Do you think that Hearthstone is too linear? Are you fed up with seeing the same 5-10 decks in constructed play? Just wait until the problem gets 10 times worse when blizzard starts restricting sets in ranked play...then you'll be seeing the same 4-5 decks. I know this thread is pointless, but I'm just predicting the unfortunate imminent future. Better hope blizzard adds legacy ladder play.
BOUNUS: netdecking is the worst thing to ever happen to ALL TCG and CG
The point of limiting sets is to make cards rotate thus increasing diversity. So.
Yeah. But I'm glad you hate the internet so much.
Actually, limited sets typically occur due to rarity issues and I don't mean epic/legendary. In paper card games, very old edititions become VERY hard to obtain. Thus if a few cards from 20 years ago prove to be vital for the meta then nearly everyone who's relatively new will be stuck in a very sucky place. Banning the old cards, though, ruins the value for the folks who retained all of those old cards.
Thus you limit sets so that you separate the folks with those hard to get cards from the ones who don't have them. It's a big issue to deal with in paper TCGs.
Note that this won't be the case here. If, 20 expansions later, Rag gets into the meta, any player could just use the dust they are gathering now and just click 'class set' and craft a Rag. So long as Rag is always available for instant obtaining through crafting, there's never really a point where limited sets make sense. A deck that requires 6k dust after 20 expansions will be about as easy/hard to make as a 6k dust deck will be now. This, of course, doesn't include the issue with Arena only givnig from the newest expansion, but it's hard to tell if that along will cause a mess. Otherwise, there's no reasons to create limited sets in the main modes. Perhaps have seperate modes with interesting events like limited rotating sets or limited tournaments, but there's no point to it in normal Ranked/main tournamnets.
And netdecking has occurred long before there was a net to deck from. The term is new but the practice is as old as TCGs.
It's not that hard: control wins aggro and loses to midrange. Combo should never be included in this equation. I'm a banana. Bananas don't speak English. Please, do correct any grammar mistakes I make, even the most minor and insignificant ones. GENERATION 40: The first time you see this, copy it into your signature on any forum and add 1 to the generation. This is a social experiment.
Thus you limit sets so that you separate the folks with those hard to get cards from the ones who don't have them. It's a big issue to deal with in paper TCGs.
I don't know if that's true for MTG. They didn't design the original game with tournaments or even.. competitive play of any kind in mind. So it was kind of crazy.
In any case, rotations allows them to design blocks with more consistent mechanics and this increases diversity and is probably needed even in hearthstone because in the oldest MTG formats, decks change at a very slow pace whereas brand new decks emerge in Standard every time they release a new set / block. Don't think they need to start thinking about this for a couple years though
Even if they do introduce set rotations (and there's no guarantee they will), it's moronic to assume that ranked play would be limited to a smaller card pool than what we currently have with Classic + Naxx + GvG.
I don't think you can know it will get more stale until it actually happens. Personally I think having a restricted card lists when more cards come will make the game more diverse because there will be similar meta to now but in several different play types.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to become ∞ at arena: - practice, practice, win, dominate, profit.
I don't think this would be the end of the world. The first few weeks would be fun, anyway. Constantly shaking up any meta should be the goal.
More game modes would be great. I'm the kind of guy who hangs out 8 ranks higher in constructed than I should just to build my own decks and try them out, but I do get frustrated by losing to players making obvious mistakes with optimal decks. So anything sandboxy that rewarded deck construction would be cool, like playing series where you can swap in cards.
The bottom line is Blizzard wants people buying cards and having fun; I've never been sure of which order they prioritize those, however.
Well, lemme explain how i see the situation. I began playing 3 days ago( haven't been playing since gvg release), i was at rank 19, and in 3 days i got to rank 11, playing 2-3 hours a day. And it was extremely fun, wide variety of decks, control, mid range, some noobs :D, and guess what happend, i open the game and face 3 hunters in a row who don't use even a single gvg card, zoo which uses 2-3 new cards, and a few mech mages. That's it, THAT'S IT. For around 10 games. Oh i was disappointed, really, that even pissed me off, i thought that hey, it's gonna be really fun until at least rank 5, or maybe even further... But nope. Not so say that i'm salty, cause new priest has 60-70 win rate against this, but that's what happens, when old sets are not banned. Some retards will be playing boring stuff forever, cause they're just obsessed with winning( that's the only explaination i can think of). So in my opinion it's totally worth banning previous sets to prevent this.
Well, lemme explain how i see the situation. I began playing 3 days ago( haven't been playing since gvg release), i was at rank 19, and in 3 days i got to rank 11, playing 2-3 hours a day. And it was extremely fun, wide variety of decks, control, mid range, some noobs :D, and guess what happend, i open the game and face 3 hunters in a row who don't use even a single gvg card, zoo which uses 2-3 new cards, and a few mech mages. That's it, THAT'S IT.
So it would be better if GvG had mad power creep and everyone who had a good classic collection was forced to buy a box of GvG packs in order to remain even remotely competitive? Not sure I would agree with that.
I would rather make it so that for a certain play mode some card sets would get banned, like naxx set, or gvg set in future, or maybe classic at some point
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Do you think that Hearthstone is too linear? Are you fed up with seeing the same 5-10 decks in constructed play? Just wait until the problem gets 10 times worse when blizzard starts restricting sets in ranked play...then you'll be seeing the same 4-5 decks. I know this thread is pointless, but I'm just predicting the unfortunate imminent future. Better hope blizzard adds legacy ladder play.
