One thing I'd be interested to see is how the statistics compare to sideboarding in MTG.
What's the significance of changing up to 5 cards in a 30-card deck, and how will that skew the strategies that competitors take?
As for how well thought out it was, I'll reserve judgment until I actually see the gameplay in action. In any case I think its good that they're trying new things, even if it's been very slow progress to get here!
We don't have much info at all as far as this concept. Pro players focus more on decks as a whole. Teching up your deck when it's then locked down for the entire tournament has never really worked out well since you end up vulnerable to any deck your tech isn't tuned for.
There was a tournament not long ago where 10 cards out of a 30 card deck were sideboarded. The overall consensus is that 10 is far too many cards as it allowed for decks to completely change their archetype. The goal is to have 1 deck that can flex to compete against different opponents, not have 2-3 different decks all under the same class.
I'm also cautious, but the last time I was cautious was over rotations and that worked out. So long as Blizzard is willing to change or gut the thing as needed then I'm ok with them experimenting. Just don't put in a system that ends up not working then locking us down into it for the next 2 years.
Though although I'm personally not enraged by it I DO support those who are ANGRY over how this announcement is for a mode that isn't going to be experienced by the majority of the playerbase when said playerbase is suffering from a lack of new content. I'm not sure much could've been done instead as I bet the announcement was to give the pro players SOME sort of time to prepare and any new content for the rest probably isn't ready for release yet. But if I have $0 in my checking account, and a credit card but I **NEED** to buy food to live, the fact that I need to eat doesn't stop the consequences of having to repay a very ugly credit card loan afterwards.
That I can see why they may have announced things this way doesn't change the fact that it's going to really bother a whole lot of folks. Blizzard will just have to withstand a few pitchfork stabs and really REALLY hope that they have something planned up soon to fix things.
The problem here is a failure to acknowledge how small a percentage of the playerbase has ever played in tournaments.
The devs felt like they needed a new format because they had been using the format for years, but they fail to take into account that this year, tens of thousands of folks who have never played Conquest would have started playing for the first time. The 1% of 1% who frequently play on the tournament circuit may be a little tired of the format, but it would have read as fresh and new for most of us.
Under phantom pressure to create a new format, I think it is likely that they have come out with a worse alternative.
Opening the tournament scene to others did not require an adjustment of format.
I think you may not give them enough credit for their process of delivery. This has no doubt taken months to plan and implement, and thinking Blizzard doesn’t realize it will target a bigger player base than the “1% of the 1%” is not quite feasible.
I can’t speak to their considerations for changing the format either, but there are lots of possibilities. For example, many people (Firebat included) say it is a simpler format than it was before. Simpler means more easily accessible to the common player that the format now opens up to.
I can't tell, but I think there may have been a failure of communication regarding the 1% of 1%. What I meant there is that you have this small group of pro players who are tired of Conquest format, and they were probably loud and influential in creating the idea that a new format was needed.
The vast majority of players, however, have only played the ladder format, and to them, Conquest would be fresh and new.
I just think opening the tournament scene to new players = good, but new format may be step down from Conquest.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
By the way, I know Jainashot will agree with me for consistency's sake on the following . . .
Whether or not you think the new format is a turd (I'm leaning that way myself), one VERY clear advantage of this format over Conquest is that you can compete in a tournament without having to be able to craft 4 competitive decks. In the past, this hasn't been much of an issue in that if you are willing to spend money to travel to on-site tournaments, you probably have access to whatever cards you want.
Opening the field to all players but continuing to use the Conquest format would have clearly resulted in the same naysayers talking about cynical cash grabs by pressuring players to craft more high-level cards. All of those people will now, I'm very sure, give Blizzard a collective pat on the back for greatly reducing the cost associated with participation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
I love how everbody here is negativ about this without seeing or playing this mode with the new cards. This mode is not for this meta with alot of polarization. Alit of this stuff will rotate. Just wait and see and give this idea a shot after rotation. The worst what might happen is that its good and you cant flame blizzard anymore it seems. Just wait and see. You complain anyways so you can complain if its rly bad.
If you bothered to read the posts buddy you'd see there is a mix of opinions and quite a good discussion.
By the way, I know Jainashot will agree with me for consistency's sake on the following . . .
