Hearthstone realm banner
Hearthstone realm avatar Hearthstone realm home

Hearthstone

142 Characters Joined
Create Thread
Hearthstone | Posted by | 4 years ago
Discussion

Top 5 things that would make Hearthstone better

1. Tournament Mode

Probably the most wanted mode in Hearthstone just give the people what they want Blizzard. No one asked for dUeLs.

2. 2v2 Mode

One of the most wanted modes in the game that Blizzard could easily make but they make duels and mercenaries instead.

3. Customized Settings in custom games/Sandbox Mode/Training Mode

This would be super fun with friends to mess around and make your own gamemodes with friends. Increasing deck sizes, turning off fatigue, changing the cost of cards, starting mana.

Also it would be if there was a mode where you had access to all cards to test them out. They could make this against ai only. A training mode.

4. Lower Prices

Buying a Mega bundle + Miniset every expansion cost over 315 dollars a year. This insane and I've spent probably close to 1000 dollars on this game because of that and my addiction to this game. It's not fair for Blizzard to disrespect their player base with these absurd prices. Many kids/teens play this game so you would think they would be a bit nicer about that.

Cutting this cost down to $200 a year would be great and that's being nice. 

5. Give arena more attention

Arena could be one of the best modes in the game if they just touched it up.

  • Ban problematic cards
  • Make a casual arena to practice
  • Limit legendaries to be equal number of them in every deck for balance
18 Share

// join_the_conversation

Sign in to share your thoughts, vote on comments, and connect with the community.

Sign in Create account

Comments

Sort by:
Oldest Newest Top

  • 1. Tournament Mode

    Probably the most wanted mode in Hearthstone just give the people what they want Blizzard. No one asked for dUeLs.

    2. 2v2 Mode

    One of the most wanted modes in the game that Blizzard could easily make but they make duels and mercenaries instead.

    3. Customized Settings in custom games/Sandbox Mode/Training Mode

    This would be super fun with friends to mess around and make your own gamemodes with friends. Increasing deck sizes, turning off fatigue, changing the cost of cards, starting mana.

    Also it would be if there was a mode where you had access to all cards to test them out. They could make this against ai only. A training mode.

    4. Lower Prices

    Buying a Mega bundle + Miniset every expansion cost over 315 dollars a year. This insane and I've spent probably close to 1000 dollars on this game because of that and my addiction to this game. It's not fair for Blizzard to disrespect their player base with these absurd prices. Many kids/teens play this game so you would think they would be a bit nicer about that.

    Cutting this cost down to $200 a year would be great and that's being nice. 

    5. Give arena more attention

    Arena could be one of the best modes in the game if they just touched it up.

    • Ban problematic cards
    • Make a casual arena to practice
    • Limit legendaries to be equal number of them in every deck for balance

    • On Duels, maybe you never asked for it, but there was definitely people talking about wanting a PVP version of Dungeon Run back when it was first introduced with Kobolds & Catacombs. To say no one asked for it isn't factual nor is it nice.

      But yes, Tournament mode would be a nice addition to the game.

      2v2 is definitely more difficult to add with how Hearthstone's UI is setup and how it must be mobile-accessible too. Would it make Hearthstone better? Sure. Personally, I'd rather see development time spent on something more innovative that wouldn't be a niche part of the game.

      Dean Ayala has mentioned wanting to do a Sandbox mode several times and I agree, Hearthstone would be more awesome with it. It brings that feel of kitchen table card games into the digital world and it kinda blows my mind that no one has really done it in any of the big card games. Being able to force rules on players through that type of mode would tie-in nicely to tournaments!

      I know this isn't what you'd like to hear, but I think Hearthstone is one of the cheaper games to play. Considering that the game is a card game, there is a certain amount of money any non-casual player should expect to pay to continue to be a part of the meta. Hearthstone is cheaper now than it used to be (don't include cosmetics), the bundles have even been better if you look at them historically. Hearthstone is a small drop in the bucket compared to what it costs to play Magic competitively, and many players are completely Free to Play and have some great collections. Hearthstone is generous.

      You are right though, cheaper Hearthstone has a possibility of being better. 

      Blizzard has stated in recent times that they are working on Arena and trying to see where they want to go with it. (Source 1) (Source 2)

      • I think 2v2 would see more play than Arena, Duels, and mercenaries. What would be something more innovative than something I haven't already said?

