Hearthpwn

I have no idea what people are talking about re: matchmaking as this is never mentioned in Iksar's post. It sounds like this is just a system for players who like stats to measure their skill within a cycle of play.

As someone who enjoys stats like this, I think it's a great idea. People who enjoy Arena for it's nonprogression can simply ignore it (because it doesn't impact their matchmaking at all) and it will push players who are motivated by the score to diversify their tactics and try out classes that are more difficult to have success with. I'd be all about it.

If it is only for show, so you can brag about your arena e-peen then I am fine with it. If it affects matchmaking, so that it is no longer the clean slate it is every new run like it is now, then I hate Hate HATE it.

[EDITED] Arena represents the American Dream of Hearthstone - everyone gets an "equal(ly random) start" and gets to progress (earn value) based on performance. Randomness is exciting but imperfectly weighed, and classes perceived to offer more consistency in their results get picked more. 

Q: Who will benefit from a trend of playing all classes?
A: Those who choose not to.

I imagine it's tough to balance power without data, so maybe that's why we're being floated this Arena Rating - to make more classes playED (even if they objectively shouldn't be, if stats mean anything to you). 
Non-hardcore players (examples #1 & 2 in Iksar's post) will try to play all classes and see a dip in avg. wins when playing vs pros (#3&4), who will stick with their honed tactics and focused classes. 

If you say, #1&2 will never face #3&4 in the early rounds, I say good idea, but also easy to exploit, for if a pro is deemed such only by their *Arena Rank* then all they need to do to stay in green noob-farming pastures, and avoid stiffer (true pro) competition is to play as non-diverse as possible, yielding a middling Rank, easier games, and higher rewards (on average) than those who commit to the playing wide variety. I can even see people opting to Retire runs where they aren't offered one of their top 5 or 6 classes. 

If you want to push class diversity, this should be done through more relevant and timely information, such as weekly stat-dumps, drop- and pick- rates for all cards, win-loss breakdowns by class/archetype, 12-win deck samples for each class, sponsored tutorial videos, better deck-tracking features, and why not a synergy-assistant for deckbuilding, even on mobile! That way you're building up the weak, while also feeding the keen minds of pro players relevant meta- information.

In conclusion, if this is to be implemented, I believe it should take only the best-performing 6,7 or 8 (not all 10!) of a player's arena classes, as having a perfectly balanced meta where every class is viable has historically never happened, and I wager you won't make it happen on the first try when implementing this change, so, even your most loyal and talented players could feel tortured if they were forced to play the most inferior 1 or 2 classes to stay on top. And you better believe they won't shut up about it. "Top 8" already has a competitive ring to it, don't push it with 10, please.

why don't u implement any new system into the hot mess of duels first?  then if it's successful IMPLEMENT IT to arena AFTER don't mess up heaps of hot messes for no reason cuz you haven't figured out a system that's called clowny :)

I don't think class should be a determining factor.  This is one of the hard numbers that is purely random, and has nothing to do with the rewards.  You're only given a choice of 3 classes, and I tend to mainly only use classes that I know are good.  So there will be classes I never, ever play, giving me an advantage over my opponent, as I had effectively made my rating lower by selectively ensuring I use the least amount of classes as possible.  (Example, I have NEVER EVER used Shaman and maybe Rogue and Warrior twice with maybe 1-2 wins on each)

The main goal for the arena is to get to 12 wins, REGARDLESS OF CLASS, so finding ways to make my rating lower, I could cheat the system in giving me less experienced players.  Besides, class identity isn't really a test of skill.  Like, there are some factors on card knowledge, but when it comes down to it, a players intuitive use of the cards is what really decides games, not the class.

Realistically, rating should just strictly be based off Avg Wins.  When matching players in Arena, players should be matched up with those with the same Avg Win, as their skill level is identical.  Meaning, if I'm getting my first or second ever 12 win, I should be matched up with the closes person in Avg Wins.  This is what makes the most sense.  And once I do beat that run, my Avg Score just went up, promoting me against higher rated opponents.

That being said, if this was a RANKED mode of Arena, I'd be all for that, so long as the current reward system isn't nerfed or removed.  I personally do not care about my rating whatsoever.  I play Arena as a fun way to blow off steam from playing against solitaire decks on standard ranked.  A true test of skill in drafting, and effectively using the board and cards that you have drafted.

If you want to pair everyone with opponents of the same caliber, you need to adjust the rewards so that a 4-3 gives you infinite runs. There is a certain charm to arena where everyone is equal. Yes, some more experienced players can prey on newer ones, but there are already some measures in place against that. 7-3 for infinite is fair at the moment, if you are a good player. I peaked at 8 win average in my best season. Even at 5 wins per run, if you are half decent, you can kinda go infinite with the money you get from the rewards track. But I don't think that them changing every match in the arena to be challenging is a good idea. People will still farm on their alts, if they only care about arena. And boy, are they gonna have a good time.

Not ideal for people who don't play certain classes. Wouldn't it be harder to maintain a higher rating playing less than all classes due to the limitations on picking classes with higher win rates? If so, does it still make sense to reward diversity?

Quote from H1st0ry >>

what kind of stuff are you reading? it is a new system to find equally skilled opponents. So in the end: matchmaking.

People are reading the kind of stuff Iksar posted in his tweets - including "there is no skill matchmaking in arena."

Nothing is mentioned about introducing "a new system to find equally skilled opponents." Iksar mentions introducing "a fun ranking system for arena." It isn't used for matchmaking - "wins-in-the-current-run" are used for matchmaking.

FWIW - "ranking" and "matchmaking" don't mean the same thing.

This system forces players to play lots of games, to ensure class diversity. Similarly, an average player would be stuck in a certain score interval after a higher number of games, which is going to be frustrating (considering to amount of randomness that goes into an arena run).

So i'd just leave the idea of an arena ranking alone. The mode requires payment/gold to play and it's going to be even more frustrating once a ranking system is in place ("hey, f this game, i can't seem to do anything right in this mode to increase my score").

If you want to provide proper rankings for this, fix the matchmaking first to account for the strenght of your deck and not place you against overpowered decks when you can barely scrape by some wins.

Average win/run would be interesting to have. I think it varies a lot with the season, so something worth having around. A rank/score? Hmmmm why not I suppose... Maybe it's nice to have some summed up evaluation of your performance. I don't play THAT much arena anymore. Maybe this will spice up the experience just a little :)

EDIT: nevermind

arena would be more fun if it had a casual mode like duels, spend nothing, but have all the fun

Quote from Bengalaas >>

At least read the article before commenting. This suggestion is not a matchmaking system and will have no effect in choosing your opponent. It will just be a number measuring  your average score, which is fine.

 Agreed, now Blizz just needs to fix Arena in general. Sad they waste time on developing prestige for a mode that really just wants some decent balancing.

Prestige is not going to fix a broken mode. 

Guys this is NOT matchmaking. 

what kind of stuff are you reading? it is a new system to find equally skilled opponents. So in the end: matchmaking.

if its delaying anything like MMR... sure but Thats a Wrap when MMR arrives

If they wanted MMR, they would not invent new ranking system for no skill matchmaking and just took the one from Duels.

I don't care about ranking. So please clarify the rules of the game. We have no way of knowing which cards will be offered at what exact percentage. This is the worst flaw for a card game.

No.

Arena is the most pure game mode.  Every run is fresh.  You're 0-0.  There should be no rankings, no secret MMR, no "progression", no complicated matchmaking formula.

Achievements should be as far as it goes.