Whether or not you think the new format is a turd (I'm leaning that way myself), one VERY clear advantage of this format over Conquest is that you can compete in a tournament without having to be able to craft 4 competitive decks. In the past, this hasn't been much of an issue in that if you are willing to spend money to travel to on-site tournaments, you probably have access to whatever cards you want.
Opening the field to all players but continuing to use the Conquest format would have clearly resulted in the same naysayers talking about cynical cash grabs by pressuring players to craft more high-level cards. All of those people will now, I'm very sure, give Blizzard a collective pat on the back for greatly reducing the cost associated with participation.
It most definitely opens up the accessibility of tournaments to the greater audience. Now it'll literally only be laziness that precludes anyone from not entering an online tournament. If you don't have a single competitive deck, what are you even doing in the game? :D
I can vouch that I was looking forward to playing some conquest. I thought the concept of having 4 decks, one banned, and then whoever is first to win with all three decks was a fair, varied format that allowed for the best player to come out on top more often than not. I mean, there's a reason they don't play 1 inning in a baseball game for example.....
iandakar, I'm interested to know whether the sideboard was static as is the proposed tournament format, or whether players were able to bring in cards at any point during a game? I've never seen a side board before so I'm not sure about how it's generally managed outside the new tournament structure.
Here's hoping that they've got all their ducks in a row and it'll all make sense come rotation!
I am pretty sure they put the number at 5 because they did not want the 3 decks to be entirely different archetypes.
In existing formats, it has annoyed me how important it is to choose the lineup. Prediciting what your opponents will bring often comes down to luck. With the new format, there should be more focus on playing the game and less on hard counters.
Somebody should run a moch tournament in this format so we can see how it works. Blizzard must have tested this a lot internally!
iandakar, I'm interested to know whether the sideboard was static as is the proposed tournament format, or whether players were able to bring in cards at any point during a game? I've never seen a side board before so I'm not sure about how it's generally managed outside the new tournament structure.
Here's hoping that they've got all their ducks in a row and it'll all make sense come rotation!
I'm referring to the Specialist Showdown that occured last december. It was set up more like MTG. You get one deck. Then you pick 10 cards that make up your 'sideboard'. At any point after the first game in the match, you can swap any of the cards in your deck with cards from your sideboard. It was also interesting because the players were pre-told what class to bring (idea was that they were known for playing that class very well and, thus, were to represent that class as the 'expert'). Thus all of the classes were represented by default.
I'm guessing the main example of why they thought 10 cards were 'too many' was due to how Paladin was handled. StrifeCro wielded that class and brought Even Paladin, but was able to use his 10 cards to convert it into an OTK paladin deck. Makes it hard to tech against your opponent when they could be an aggressive board focused deck or a slower combo deck with two ways to instakill.
iandakar, I'm interested to know whether the sideboard was static as is the proposed tournament format, or whether players were able to bring in cards at any point during a game? I've never seen a side board before so I'm not sure about how it's generally managed outside the new tournament structure.
Here's hoping that they've got all their ducks in a row and it'll all make sense come rotation!
I'm referring to the Specialist Showdown that occured last december. It was set up more like MTG. You get one deck. Then you pick 10 cards that make up your 'sideboard'. At any point after the first game in the match, you can swap any of the cards in your deck with cards from your sideboard. It was also interesting because the players were pre-told what class to bring (idea was that they were known for playing that class very well and, thus, were to represent that class as the 'expert'). Thus all of the classes were represented by default.
I'm guessing the main example of why they thought 10 cards were 'too many' was due to how Paladin was handled. StrifeCro wielded that class and brought Even Paladin, but was able to use his 10 cards to convert it into an OTK paladin deck. Makes it hard to tech against your opponent when they could be an aggressive board focused deck or a slower combo deck with two ways to instakill.
Ahhhh I think Thijs was invited to that but refused.
I was going to say that a sideboard that you can pull x cards from at any point isn't the same as a static sideboard that's predetermined. But I guess if you're going from Even Pally to OTK Pally then you could predetermine that in your deck selection anyway. I just feel like there would've been more "strength" to the sideboard when people could change it in reaction to their opponents deck vs it being declared pre-tournament. Therefore you couldn't really compare the 10v5.