        Also an idea is increasing standard deck size to 32 or 34. Sometimes we just want to fit that last card in our deck and don't have a slot. Just adding 2-4 more cards to decks would be a cool change. 

        • Quote From Joyboy

          I think 2v2 would see more play than Arena, Duels, and mercenaries. What would be something more innovative than something I haven't already said?

          Also an idea is increasing standard deck size to 32 or 34. Sometimes we just want to fit that last card in our deck and don't have a slot. Just adding 2-4 more cards to decks would be a cool change. 

          In MTG you can have as many cards in your deck as you want. Yet, everyone plays with 60 cards, because adding more cards will just increase the inconsistency of your deck.

          Also, adding the 2x2 mode definitely cannot be " easily made". This is a major overhaul and redesign of complete UI and logics. 

          Also, just imagine, now you have to wait 75 seconds for your opponents turn. In 2x2 you could be waiting 225 seconds, roughly 4 minutes for your next turn. 

          • Quote From Alfi
            Quote From Joyboy

            I think 2v2 would see more play than Arena, Duels, and mercenaries. What would be something more innovative than something I haven't already said?

            Also an idea is increasing standard deck size to 32 or 34. Sometimes we just want to fit that last card in our deck and don't have a slot. Just adding 2-4 more cards to decks would be a cool change. 

            In MTG you can have as many cards in your deck as you want. Yet, everyone plays with 60 cards, because adding more cards will just increase the inconsistency of your deck.

            Also, adding the 2x2 mode definitely cannot be " easily made". This is a major overhaul and redesign of complete UI and logics. 

            Also, just imagine, now you have to wait 75 seconds for your opponents turn. In 2x2 you could be waiting 225 seconds, roughly 4 minutes for your next turn. 

            Legends of Runeterra made it work. Also I don't think adding 2 cards would worsen a deck especially if it's a control deck. 

            • Quote From Joyboy
              Quote From Alfi
              Quote From Joyboy

              I think 2v2 would see more play than Arena, Duels, and mercenaries. What would be something more innovative than something I haven't already said?

              Also an idea is increasing standard deck size to 32 or 34. Sometimes we just want to fit that last card in our deck and don't have a slot. Just adding 2-4 more cards to decks would be a cool change. 

              In MTG you can have as many cards in your deck as you want. Yet, everyone plays with 60 cards, because adding more cards will just increase the inconsistency of your deck.

              Also, adding the 2x2 mode definitely cannot be " easily made". This is a major overhaul and redesign of complete UI and logics. 

              Also, just imagine, now you have to wait 75 seconds for your opponents turn. In 2x2 you could be waiting 225 seconds, roughly 4 minutes for your next turn. 

              Legends of Runeterra made it work. Also I don't think adding 2 cards would worsen a deck especially if it's a control deck. 

              even for control 2 less cards mean you are less consistent with your deck so might not have the removall or the healin where youd otherwise have had it.

              Extra cards are only really usefull in fatigue matchups and even then you could just include like kazzakusan to egt 10 cards once your deck is empty and not make your deck less consistent in general/vs all other matches

      • Quote From Fluxflashor

        On Duels, maybe you never asked for it, but there was definitely people talking about wanting a PVP version of Dungeon Run back when it was first introduced with Kobolds & Catacombs. To say no one asked for it isn't factual nor is it nice.

        But yes, Tournament mode would be a nice addition to the game.

        2v2 is definitely more difficult to add with how Hearthstone's UI is setup and how it must be mobile-accessible too. Would it make Hearthstone better? Sure. Personally, I'd rather see development time spent on something more innovative that wouldn't be a niche part of the game.

        Dean Ayala has mentioned wanting to do a Sandbox mode several times and I agree, Hearthstone would be more awesome with it. It brings that feel of kitchen table card games into the digital world and it kinda blows my mind that no one has really done it in any of the big card games. Being able to force rules on players through that type of mode would tie-in nicely to tournaments!

        I know this isn't what you'd like to hear, but I think Hearthstone is one of the cheaper games to play. Considering that the game is a card game, there is a certain amount of money any non-casual player should expect to pay to continue to be a part of the meta. Hearthstone is cheaper now than it used to be (don't include cosmetics), the bundles have even been better if you look at them historically. Hearthstone is a small drop in the bucket compared to what it costs to play Magic competitively, and many players are completely Free to Play and have some great collections. Hearthstone is generous.

        You are right though, cheaper Hearthstone has a possibility of being better. 