BOUNUS: netdecking is the worst thing to ever happen to ALL TCG and CG
The point of limiting sets is to make cards rotate thus increasing diversity.
So.
Yeah. But I'm glad you hate the internet so much.
Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice - Sneak Review! http://www.thepoxbox.com/challenges.php?id=batmanvsuperman
We have two sets, and you are whining because you think Bliz will already restrict one? Really? Crawl back under that bridge.
"Oh man, I just ordered a pizza, hope nobody eats the last slice...."
Diversity? It's going to be the same cookie cutter net deck builds...even fewer then we have now infact
Actually, limited sets typically occur due to rarity issues and I don't mean epic/legendary. In paper card games, very old edititions become VERY hard to obtain. Thus if a few cards from 20 years ago prove to be vital for the meta then nearly everyone who's relatively new will be stuck in a very sucky place. Banning the old cards, though, ruins the value for the folks who retained all of those old cards.
Thus you limit sets so that you separate the folks with those hard to get cards from the ones who don't have them. It's a big issue to deal with in paper TCGs.
Note that this won't be the case here. If, 20 expansions later, Rag gets into the meta, any player could just use the dust they are gathering now and just click 'class set' and craft a Rag. So long as Rag is always available for instant obtaining through crafting, there's never really a point where limited sets make sense. A deck that requires 6k dust after 20 expansions will be about as easy/hard to make as a 6k dust deck will be now. This, of course, doesn't include the issue with Arena only givnig from the newest expansion, but it's hard to tell if that along will cause a mess. Otherwise, there's no reasons to create limited sets in the main modes. Perhaps have seperate modes with interesting events like limited rotating sets or limited tournaments, but there's no point to it in normal Ranked/main tournamnets.
And netdecking has occurred long before there was a net to deck from. The term is new but the practice is as old as TCGs.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
Please tell how you have come to such a prediction, great Oracle of Blizzard.
Used to be a proud Handlock player.
Legend 17 times.
Still flirting with the ladder from times to times with Renolock.
bonus content? rofl
All tcgs and cgs that exists do this.
All except HS. Even Ben Brode revealed that they have not decided about set rotations yet.
You should work for blizzard, since you know things that they themselves don't.
"Put your face in the light!" - Tirion Fordring
funniest thread ever
It's not that hard: control wins aggro and loses to midrange. Combo should never be included in this equation.
I'm a banana. Bananas don't speak English. Please, do correct any grammar mistakes I make, even the most minor and insignificant ones.
GENERATION 40: The first time you see this, copy it into your signature on any forum and add 1 to the generation. This is a social experiment.
On a positive note, this joke of a thread at least has some potential to net you the 'Popular' site achievement although it is a longshot.
Free to try and find a game, dealing cards for sorrow, cards for pain.
I don't know if that's true for MTG. They didn't design the original game with tournaments or even.. competitive play of any kind in mind. So it was kind of crazy.
In any case, rotations allows them to design blocks with more consistent mechanics and this increases diversity and is probably needed even in hearthstone because in the oldest MTG formats, decks change at a very slow pace whereas brand new decks emerge in Standard every time they release a new set / block.
Don't think they need to start thinking about this for a couple years though
Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice - Sneak Review! http://www.thepoxbox.com/challenges.php?id=batmanvsuperman
Let me get this straight, does the limiting of sets mean every week only certain classes will be allowed to be played on ladder?
No limited sets would mean only expert + gvg cards allowed etc.
I don't believe they will make limited series. It really not needed. But something should be added to allow new players to have fun as well.
Even if they do introduce set rotations (and there's no guarantee they will), it's moronic to assume that ranked play would be limited to a smaller card pool than what we currently have with Classic + Naxx + GvG.
I don't think you can know it will get more stale until it actually happens. Personally I think having a restricted card lists when more cards come will make the game more diverse because there will be similar meta to now but in several different play types.
How to become ∞ at arena: - practice, practice, win, dominate, profit.
20K G's saved up every new expansion.
I don't think this would be the end of the world. The first few weeks would be fun, anyway. Constantly shaking up any meta should be the goal.
More game modes would be great. I'm the kind of guy who hangs out 8 ranks higher in constructed than I should just to build my own decks and try them out, but I do get frustrated by losing to players making obvious mistakes with optimal decks. So anything sandboxy that rewarded deck construction would be cool, like playing series where you can swap in cards.
The bottom line is Blizzard wants people buying cards and having fun; I've never been sure of which order they prioritize those, however.
Well, lemme explain how i see the situation. I began playing 3 days ago( haven't been playing since gvg release), i was at rank 19, and in 3 days i got to rank 11, playing 2-3 hours a day. And it was extremely fun, wide variety of decks, control, mid range, some noobs :D, and guess what happend, i open the game and face 3 hunters in a row who don't use even a single gvg card, zoo which uses 2-3 new cards, and a few mech mages. That's it, THAT'S IT. For around 10 games. Oh i was disappointed, really, that even pissed me off, i thought that hey, it's gonna be really fun until at least rank 5, or maybe even further... But nope. Not so say that i'm salty, cause new priest has 60-70 win rate against this, but that's what happens, when old sets are not banned. Some retards will be playing boring stuff forever, cause they're just obsessed with winning( that's the only explaination i can think of). So in my opinion it's totally worth banning previous sets to prevent this.
So it would be better if GvG had mad power creep and everyone who had a good classic collection was forced to buy a box of GvG packs in order to remain even remotely competitive? Not sure I would agree with that.
I would rather make it so that for a certain play mode some card sets would get banned, like naxx set, or gvg set in future, or maybe classic at some point