Funny thing about transforming your deck is that in MTG and (Arena now), you can have what are called trans formative sideboards. You could change all 15 cards out, including putting in lands for some colors your decks don't have in the main deck. Your opponent won't know you are doing this unless deck lists and side boards are public knowledge. Sideboards in MTG tournaments only become public knowledge once you reach the top 8.
Then the idea is since you know what your opponent is playing and their sideboard, this what tests true skill and deck building. Sure, your chameleon sideboard worked during the round robin rounds of the tournament, but will it work when your opponent knows its there? This is where skill and bluffing and other aspects of MTG come into play. This is what is known as interaction as you know need to think about what your opponent will sideboard in against you.
What's wrong with that in tournament settings for Hearthstone? Why not 10 cards? Some people will have their 10 cards slotted to beat decks they are weak against. Some will even change their deck completely. Either way, I think it's a great way to test deck building and skills in reading your opponent.
So if you do the math real quick....in MTG, you have a 15 card sideboard and a 60 card main deck. Some would see that as 1/4 of your deck can be sideboarded. That would be incorrect. Most MTG decks in standard have between 23 to 26 lands. I am going to use the normal 24/60 land count which comes to 40% of your deck is lands. So that leaves 36 cards you have to swap with. 15 out of 36 represents roughly 42% of your functional deck to be swapped out.
If Hearthstone had 10 cards instead of 5, it would be far better and not out of line with other games like MTG. In Hearthstone, 10 out of 30 is 33% of your deck could be swapped. Far less than 42% of MTG. Imagine playing an Odd Paladin deck and then swapping out 10 cards to turn it into a mid range or OTK? I think that shows good deck building skills and is also very risky because the gamble might fail.
So in conclusion, Hearthstone having a sideboard will not hurt the game, but I think players want to play with it, not just for the pros. Put this mode or change into Tavern Brawl to test it out. You play a best of 3 and after the first game, you get to choose one of your other 2 decks if you like that is 5 card difference.
If the Tavern Brawl experiment works and there is good feedback, then try it with 10, why not? The idea is that you could then introduce a new mode where you have a Best of 3 Ladder with this new sideboard mode added (whether 5 or 10 cards). That is what the general player base wants. MORE game modes. MORE fun ways to play Hearthstone. Not to sit on the sideline and watch others play with a new tournament format.
On Twitter, Dean (from the dev team) came out and asked what players wanted. A good portion of the feedback was more play modes. Tournament mode. More ways to enjoy Hearthstone. More ways to reward loyalty. Otherwise, much like others, they are moving onto greener pastures. MTG Arena already has more features and more game modes and its still in Beta.
I love to play Hearthstone, but I find myself playing MTG Arena more and more because I can play in Best of 1 and Best of 3 and it completely changes how you play games AND how you deck build. Let's push for MORE ways to enjoy Hearthstone.
If Hearthstone had 10 cards instead of 5, it would be far better and not out of line with other games like MTG. In Hearthstone, 10 out of 30 is 33% of your deck could be swapped. Far less than 42% of MTG. Imagine playing an Odd Paladin deck and then swapping out 10 cards to turn it into a mid range or OTK? I think that shows good deck building skills and is also very risky because the gamble might fail.
The issue, I think is that we have 9 classes and, of them, most will only have 1 tournament viable deck if anything. Meanwhile 1-2 will have multiple deck types. Of them, it'll be rare for one to have both decks be close enough to be swappable with 10 cards.
Which means THAT one class will have a very distinct advantage of being able to dodge out of an opponent's plans. Suddenly you have no real clue whether your opponent will be attacking you with Odd Paladin or OTK Paladin, and both require different mulligans, different starting strategies, different tech options, and so on.
If EVERY deck could do that, we could argue that it becomes a dance between the two players similar to how multiclass tournaments work now, except more flexible. However, when only paladin can do this and mage is unable to swap between Odd Tempo and Big Spell (without looking like a watered down hybrid), or priest only stuck with Cloning, or Druid with Toggwoggle, it makes NOT bringing Paladin a disadvantage.
And people claim it's 'skillful deck design'. Are you picturing some strange world where everyone is making their own deck and some mad genius surprises everyone with some intense homemade wombo combo? Really?
