Hearthpwn

IMO, the current system is purely about grinding, has only minimal to do with win percentage.  An ELO-style rating system would be better.  But the current ladder system could be a little more accurate at ranking players if the following changes were implemented...

• No bonus stars ever.
• At the end of each season, you don't slide backwards 14ish ranks.  Maybe just a subtle penalty for extreme inactivity, i.e. you lose 2 stars if you have 0 ranked wins for the given month.
• Eliminate the system where you can't slide backwards from rank 15/10/5 to rank 16/11/6.  
• Another unspecified change to deal with how players would enter and exit Legendary.

These changes wouldn't necessarily be fun.  But they would tend to keep players perpetually seeded in more or less the exact rank that they belong at.  You wouldn't be able to hit rank 5 purely from playing hundreds of ranked games in a season, you would need extremely consistent, good play.  But the good news is, at the end of each season, you wouldn't fall back to rank 19, you'd still be at rank 5.  Your ranking would have way less to do with quantity of games, way more to do with genuine skill, a little bit to do with momentum.

As far as the tournaments that Brode is proposing, they don't sound like an improvement to me.  It might be a way of heightening the drama of your games so that they seem more like part of a bigger whole, but they would also serve to overemphasize the importance of the variance of a few crucially-timed games.  In a game like Magic Online, tournaments are better competitive outlets than 2-man duels, but the duels on Magic Online are way worse than Hearthstone ladder because you aren't paired against opponents of equal ranking.  On Hearthstone, Ranked games always match you with theoretically equal opposition and they fire on-demand with only like a 10-second wait time.  For these reasons, a succession of numerous Ranked games is already more or less the perfect tournament; just partitioned into increments that fit your schedule.

As far as saying that most players are stuck between rank 20-17, I don't get it.  I joined Hearthstone a year ago and hit rank 6 in my second month playing the game.  These days, each season, I pretty much just play minimal ranked games until like the day before the season is over, and then jump to rank 10 really quick in 1-2 days.  The rest of the month I just log-in, complete a quest, and log out.  If I can get to rank 10 in like actual 1-2 days of playing, then I just don't get why anyone would be stuck at rank 20 if they were making any sort of effort.  I do know someone who is frequently stuck at rank 17-19, and he basically barely ever logs-in, and it's impossible to convince him to play a good deck.  Like, he'd play a bad Hunter build, I'd send him a good Hunter list, and he just wouldn't play it.  There probably shouldn't be any mechanisms to help a player like that get beyond rank 17, because like... he has the cards and the input to play better decks, and he just refuses to.

Have a look at shadowverse ranking system. I have fun there, and not in Hearthstone ladder.

How about a tournament mode where you set dust limits on entry decks?  Now THAT would be interesting.

Increase the reward rate and maybe these players wouldn't be getting destroyed all the time because they could actually get some cards that let them make decent decks.  Gwent rewards at least a pack a day for their daily quest.  Shadowverse is raining cards on every player.  Elder Scrolls Legends give maybe double what you give for playing the game.

You refuse to compete and low end players get utterly shafted.  It's not hard, Brode, but would require thinking past how much money you squeezed out of players today and think about how many will still be around later.

Wanna make HS good? Well here's the main, core problem that needs to be fixed:
Aside from 3 classes, you have no control over what your opponent does on their turn.
This major flaw is why aggro is so dominant in this game. This, coupled with the ability to go face at will-excluding Taunt- makes aggro not only powerful but also frustrating to face. They put down fast minions, then go for face, and even if you did manage to kill those minions, the damage has already been dealt, meaning in a forced spending of resources and still be on the losing end of the deal. Mage, being the only class to be able to mess you up on your turn(realistically speaking, I know Pally and Hunter has secrets but you know what I mean), turns out to be equally frustrating to face, having an "unfair advantage". Being rushed down and dying on turn 7 is no fun, but so is your opponent staying alive with a sliver of health for 2 turns in a row, only to smack you with a Pyroblast in the end.
Introducing neutral Secrets would be fantastic in this end, with basic effects similar to Snipe, Ice Barrier, Potion of Polymorph and Counterspell. Not only would this significantly increase the skill and calculation required, but it would also halt aggro and annoying combo decks such as Silence Priest. Another cool mechanic would be to add a feature to the card draw such that it will at least try to give you a good starting hand-this would help immensely against aggro.
Also, nerf Jade and Quest Rogue. Quest Rogue is very obvious, and while Jade seems OK in the current meta, as soon as aggro falls, it WILL become cancer again.
(Just noticed that this is not VERY relevant to this post, but still going to put it out there.)