        Blizzard has stated in recent times that they are working on Arena and trying to see where they want to go with it. (Source 1) (Source 2)

        For the price, is 1thing id really want changed, the tavern pass as the mega bundle instead of the battleground perks. The preorder is primarly for constructed and pass is better then bg perks and the pass actully benefitsd evry type of hs player with the extra exp even if dont care about the cosmetics.

  • 1.

    Iksar said that a tournament mode comes up ever so often, but one of the problems for designing it is that many players have different expectations for how such a mode would work. I personally also doubt the popularity of that, since casual players (99% of the playerbase) probably won't care too much about it. Also there were people who wanted a more hardcore version of the Dungeon runs and Duels has a pretty stable playerbase.

    Also a side note: no one asked for a digital WoW cardgame, yet here we are.

    2.

    2v2 was actually one of the original Ideas that ended up becoming Mercenaries.

    ""We started with a handful of pitches and ideas to explore,” he explains. “One of the things that gets asked about from the community, and that the team is passionate about trying to figure out, is some form of 2v2, and that was actually one of the original pitches. But as we went through, we settled on… character progression, roguelike RPG [elements]… as the thing that we wanted to add to Hearthstone."

    3.

    Probably not worth the dev ressources. Dynamically adding and changing rules would not only be rather hard to program, but the UI for this would also be pretty overloaded(especially on mobile), which is something they always try to avoid. It also wouldn't really add anything to the game that hasn't been there before with Tavern Brawls and would probably end up being played even less. Also giving players the ability to play with every card in their deck for free would probably negatively impact their sales.

    4.

    Sure, cheaper deals are always nice but... Why would they lower the prices? The game obviously already makes a ton of money and if their data would show that making they bundles cheaper would increase the overall income they would have already done that. You also don't have to buy every pre-order, even if you are not f2p. Buying both expansion pre-orders is also (in my opinion) overkill anyways and the mini-sets are best of being bought with gold and a great deal on top of that. Sure that's still a ton of money and worth 3-4 tripple A games, however you also (hopefully) get a year long of fun out of it. Or you just go f2p

    5.

    Arena never really was a popular mode even when they did regular changes (also remember the Arena event? I feel old now), so I don't see any reason why that would be different nowadays, especially since there are so many more options now. Also they already do ban cards. I'm not saying that they won't do any changes to it in the future, but that those won't make it "one of the best modes" for the majority of the playerbase.

    • Quote From Suchti0352

      1.

      Iksar said that a tournament mode comes up ever so often, but one of the problems for designing it is that many players have different expectations for how such a mode would work. I personally also doubt the popularity of that, since casual players (99% of the playerbase) probably won't care too much about it. Also there were people who wanted a more hardcore version of the Dungeon runs and Duels has a pretty stable playerbase.

      Also a side note: no one asked for a digital WoW cardgame, yet here we are.

      2.

      2v2 was actually one of the original Ideas that ended up becoming Mercenaries.

      ""We started with a handful of pitches and ideas to explore,” he explains. “One of the things that gets asked about from the community, and that the team is passionate about trying to figure out, is some form of 2v2, and that was actually one of the original pitches. But as we went through, we settled on… character progression, roguelike RPG [elements]… as the thing that we wanted to add to Hearthstone."

      3.

      Probably not worth the dev ressources. Dynamically adding and changing rules would not only be rather hard to program, but the UI for this would also be pretty overloaded(especially on mobile), which is something they always try to avoid. It also wouldn't really add anything to the game that hasn't been there before with Tavern Brawls and would probably end up being played even less. Also giving players the ability to play with every card in their deck for free would probably negatively impact their sales.

      4.

      Sure, cheaper deals are always nice but... Why would they lower the prices? The game obviously already makes a ton of money and if their data would show that making they bundles cheaper would increase the overall income they would have already done that. You also don't have to buy every pre-order, even if you are not f2p. Buying both expansion pre-orders is also (in my opinion) overkill anyways and the mini-sets are best of being bought with gold and a great deal on top of that. Sure that's still a ton of money and worth 3-4 tripple A games, however you also (hopefully) get a year long of fun out of it. Or you just go f2p

      5.

      Arena never realy was a popular mode even when they did regular changes (also remember the Arena event? I feel old now), so I don't see any reason why that would be different nowadays, especially since there are so many more options now. Also they already do ban cards. I'm not saying that they won't do any changes to it in the future, but that those won't make it "one of the best modes" for the majority of the playerbase.