With how blasted little information we have, I'll take up the combination of developers and folks who have tried a 10 card sideboard tournament who all agree that 10 is too much for HS over misty dreams of "MTG did it this way, it'll work PERFECTLY just like that here!"
So in conclusion, Hearthstone having a sideboard will not hurt the game, but I think players want to play with it, not just for the pros. Put this mode or change into Tavern Brawl to test it out. You play a best of 3 and after the first game, you get to choose one of your other 2 decks if you like that is 5 card difference.
If the Tavern Brawl experiment works and there is good feedback, then try it with 10, why not? The idea is that you could then introduce a new mode where you have a Best of 3 Ladder with this new sideboard mode added (whether 5 or 10 cards). That is what the general player base wants. MORE game modes. MORE fun ways to play Hearthstone. Not to sit on the sideline and watch others play with a new tournament format.
Seriously, I'll be blunt here.
Take out everyone's bloody ideas of how this sideboarding this SHOULD be, replace it ALL with THIS thing right here ^^.
This is EXACTLY how Brawls should be used. Being able to test out both would be quite awesome.
On Twitter, Dean (from the dev team) came out and asked what players wanted. A good portion of the feedback was more play modes. Tournament mode. More ways to enjoy Hearthstone. More ways to reward loyalty. Otherwise, much like others, they are moving onto greener pastures. MTG Arena already has more features and more game modes and its still in Beta.
I love to play Hearthstone, but I find myself playing MTG Arena more and more because I can play in Best of 1 and Best of 3 and it completely changes how you play games AND how you deck build. Let's push for MORE ways to enjoy Hearthstone.
There's a small touch of hope I can offer to folks. The hope is this:
That Team 5's big issue last year is that they have resources and will to move forward, but no #($#)( clue what they should be focusing on. And instead of just pushing out a Tournament mode just because or random changes to Wild, they've realized they have not a single clue what 'Tournament mode' should be. or what 'Wild' should be, or what sort of PvE content should be made, or if we even WANT PvE content or what kind of Wild we want or what other modes we want orIF we want modes or chat or gulids or a better ladder or 2 headed mode or whatevertheF.
And Dean kept hearing everyone at Team 5 voice their opinions, said "SHUT UP!" and used the silence to post on Twitter that request, put up a means ot collect the responses, and go "This is how we find out."
And so, the next year will be focused on reordering hearthstone's priorities and getting the game the features it sorely needs.
That's the hope anyway. Note that I'm not holding on to it. I take things in stride. I play the game based on what it is NOW and what I KNOW will be coming, not on what I think should be coming and what I hope will change. If I find a game more appealing than what's currently offered, I won't hold on "because things could get better". If I stay, it's because I find this more appealing for what I need than what other games offer.
It's why I'm pretty defensive in my posts about the game and positive about it. Because if I found the game truly that lacking and not fun I'd be on another forum being defensive and positive about THAT game instead.
Just to add, when people have been asking devs for tournament mode for ages, what they mean is a tournament mode IN THE game client so all of us can play it. This is therefore not really meaningful as it will be only for official tournaments where about 0.0001% of players attend.
Honestly I have no clue why they didn't just implement a flat out sideboard/side deck like in Yu-Gi-Oh and just keep the multiple class option. There is no positive advantage to restricting it to a one class mode.
Honestly I have no clue why they didn't just implement a flat out sideboard/side deck like in Yu-Gi-Oh and just keep the multiple class option. There is no positive advantage to restricting it to a one class mode.
As far as why not a true sideboard: The UI. This lets them manage it as, mechanically, it works just the same as having 3 decks with 3 different classes. Just that they all have the same face. Harder to keep honest a situation where players are just manually adding and removing their deck whatever they want.
THus why a few folks are clammering for 'tournament mode' again. The idea is that if the sideboard system was added as part of the UI then you could actually have a true sideboard.
As far as why not multi-classes, sort of ruins the point of sideboards as the entire point is to first face the deck blind then to be able to tweak your deck to counter it. No point in you adding anti-secrets to your sideboard against my Tempo mage when I'm just going to swap into Even Warlock next game.
seeing the same classes over and over with the slightest of changes in each game
how exciting, not gonna watch that crap ever. you gotta pay me to sit through that
not that the players look bored as fuck and depressed when they're playing anyway
i'm voting for tournaments with random deck generator, i'll watch that stuff all day. at least that's interesting
I've always loved those insane things they through in China which involves bringing all 9 classes with pick/bans hat look like Dota.