I agree with some of your points.  Aggro and fast decks are far too dominant in Hearthstone for a game where you can't respond to opponent's actions.  The main issue is a balance of too much and too little value.  Essentially, you don't want cards to do too much without giving the other player a chance to deal with them, but you don't want every card to be able to be totally countered before it can do anything.  I think that aggro needs to be easier to deal with, but it shouldn't die out completely.  

Neutral secrets could help, but I think it would better to find a different way to influence your opponent's turn.  Secrets may be great counters on your opponent's turn, but if you've ever seen someone whose quest card gets countered, I think you can see why giving every class Counterspell isn't a good idea.  

Also, Quest Rogue, while annoying, is not so much a problem with the meta as it is with the game.  You'll notice that most top Hearthstone players aren't running Quest Rogue, nor are they consistently losing to it.  The main issue with the deck is that for a player who doesn't have the resources to craft Dragonfire Potions or some similar card, it is a very difficult deck to beat and overall discourages them from playing the game.  

Look at Magic Online.  Tournaments are the one and only thing they do better than Hearthstone.  Have ongoing available "sit and go" tournaments, with scheduled bigger tournaments using either money or gold as an entry fee.   Of course, where Hearthstone fails to fall into this model is that MTG has timed rounds, and if a player uses all of their 1/2 of that time, then they lose the round.  However, if HS did something like, reduce the turn timer to 60 seconds for tournament play, it would compress the amount of time each round would take.  

Really strong comments from Ben here.  I think a lot of people have certain allusions on an online tournament mode that just wouldn't work out well in real life - at least the idea of a closed bracket group relying on pre-set matchups and being held hostage to player availability.  I do think tournament modes and tools to setup tournaments (preferably for a bunch of players in a Fireside Gathering format) are sorely needed, but they will only benefit a small percentage of players which is why Team 5 has probably held off working on them.

That said, this weekend I had one of the coolest Hearthstone experiences of my life.  I've never been able to play the game face-to-face with my opponent, and I managed to pull that off the other day.  I went to a wedding with my wife; it was one of her more distant cousins, so I was prepared for an evening of not knowing anyone there and having to force my way through awkward conversation until the warm, soothing embrace of alcohol helped things out.  The first sign that things would be different was during the Best Man speech where, in typical roast-fashion, the groom was called-out for his love of CCGs - a comment that went unnoticed by most of the crowd who probably had no idea what that even was.  At the end of the speech, the best man offered to host a quick Fireside Gathering in the bar (which, conveniently had a fireplace) if the bride was willing to give up her husband for fifteen minutes.

Needless to say, I excused myself from my wife, ordered up a white Russian, and introduced myself to a room full of guys 20 years younger than me and had a great freaking time.  I also schooled them hard :)

Charge.
Delete it from a game or make that charge minions can't attack face - battlecry. Aggro have less win rate that midrange and control = good. Place of charge decks at 15.

RGN LUL

I wonder if expanding beginning hand size would help the game.

Just let us play BO5,BO3 match by using In-game Interface (custom game)

and change ranked play to be more serious ,by doing as match not just one game.

for number 4 ,expand ranked period to 2 months will be better.

Quote from Soaro >>

Since standing a chance to rank anywhere high requires an extremely unhealthy and very hardcore no-life approach to the game for days on end every single month, this really limits the field to a handful of people who can give up enough in their lives to try and get there. Which generally means not someone with a serious non-HS related job , family, hobbies, or other interests. It always bothers me that Hearthstone would cultivate this kind of culture, as it seems to go against the general message of the game.

Stupid RNG cards are killing the game. No tournament mode will help that.

Yesterday I played with my friend whos been playing hs for not even a year now. Every time we meet I try to teach him few things but he still makes a lot of mistakes (not big ones but mistakes are mistakes and can easily lose you a game). So i played 3 matches against him. He played mage and rogue. 

Even tho i didnt see his card he was clearly making mistakes like bad trading etc. What should be 3 wins for me (not that it matter who wins in this case) ended up in 0-3. He literally won 3 games thanks to babbling book/cabalist tome as mage and swashburglar as rogue. 

This expansion is good because there is large variety of decks. But it all doesnt matter as many cards are too frustrating to play against, or they lower skill factor to a very minimum. This is my opinion, as this is the only expansion that made me quit hs for a month now ( i know i played with my friend yesterday but this is just an exception) AND because I hate RNG cards like those I mentioned. Not to forget hyper aggressive decks which kill you on turn 5 and leave a player with no decision making at all but i guess there is a large base of players enjoying SMOrc tactics so lets leave aggro decks alone.. 

