Hearthpwn

Done

Blizzard has a plan to over-time nerf all the good classic/basic cards. They cant get rid of all the classics cards and introduce some new core set or theyd have to either not give dust(not a good idea) or give dust(not a good idea)

Lets just go with blizzards plan to slowly make the classic/core set a set of cards that no one will ever play. If i was running Hearthstone I would also go with this plan. Nerfing all of classic/basic cards is the most profitable and will upset the least amount of players.

This will effectively reduce the number of viable cards, so with each new set we will see more movement in the meta. It may not be the best way to run this game but it is the simplest and most profitable way.

done

done

Quote from iandakar >>

Quote from AmerSol >>

20 months rather than 2 years ... 

 

By 20 months I think you mean that we'd only have 5 expansions instead of 6 right?  So Un'Goro and Frozen throne would rotate in Spring, then Kobolds in Summer, Witchwood in fall, so on.

If so then I feel it's a double issue with that.  Kobolds needs to go ASAP.  Just losing the Death knights won't be enough to shake the meta since the spellstones and other big elements are still there.  Also I need to be convinced that 5 expansion is really enough cards for us to run off of.  I'll need some past evidence to show this to be the case.  

As I said, I'm all for looking into this AFTER the next rotation.  I feel like boomsday and Rumble is safe enough that, in 2020 we can be content with just dropping Witchwood, hten trying a 1 in ,1 out method.  But right now, this is NOT a good time.

Starting on witchwood would be the perfect time. I dont see it ever happening because there just isnt enough support for it. That doesnt mean we cant discuss it.

20 months vs 2 years

i used 20 months as an example because that is what we are currently using just averaged out. 20 months flat just makes a lot more sense than 24 20 16.

I can already see odd/even becoming very popular after rotation. By december people will be sick of odd/even and see nothing really changing in the meta. Theyll be patiently waiting for april yet again. The problem will be in april all 3 will go so we'll never get to see what a meta looks like with mech and RR cards but with no baku/genn.

Sets dont have to last 2 yrs. Using rotating sets as examples was a bad idea. DKs would be long gone by the time this would be implemented. The average length of a set is 20 months.

Whichwood would rotate 4 months sooner (20 months instead of 24 months)

Boomsday would rotate at the same time

RR would rotate 4 months later (20 months instead of 16 months)

The important part about this conversation is option A 1 in 1 out vs option B 1 in 0 out 1 in 0 out 1 in 3 out.

Option A bigger change in August and December

Option B bigger change in April

I get why blizzard does it the way they do it. Its easier to test adding 1 set vs adding 1 set and taking away one set. then in april its just a hard reset where they only have to test 4 sets. Option A would lead to more nerfs. Whether thats good or bad would just be personal opinion. From the players point of view 1 in 1 out would keep things more interesting throughout the year.

Quote from user-100382977 >>

I like the current rotation system. 1 in 1 out seems logical but it doesn't really matter either way. The system is what it is and seems to work fine.

 A lot of people including myself would say it doesnt work fine. Boomsday didnt change much of anything RR didnt change much of anything. The nerfs had a bigger impact than either expansion. However KC rotating out as Boomsday rotates in wouldve changed up the meta more than just BD rotating in. 1 in 1 out is far superior than resetting the game once a year.

I like the idea of cycling in old sets, but there would have to be an affordable way to get old sets or the game would be too expensive for new players.

I wish they would do it this way. Instead of a fresh meta once per year we would get a fresh meta 3 times a year.

done

Quote from Manuelo46 >>

I think tuning it down to 8 cards per class and 28 neutrals (100 cards) would do wonders. Less space for dumb filler, and a better opportunity for f2p players to get what they want a bit faster. That being said, blizzard loves their money, so wouldn't count on it.]

I like the idea of the core set getting some adjustments. for example, the sad sad Silverback Patriarch could easily have 1 more health, or maybe even 2. Just some silly tiny nerfs give f2p players a slightly bigger edge against the big ole wallet dudes. It doesn't change the game that much and gives new players a bit more opportunity to contest against people with a better collection.

  blizzard loves their money so if they did reduce the number of cards dont think the ratio of useless filler cards would go down. If they print 50% useless cards they will print 50% useless cards no matter how many cards they introduce.

As a F2P player I would much rather have 100 good cards and 100 bad cards per expansion vs 50 good cards and 50 bad cards.

What we need is more cards, particularly more counter cards. The more cards we have and the more counter cards we have the more unique decks we will see.

Done