I could've sworn I saw one where, in order to win, you had to get through the rounds having won with all 9 classes.
How broken the meta is means very little when you have to win with everything from the strongest deck to the 'forgotten class'.
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.
We don't have much info at all as far as this concept. Pro players focus more on decks as a whole. Teching up your deck when it's then locked down for the entire tournament has never really worked out well since you end up vulnerable to any deck your tech isn't tuned for.
There was a tournament not long ago where 10 cards out of a 30 card deck were sideboarded. The overall consensus is that 10 is far too many cards as it allowed for decks to completely change their archetype. The goal is to have 1 deck that can flex to compete against different opponents, not have 2-3 different decks all under the same class.
I'm also cautious, but the last time I was cautious was over rotations and that worked out. So long as Blizzard is willing to change or gut the thing as needed then I'm ok with them experimenting. Just don't put in a system that ends up not working then locking us down into it for the next 2 years.
Though although I'm personally not enraged by it I DO support those who are ANGRY over how this announcement is for a mode that isn't going to be experienced by the majority of the playerbase when said playerbase is suffering from a lack of new content. I'm not sure much could've been done instead as I bet the announcement was to give the pro players SOME sort of time to prepare and any new content for the rest probably isn't ready for release yet. But if I have $0 in my checking account, and a credit card but I **NEED** to buy food to live, the fact that I need to eat doesn't stop the consequences of having to repay a very ugly credit card loan afterwards.
That I can see why they may have announced things this way doesn't change the fact that it's going to really bother a whole lot of folks. Blizzard will just have to withstand a few pitchfork stabs and really REALLY hope that they have something planned up soon to fix things.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
I can't tell, but I think there may have been a failure of communication regarding the 1% of 1%. What I meant there is that you have this small group of pro players who are tired of Conquest format, and they were probably loud and influential in creating the idea that a new format was needed.
The vast majority of players, however, have only played the ladder format, and to them, Conquest would be fresh and new.
I just think opening the tournament scene to new players = good, but new format may be step down from Conquest.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
By the way, I know Jainashot will agree with me for consistency's sake on the following . . .
Whether or not you think the new format is a turd (I'm leaning that way myself), one VERY clear advantage of this format over Conquest is that you can compete in a tournament without having to be able to craft 4 competitive decks. In the past, this hasn't been much of an issue in that if you are willing to spend money to travel to on-site tournaments, you probably have access to whatever cards you want.
Opening the field to all players but continuing to use the Conquest format would have clearly resulted in the same naysayers talking about cynical cash grabs by pressuring players to craft more high-level cards. All of those people will now, I'm very sure, give Blizzard a collective pat on the back for greatly reducing the cost associated with participation.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
If you bothered to read the posts buddy you'd see there is a mix of opinions and quite a good discussion.
It most definitely opens up the accessibility of tournaments to the greater audience. Now it'll literally only be laziness that precludes anyone from not entering an online tournament. If you don't have a single competitive deck, what are you even doing in the game? :D
I can vouch that I was looking forward to playing some conquest. I thought the concept of having 4 decks, one banned, and then whoever is first to win with all three decks was a fair, varied format that allowed for the best player to come out on top more often than not. I mean, there's a reason they don't play 1 inning in a baseball game for example.....
iandakar, I'm interested to know whether the sideboard was static as is the proposed tournament format, or whether players were able to bring in cards at any point during a game? I've never seen a side board before so I'm not sure about how it's generally managed outside the new tournament structure.
Here's hoping that they've got all their ducks in a row and it'll all make sense come rotation!
I am pretty sure they put the number at 5 because they did not want the 3 decks to be entirely different archetypes.
In existing formats, it has annoyed me how important it is to choose the lineup. Prediciting what your opponents will bring often comes down to luck. With the new format, there should be more focus on playing the game and less on hard counters.
Somebody should run a moch tournament in this format so we can see how it works. Blizzard must have tested this a lot internally!
