less skill needed to play them.
I kind of assumed this isn't the first time this ideal has been said, but I'm not sure why it's "idiotic". My best guess is you're just trolling.
You want to discourage people from playing the best decks in the RANKED play mode. Do you know what ranked means?
Keep thinking im trolling though. Get ready to call everyone else trolls when they tell you why it's a bad idea.
This idea mostly comes from people mad about getting rocked by the best decks over and over again in ranked play.
What's funny is this would actually be a fun thing in a different kind of game mode, but people always recommend their suggestions for ranked without even thinking.
I guess I would have to agree this isn't really ranked. But if this doesn't qualify as ranked, I want whatever "this is". "Ranked" Is stale af.
I'm not joking. It's not a well developed idea, but if they introduced ban for ranked mode, a player would be able to play his favorite/best deck with the opportunity to ban his direct counter. For exemple i want to play reno mage, teched versus pirates deck like shaman and warrior, so i ban druid. The match making system will put me versus a non-druid player that hasn't banned mage.
Think about the previous meta. Mid shaman was obliterating everyone and everything, but with this system shaman wuold have probably been the most banned class, with the result of less cancer in the meta.
So my idea is one possible ban for each player when they are queuing for a match. If there is a single deck that has a single counter this system is decent, beacuse that very powerful deck wuold be probably banned, and players who want to play cancerous decks would play far less frequently because of the match making system.
It is not a cure, of course. If i don't want to play against aggro and i ban warrior i can always find shamans and rogues, for instance. I'm not sure if only one ban would be correct, but i suspect that more bans would be bad for balance. Perhaps two bans is better. But it is good that every now and then you face a deck that you struggle with, it's normal and healthy for the game. With this system i think you wuold queue versus decks you hate far less frequently.
Implementing a third game mode in addition to wild/standard with a limited selection of cards each month (say basic + classic + one adventure + one expansion, selected each month from the full card pool available in wild mode) could actually help to maintain some diversity, while not being that hard to implement.
As for the mr. Turtle's obsession with "20 legendary decks" which aren't actually a problem, there could be something similar to the Prince Tournament format in ESL, when only certain limited amount of rare/epic/legendary cards per deck is allowed.
I actually posted about this with a very similar idea I called the "Marketplace," however I think it needs to be its own game mode. It would be a great way to create a game mode with ever changing meta which also rewards deckbuilding skill.
I actually posted about this with a very similar idea I called the "Marketplace," however I think it needs to be its own game mode. It would be a great way to create a game mode with ever changing meta which also rewards deckbuilding skill.
Yeah, I guess this should be it's own game mode. I think people are really undervaluing a point system tho. If anything having a point system in maybe the 1000s range would be far better than what we have now. There are so many different factors you can tweak to give advantage to skillful players. It wouldn't be as devastating to lose either as you might not have the same out come every game. Instead of losing a whole star every time (which we'll say equals 50 points) you might lose 46 or even 30 depending on what happened that game.
from my opinion the star system in ranked is fine as it is !
I would not like to see any changes which would make it "easier" to hit legend in some way, also the grind is fine as it is.
they should also keep the 25 ranks.. the only changes I would like to see are:
1. better rewards
2. don't let legend palyers start at rank 16 (maybe rank 10 would be okay.. it also helps the other players to not hit a wall at lower ranks every beginning of a new season)
don't know.. just feels like people are claiming to change the ladder system in order to make it easier to hit legend in some way or am I totally wrong?
@dontbemad I think a point system could go both ways. It would be easier or harder depending on the factors that are involved with the amount of points you gain or lose each game.
don't know.. just feels like people are claiming to change the ladder system in order to make it easier to hit legend in some way or am I totally wrong?
No, you would be right on that. But that wouldn't be my goal. I'm not all that for the safety net idea.
I need to emphasize that this idea doesn't destroy meta decks. It's only to improve the variety of the same decks being played as well as surface new ones.
@gabugga I'm looking for at least another view on improving ranked if you don't agree with the one posted, as I said in the post. If you've got nothing but reasons on why this isn't a good ideal tell me how you would improve ranked yourself.
Also about the whole win streak to legend or save points. I'm not a fan of these. I don't think ranked has to be easier to be more enjoyable. It just needs a better system to give it more substance. Honestly the joy of ranked dries up really fast.
bad idea.
greedy 20++ legendary deck confirm dominated in this kind of system. it become minion fighting games, just decide by who run out removal 1st.
I'm not joking. It's not a well developed idea, but if they introduced ban for ranked mode, a player would be able to play his favorite/best deck with the opportunity to ban his direct counter. For exemple i want to play reno mage, teched versus pirates deck like shaman and warrior, so i ban druid. The match making system will put me versus a non-druid player that hasn't banned mage.
Think about the previous meta. Mid shaman was obliterating everyone and everything, but with this system shaman wuold have probably been the most banned class, with the result of less cancer in the meta.
So my idea is one possible ban for each player when they are queuing for a match. If there is a single deck that has a single counter this system is decent, beacuse that very powerful deck wuold be probably banned, and players who want to play cancerous decks would play far less frequently because of the match making system.
It is not a cure, of course. If i don't want to play against aggro and i ban warrior i can always find shamans and rogues, for instance. I'm not sure if only one ban would be correct, but i suspect that more bans would be bad for balance. Perhaps two bans is better. But it is good that every now and then you face a deck that you struggle with, it's normal and healthy for the game. With this system i think you wuold queue versus decks you hate far less frequently.
Implementing a third game mode in addition to wild/standard with a limited selection of cards each month (say basic + classic + one adventure + one expansion, selected each month from the full card pool available in wild mode) could actually help to maintain some diversity, while not being that hard to implement.
As for the mr. Turtle's obsession with "20 legendary decks" which aren't actually a problem, there could be something similar to the Prince Tournament format in ESL, when only certain limited amount of rare/epic/legendary cards per deck is allowed.
I actually posted about this with a very similar idea I called the "Marketplace," however I think it needs to be its own game mode. It would be a great way to create a game mode with ever changing meta which also rewards deckbuilding skill.
Here is my original thread: http://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/general-discussion/183605-the-best-solution-to-the-casual-problem-and-some
from my opinion the star system in ranked is fine as it is !
I would not like to see any changes which would make it "easier" to hit legend in some way, also the grind is fine as it is.
they should also keep the 25 ranks.. the only changes I would like to see are:
1. better rewards
2. don't let legend palyers start at rank 16 (maybe rank 10 would be okay.. it also helps the other players to not hit a wall at lower ranks every beginning of a new season)
@dontbemad "easier" how so?
don't know.. just feels like people are claiming to change the ladder system in order to make it easier to hit legend in some way or am I totally wrong?
@dontbemad I think a point system could go both ways. It would be easier or harder depending on the factors that are involved with the amount of points you gain or lose each game.