I can see relatively new players enjoying the game but for people who spent 3-4 years on it, it doesnt reward experience and correct movement for them to keep playing this game. 

Only solution I see, is like few other people mentioned already - customizable game mode. Other than that this game is suitable only for new players, streamers and those who actually enjoy those RNG cards. I myself dont know any person who enjoy them (even tho i have 7 close friends playing HS) and from pool i made it appears that only 20% actually do like these cards. So I really dont know what they keep "printing" them...

If you dont agree about those RNG cards, then just go look back at few last bigger HS tournaments and see for yourself, how mage players are usually winning a game. Pure skill.

I will start with a small disclaimer - I am NOT a ranked player (save to get at least to 20 for the cardback) and am 100% free to play.  So I admit I don't understand the draw for tournaments, better ranked experience, etc.

But I am confused a bit about the hate around RNG cards, not just here but across these boards and elsewhere?  From my perspective, limited as I mentioned above as it is, isn't that what adds a differentiating factor to electronic card games from standard paper card games?  I also have play Magic: the Gathering, pseudo-competitively, for over a decade, and like any card based game, there is always RNG (for physical games, draw RNG in this case).  At least in that game, the draw RNG is often what establishes players as skillful versus lucky.  As a mostly limited player, you can draw god hands and crush all comers, anyone can, but to take a mediocre draw and skillfully maneuver, that's a real veteran of the game.

Back to HS.  The "true" RNG cards only available to electronic formats, are again what feels like a charm for the game as opposed to a downside.  The last expansion (MSoG) was horrible - from my perspective - as one of the most consistent decks, Pirate Warrior, had literally 0 non-draw RNG, and I think I speak for many when I say that playing that deck was terrible.  In the current format, though it still exists, the wide variety of other options that you mention help keep it at bay.  But then there's Quest Rogue doing the same thing, with equally as much anger around playing against it.  On the other hand, the control and even Murloc Paladins strongly rely on RNG (Stonehill Defender, Hydrologist, Gentle Megasaur, Ivory Knight and Dirty Rat if the last two are played) and are a very strong deck to pilot that also require significant skill outside of just the luck of pulling Tirion's, Kodo's, and Windfury ad nauseum.

I completely agree that some games when the RNG seems completely stacked against you, that it can be easy to just bottom right and log off for a few days (and I did just that towards the middle of MSoG as I was so tired of Pirate Warrior in casual).  I hope that this does not come across as a troll or flame post, I am just very much trying to understand the dissatisfaction over some very unique and in many cases well designed "true" RNG effects.

To any that read this all the way through, thank you for your time!

Show me few examples of people cheering up when losing against babbling book, cabalist tome or swashburglar.

And now show me examples of people raging when doing so. Much easier right? Because very little people actually enjoy them. I can really put up with discover mechanic but when some1 wins a game but played horribly and you were trying your best using as much time as you can in every turn, then sorry but it doesnt feel good even a bit nor its funny really...

Very true. I'm seeing a lot of losses due to sheer luck/RNG by the opponent. I mean there is the issue of 'top deck luck', but especially against Rogues (don't even talk to me about the Quest Rogue, what an unfair, ridiculous card 'The Caverns Below' is, totally beyond ridiculous) with endless zero mana preps, or Mages with their spell accumulation. I'm near to the point I'm auto-conceding to Quest Rogues. I've won against them, but only with a perfect curve.

Particularly Arena is broken, and most games are no longer about skill, tactics and synergy, it is indeed about who has the best draw from a Discover. That can't be the future. Maybe the way forward would be what they did with WoW, and have new players connect to a lower-end server until they reach a certain level. That way it would be even, and the new players wouldn't be crushed, and the more seasoned players could then face opponents that actually want to win with skill, not just a random copy/paste deck hoping for luck of the draw.

The other thing is that quests, to me, make the gameplay boring. You see the same combos, especially from a Rogue, while you sit watching them do their 'card dance' to then throw a couple of 1 mana five/fives at your face to win. How this is satisfying to anyone is beyond me.

I think tournament mode should be a league format, with two types of leagues: constructed and drafted (arena style, presumably). Leagues would run monthly, cap at X players (64, 128?). You would have (4) matches a week, best of three, against anyone in the league.  Extra games can be played each week, but don't count towards league rankings. End of league, win/loss ranks everyone, payout based on ratio.