Editor of the Heartpwn Legendary Crafting Guide:
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/card-discussion/205920-legendary-tier-list-crafting-guide
I'm referring to the Specialist Showdown that occured last december. It was set up more like MTG. You get one deck. Then you pick 10 cards that make up your 'sideboard'. At any point after the first game in the match, you can swap any of the cards in your deck with cards from your sideboard. It was also interesting because the players were pre-told what class to bring (idea was that they were known for playing that class very well and, thus, were to represent that class as the 'expert'). Thus all of the classes were represented by default.
I'm guessing the main example of why they thought 10 cards were 'too many' was due to how Paladin was handled. StrifeCro wielded that class and brought Even Paladin, but was able to use his 10 cards to convert it into an OTK paladin deck. Makes it hard to tech against your opponent when they could be an aggressive board focused deck or a slower combo deck with two ways to instakill.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
Ahhhh I think Thijs was invited to that but refused.
I was going to say that a sideboard that you can pull x cards from at any point isn't the same as a static sideboard that's predetermined. But I guess if you're going from Even Pally to OTK Pally then you could predetermine that in your deck selection anyway. I just feel like there would've been more "strength" to the sideboard when people could change it in reaction to their opponents deck vs it being declared pre-tournament. Therefore you couldn't really compare the 10v5.
Funny thing about transforming your deck is that in MTG and (Arena now), you can have what are called trans formative sideboards. You could change all 15 cards out, including putting in lands for some colors your decks don't have in the main deck. Your opponent won't know you are doing this unless deck lists and side boards are public knowledge. Sideboards in MTG tournaments only become public knowledge once you reach the top 8.
Then the idea is since you know what your opponent is playing and their sideboard, this what tests true skill and deck building. Sure, your chameleon sideboard worked during the round robin rounds of the tournament, but will it work when your opponent knows its there? This is where skill and bluffing and other aspects of MTG come into play. This is what is known as interaction as you know need to think about what your opponent will sideboard in against you.
What's wrong with that in tournament settings for Hearthstone? Why not 10 cards? Some people will have their 10 cards slotted to beat decks they are weak against. Some will even change their deck completely. Either way, I think it's a great way to test deck building and skills in reading your opponent.
So if you do the math real quick....in MTG, you have a 15 card sideboard and a 60 card main deck. Some would see that as 1/4 of your deck can be sideboarded. That would be incorrect. Most MTG decks in standard have between 23 to 26 lands. I am going to use the normal 24/60 land count which comes to 40% of your deck is lands. So that leaves 36 cards you have to swap with. 15 out of 36 represents roughly 42% of your functional deck to be swapped out.
If Hearthstone had 10 cards instead of 5, it would be far better and not out of line with other games like MTG. In Hearthstone, 10 out of 30 is 33% of your deck could be swapped. Far less than 42% of MTG. Imagine playing an Odd Paladin deck and then swapping out 10 cards to turn it into a mid range or OTK? I think that shows good deck building skills and is also very risky because the gamble might fail.
So in conclusion, Hearthstone having a sideboard will not hurt the game, but I think players want to play with it, not just for the pros. Put this mode or change into Tavern Brawl to test it out. You play a best of 3 and after the first game, you get to choose one of your other 2 decks if you like that is 5 card difference.
If the Tavern Brawl experiment works and there is good feedback, then try it with 10, why not? The idea is that you could then introduce a new mode where you have a Best of 3 Ladder with this new sideboard mode added (whether 5 or 10 cards). That is what the general player base wants. MORE game modes. MORE fun ways to play Hearthstone. Not to sit on the sideline and watch others play with a new tournament format.
On Twitter, Dean (from the dev team) came out and asked what players wanted. A good portion of the feedback was more play modes. Tournament mode. More ways to enjoy Hearthstone. More ways to reward loyalty. Otherwise, much like others, they are moving onto greener pastures. MTG Arena already has more features and more game modes and its still in Beta.
I love to play Hearthstone, but I find myself playing MTG Arena more and more because I can play in Best of 1 and Best of 3 and it completely changes how you play games AND how you deck build. Let's push for MORE ways to enjoy Hearthstone.
The issue, I think is that we have 9 classes and, of them, most will only have 1 tournament viable deck if anything. Meanwhile 1-2 will have multiple deck types. Of them, it'll be rare for one to have both decks be close enough to be swappable with 10 cards.
