-The income of money for blizzard will be not so diferent
Uh, the work for Blizzard will be massively increased. Even if the annual number of cards decreased, making things thematically consistent within a set and testing balances across multiple sets (all while presumably accounting for the current meta) would be a ton more work if you changed the pace to be every 3 months and added a whole new set to release. If the payout wasn't also much higher, it wouldn't be economically feasible to do this, regardless of whether or not it would be good for the health of the game.
it was an idea i had one year ago and someone say the same a few days in a thread ( off topic) so i open this thread.
The iodea is to have each 3 months instead of 4 months with the following structure:
Expansion-adventure-expansion-adventure.
The advantages i see are:
- For a average f2p players are more afordable and 10 asured legendaries each year gives more cardbase to make more diferents decks.
-We only lose around 65 cards each year with the new release. We can live with 65 less filler cards i think in the cardpool.
-We change meta each 3 months instead of 4.
-The income of money for blizzard will be not so diferent
Adventures are dead
I definitely agree.
That, or simply mid-term extra releases of a bunch of cards that were previously designed for an expansion and saved for said mid-term.
We definitely need to overcome meta staleness, and nerfs are not refreshing enough.