People often complain that the meta is saturated with players of one or two particular classes. Currently the flavour of the season are aggro decks, so people are screaming for aggro to be nerfed. But IMO this doesn't solve the root of the problem, because if the meta changes and another deck archetype becomes more efficient/dominant, then the same problem arises again.
Here's a modest suggestion: Make it so that players do not gain bonus stars in ranked play if they have won using that particular class more than twice in 4 consecutive games (including the current one they just won). Thus:
Example 1 Game 1: Hunter win Game 2: Hunter win Game 3: Hunter win (no bonus star)
Example 2 Game 1: Hunter win Game 2: Hunter win Game 3: Warlock win (bonus star) Game 4: Hunter win (no bonus star because this is the third Hunter win in four games)
Example 3 Game 1: Hunter win Game 2: Hunter win Game 3: Warlock win (bonus star) Game 4: Warlock win (bonus star) Game 5: Hunter win (bonus star)
This will dissuade players from just spamming the same deck to quickly climb the ladder - they will have an incentive to switch it up every two games in order to climb the ladder more efficiently. This rewards players who can use at least two classes effectively, while not overly penalising players who wish to specialise in one class or do not have enough cards to form more than one competitive deck. You still get a star for winning; you just don't get the bonus star. This is perfectly fair because players who can use more than one deck effectively ought to be rewarded accordingly, and it does not make the game "pay to win" since you are still winning games if you only have one competitive deck; you just rank more slowly as a result.
Yes, players can still alternate between two aggro classes (e.g. Hunter and Zoolock), but it takes somewhat more skill to play two decks effectively (especially if you are switching every two games) and your rank is more deserved as a result.
The main problem I see with this rule is that it might be somewhat hard to explain to players (and we know how Blizzard likes to dumb down the rules to suit the casual market). But this is already a simplified version of another rule I considered which might be more effective but even harder to explain to players - no bonus star if two or more of your decks in the past four games have contained more than X number of identical cards.
I agree that the current ranking system encourages people to play a fast aggro deck to rank faster, but I disagree with your solution. What if a player, for example, likes to play zoolock and handlock? Maybe it's an idea to make the duration(match-time or number of turns) of a game a factor in the rewarded stars?
We are talking about ranked play here, not casual. No one is saying that players should be barred from only playing one class or even from climbing the ladder with only one class. You just do so more slowly. Which should be perfectly fine if you really are just "playing for fun". What's wrong with encouraging players to be adept in more than one classes in ranked play, which is supposed to be a test of skill?
Edit: To be clear, this was in response to Unforgiven's post two posts above.
People often complain that the meta is saturated with players of one or two particular classes. Currently the flavour of the season are aggro decks, so people are screaming for aggro to be nerfed. But IMO this doesn't solve the root of the problem, because if the meta changes and another deck archetype becomes more efficient/dominant, then the same problem arises again.
Here's a modest suggestion: Make it so that players do not gain bonus stars in ranked play if they have won using that particular class more than twice in 4 consecutive games (including the current one they just won). Thus:
Example 1
Game 1: Hunter win
Game 2: Hunter win
Game 3: Hunter win (no bonus star)
Example 2
Game 1: Hunter win
Game 2: Hunter win
Game 3: Warlock win (bonus star)
Game 4: Hunter win (no bonus star because this is the third Hunter win in four games)
Example 3
Game 1: Hunter win
Game 2: Hunter win
Game 3: Warlock win (bonus star)
Game 4: Warlock win (bonus star)
Game 5: Hunter win (bonus star)
This will dissuade players from just spamming the same deck to quickly climb the ladder - they will have an incentive to switch it up every two games in order to climb the ladder more efficiently. This rewards players who can use at least two classes effectively, while not overly penalising players who wish to specialise in one class or do not have enough cards to form more than one competitive deck. You still get a star for winning; you just don't get the bonus star. This is perfectly fair because players who can use more than one deck effectively ought to be rewarded accordingly, and it does not make the game "pay to win" since you are still winning games if you only have one competitive deck; you just rank more slowly as a result.
Yes, players can still alternate between two aggro classes (e.g. Hunter and Zoolock), but it takes somewhat more skill to play two decks effectively (especially if you are switching every two games) and your rank is more deserved as a result.
The main problem I see with this rule is that it might be somewhat hard to explain to players (and we know how Blizzard likes to dumb down the rules to suit the casual market). But this is already a simplified version of another rule I considered which might be more effective but even harder to explain to players - no bonus star if two or more of your decks in the past four games have contained more than X number of identical cards.
I agree that the current ranking system encourages people to play a fast aggro deck to rank faster, but I disagree with your solution. What if a player, for example, likes to play zoolock and handlock?
Maybe it's an idea to make the duration(match-time or number of turns) of a game a factor in the rewarded stars?
We are talking about ranked play here, not casual. No one is saying that players should be barred from only playing one class or even from climbing the ladder with only one class. You just do so more slowly. Which should be perfectly fine if you really are just "playing for fun". What's wrong with encouraging players to be adept in more than one classes in ranked play, which is supposed to be a test of skill?
Edit: To be clear, this was in response to Unforgiven's post two posts above.