Which means THAT one class will have a very distinct advantage of being able to dodge out of an opponent's plans. Suddenly you have no real clue whether your opponent will be attacking you with Odd Paladin or OTK Paladin, and both require different mulligans, different starting strategies, different tech options, and so on.
If EVERY deck could do that, we could argue that it becomes a dance between the two players similar to how multiclass tournaments work now, except more flexible. However, when only paladin can do this and mage is unable to swap between Odd Tempo and Big Spell (without looking like a watered down hybrid), or priest only stuck with Cloning, or Druid with Toggwoggle, it makes NOT bringing Paladin a disadvantage.
And people claim it's 'skillful deck design'. Are you picturing some strange world where everyone is making their own deck and some mad genius surprises everyone with some intense homemade wombo combo? Really?
With how blasted little information we have, I'll take up the combination of developers and folks who have tried a 10 card sideboard tournament who all agree that 10 is too much for HS over misty dreams of "MTG did it this way, it'll work PERFECTLY just like that here!"
Seriously, I'll be blunt here.
Take out everyone's bloody ideas of how this sideboarding this SHOULD be, replace it ALL with THIS thing right here ^^.
This is EXACTLY how Brawls should be used. Being able to test out both would be quite awesome.
There's a small touch of hope I can offer to folks. The hope is this:
That Team 5's big issue last year is that they have resources and will to move forward, but no #($#)( clue what they should be focusing on. And instead of just pushing out a Tournament mode just because or random changes to Wild, they've realized they have not a single clue what 'Tournament mode' should be. or what 'Wild' should be, or what sort of PvE content should be made, or if we even WANT PvE content or what kind of Wild we want or what other modes we want orIF we want modes or chat or gulids or a better ladder or 2 headed mode or whatevertheF.
And Dean kept hearing everyone at Team 5 voice their opinions, said "SHUT UP!" and used the silence to post on Twitter that request, put up a means ot collect the responses, and go "This is how we find out."
And so, the next year will be focused on reordering hearthstone's priorities and getting the game the features it sorely needs.
That's the hope anyway. Note that I'm not holding on to it. I take things in stride. I play the game based on what it is NOW and what I KNOW will be coming, not on what I think should be coming and what I hope will change. If I find a game more appealing than what's currently offered, I won't hold on "because things could get better". If I stay, it's because I find this more appealing for what I need than what other games offer.
It's why I'm pretty defensive in my posts about the game and positive about it. Because if I found the game truly that lacking and not fun I'd be on another forum being defensive and positive about THAT game instead.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
Just to add, when people have been asking devs for tournament mode for ages, what they mean is a tournament mode IN THE game client so all of us can play it. This is therefore not really meaningful as it will be only for official tournaments where about 0.0001% of players attend.
seeing the same classes over and over with the slightest of changes in each game
how exciting, not gonna watch that crap ever. you gotta pay me to sit through that
not that the players look bored as fuck and depressed when they're playing anyway
i'm voting for tournaments with random deck generator, i'll watch that stuff all day. at least that's interesting
Honestly I have no clue why they didn't just implement a flat out sideboard/side deck like in Yu-Gi-Oh and just keep the multiple class option. There is no positive advantage to restricting it to a one class mode.
As far as why not a true sideboard: The UI. This lets them manage it as, mechanically, it works just the same as having 3 decks with 3 different classes. Just that they all have the same face. Harder to keep honest a situation where players are just manually adding and removing their deck whatever they want.
THus why a few folks are clammering for 'tournament mode' again. The idea is that if the sideboard system was added as part of the UI then you could actually have a true sideboard.
As far as why not multi-classes, sort of ruins the point of sideboards as the entire point is to first face the deck blind then to be able to tweak your deck to counter it. No point in you adding anti-secrets to your sideboard against my Tempo mage when I'm just going to swap into Even Warlock next game.
I've always loved those insane things they through in China which involves bringing all 9 classes with pick/bans hat look like Dota.
I could've sworn I saw one where, in order to win, you had to get through the rounds having won with all 9 classes.
How broken the meta is means very little when you have to win with everything from the strongest deck to the 'forgotten class'.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.