Hearthpwn

Quote from DropDeadCynical jump

Quote from Kargen jump

I've actually thought for a while now that 30 cards was too limiting, and as more cards come out, it feels even more so. I am in favor of raising to 40 just to increase the creative space of deck design. I also think that increasing maximum non-legendary cards per deck to 3 would be suitable in such a case, but not necessary.

But it wouldn't increase the creative space of deck design.  Magic has no deck size limit and yet 99% of competitive decks have the bare minimum 60 cards and most use less different cards than the average Hearthstone deck.

So when there are 2000 cards, you think, if we had the choice of increasing the deck sets, most of the decks would still be minimum? I think a ton of decks would use 32 as a sweet number, as it does give you that extra push, and yet, keeps the deck consistent.

*sarcasm* It would probably be too confusing and make players angry and sad given we can't comprehend more deck slots *sarcasm*

but

i'd love to see the idea of a sideboard implemented. 28 cards in your core deck. 5 neutral cards in your sideboard which you have 20 secs before the mulligan when you see what your opponent hero is to pick 2 of those 5 cards in your sideboard.

Quote from Aghora jump

Quote from DropDeadCynical jump

Quote from Kargen jump

I've actually thought for a while now that 30 cards was too limiting, and as more cards come out, it feels even more so. I am in favor of raising to 40 just to increase the creative space of deck design. I also think that increasing maximum non-legendary cards per deck to 3 would be suitable in such a case, but not necessary.

But it wouldn't increase the creative space of deck design.  Magic has no deck size limit and yet 99% of competitive decks have the bare minimum 60 cards and most use less different cards than the average Hearthstone deck.

So when there are 2000 cards, you think, if we had the choice of increasing the deck sets, most of the decks would still be minimum? I think a ton of decks would use 32 as a sweet number, as it does give you that extra push, and yet, keeps the deck consistent.

Yes I believe all the best decks would still be 30.  Every card you include above that just means less chance of drawing the ones that really make your deck work.  The only exception might be if Mill suddenly became extremely strong in the meta.

The only thing that needs to be increased is not Deck Size, but a Deck Slot.

Unless somethings changed, most MTG are filled with 30-35% mana(I haven't played in 15 years).  Unless you consider 35 - 40 cards for a HS deck.  I would keep it at 30.

deck size shouldnt be increased beacuse it woudl give too much tools to play around all deck. It would be just stupid then when people just get cards to deck that you couldnt chooe carefully for what you want to do or play... it makes unique decks out and people can just add like  too much shit to their decks..

Heartstone would become very ridiculous and stupid game. 

30 card restriction is perfect for HS statergies and varieties s 35-40 card decks would break deck balance totally and it would become random shit. 

its best when you need to think very very carefully what to add in your deck, what cards you paly,, how they will synergy together etc.  40 card decks ddnt ened brains (i am yugioh and vanguard player so i know what i'm talking about)

especially beacuse cards and their effect right now in heartstone are too good. 

and i laugh argument that people wouldnt netdeck...  most People always netdecks, you dont need to netdeck even now. You can give own personal touch to deck if you want.. you just need tweak your idea over and over and over  till you are happy with it.

Most people that think that the deck size should be increased because there are more cards in the game they want to include.

One player even went so far and gave the explanation that with bigger deck size you could put more tech cards into your deck and make it good vs. everything.

I think you are completely missing the game fundamentals here.

A card in your deck is not a card in your hand.

If you increase your deck it is less likely you will have a specific card in your hand.

Example.

If we make the assumption that a game on average lasts 10 turns in this meta. Then going first you will draw 13 cards.
So not even half your deck!

And you are proposing to actually increasing the divider...

this example shows why you would want to decrease the divider, not increase it.

From this it also follows that. with the current starting hand size and the size of the deck.

A simple optimization problem should show that the reason aggro always prevails over control in the meta is because relying on drawing answer cards is far less consistent than simply curving out. Increasing the variance of draws will make it even more aggro-curvestone.

I'm used to the deck size we have now so I wouldn't like to see it being altered.

I would accept it exclusively in brawl.

if decksize are increased this will be a pain for control decks... not only will it take longer to get your opponent into fatigue (warrior) and do fatigue wars, but also for classes like priest and warlock (renolock) where people will have more answers to threats that those decks put on the field... 

Aggro decks however will suffer a bit because their deck will be more inconsistent and the main beneficient will be midrange decks... 

In mtg,  you can include 4x copies of cards,  so if hs has bigger decksize,  the game would have to change the deckbuilding rules.  Also,  there are no tutors,  and very limited draw mechanics.  Larger decks will simply lead to warlock, warrior and rogue being the only viable option 

40 cards would be great for Wild but I think standard should remain at 30

I'm not sure if this idea is novel and I expect it isn't, but it seems that if the deck size were increased the base life total of your hero would also need to be increased by the same amount, OR, while I don't have 'empirical evidence' I always felt the deck size and life total were necessarily correlated because of balance issues.

İf you are not netdecking player you probably understand what im saying. When you create a new deck list you realize that there are a lot of cards cant find a space in deck just because of 30 card limit. This is a huge advantage for aggro players because games are not long for them at turn 10 they won or lost. But people who loves playing control/midrange deck have problem creating deck with 30 card. İf we have a limit that minimum 30 card and maximum X card it would be much more better i think. What do you guys think? 30 card limit is enough or not?

You're playing Hearthstone, if you don't like the rules, then play something else. Changing a fundamental mechanic 3 years after release is not possible.

Quote from Asylum_Rhapsody >>

Unless you're playing a fatigue deck, you want as few cards as legal because the more cards you have in your deck the less consistent it becomes. That's how it works for every other card game and Hearthstone would be no different.

Quote from berat249 >>

Quote from Asylum_Rhapsody >>

Unless you're playing a fatigue deck, you want as few cards as legal because the more cards you have in your deck the less consistent it becomes. That's how it works for every other card game and Hearthstone would be no different.

Yep i agree with you thats why i didnt say it should be 45 or 60. 30-60 min-max in this way everybody can play in their style. And im pretty sure that there are a lot of players who find 30 limit is not enough for them just like me. İ mean even 35 or 40 can make difference even 1 card sometimes is important and you cant cut from deck so you have to choose which one you gonna cut. Especially in reno decks i need 1 certain card in deck but there is no card unnecessary so i cant play it and i lost because of it. İf i cut sthing and put it i lost a lot of because of cutting the other. Sometimes even 1 is also important.

Quote from Asylum_Rhapsody >>

Unless you're playing a fatigue deck, you want as few cards as legal because the more cards you have in your deck the less consistent it becomes. That's how it works for every other card game and Hearthstone would be no different.