      I don't get year long fun out of paying 315 dollars. It's actual robbery they don't care that people spend whole paychecks on the game. I can't afford to spend all this money on the game but I do anyways because I like it to an extent

  • I mean, they kinda made it work. Their 2v2 mode basically had minimal interactions between the players (as in both players play normal 1v1 matches and you choose a buff every couple rounds and the other player got the other options), but that's probably not what you or other players have in mind when they talk about 2v2. Apparently LoR players neither since it got removed a couple months after the launch and had pretty long que times from what I have heard.

    • Quote From Suchti0352

      I mean, they kinda made it work. Their 2v2 mode basically had minimal interactions between the players (as in both players play normal 1v1 matches and you choose a buff every couple rounds and the other player got the other options), but that's probably not what you or other players have in mind when they talk about 2v2. Apparently LoR players neither since it got removed a couple months after the launch and had pretty long que times from what I have heard.

      YGO Pro has a great 2v2 system though. I agree the runeterra one was lack luster but it was coo

    • Quote From doingtheobvious

      Built-in deck tracker would be nice. The Chinese client has one built in, why is the rest of the world not included?

      Auto-squelch as a toggleable option would be nice, too.

      No auto-squelch platforms need to stop catering to the sensitive. Downfall of social media and gaming.

      Deck Tracker Yes

      • I feel like the people complaining about how soft everyone has become are much more sensitive than the people requesting an auto squelch.

        • Quote From HuntardHuntard

          I feel like the people complaining about how soft everyone has become are much more sensitive than the people requesting an auto squelch.

          When platforms like instagram ban/auto report people for saying non-profanity words like "ew" "hypocrite" "woman" "weird" the problem is not people complaining about soft people.

          Video games like League of Legends banning people for saying literally anything negative in the slightest. It makes the game unplayable. 

  • I'm just gonna leave a reddit comment about why people are against auto-squelchs here.

    "I think the idea is to give people a chance. You can still squelch if you want, but making it auto removes the decision making process of "does this person deserve to be squelched.

    I think of it like disabling comments on a YouTube video instead of deleting specific problematic comments. Sure, that's one way to avoid annoyance, but it also detracts from the video/game experience.

    If im your opponent and I want to use my emotes appropriately to have an interaction with you and now I can't (not because of my own actions but because you aren't giving me a fair chance with auto squelch), my own gaming experience is worse strictly because of your decision to squelch everyone, rather than making a real time decision to squelch an individual"

  • If that reasoning was as valid as you thought it was, then the squelch feature shouldn't exist at all because it would deprive emote spammers from deciding to emote reasonably, thus ruining their experience. All while subjecting poor Timmy who just got out of class to 20+ Anduin wow emotes. Whose experience should be protected in the first place?

    • Quote From HuntardHuntard

      If that reasoning was as valid as you thought it was, then the squelch feature shouldn't exist at all because it would deprive emote spammers from deciding to emote reasonably, thus ruining their experience. All while subjecting poor Timmy who just got out of class to 20+ Anduin wow emotes. Whose experience should be protected in the first place?

      The point of that arguement was not to say that the enjoyment of 1 player should be put above the one of the other, but that a auto squelch feature would also block players whos behaviour might not even bother you, which results in less social interaction for both players. Think of the following scenario:  You are a player who generally like small interactions with your opponents (greetings, well played, sometimes wow etc.), but also gets annoyed rather quickly.

      Ideally you face players with the same preferences as you, have fun with him and move on.

      Then you face a player who uses too many emotes, in which case you squelch him. So let's say that this squelch would now also apply to all other players until you unsquelch someone. Or you meet another one of these guys in the next game and get so annoyed that you enable the auto-squelch. The point is, you activated it now.

      You play a couple more games, don't get annoyed anymore and go to sleep.

      Then on the next day you will most likely have forgoten that you activated the auto squelch. You continue playing the game, don't get annoyed by anyone and are fine with it. But here's the catch: You might have met a player with the same preference as you during your matches, but you never interacted with him because you never saw any of his friendly emotes. The "have fun with him" part never happened, even though it could have. And that's the thing that directly influences other players in a negative way.

      This would discourage your opponent from trying to use emotes in this match, and in the long term in every match too if he meets more players that don't respond, wether intentional or not (like in this example). Because why bother if no one responds? This eventually would all lead to 2 types of players: The ones who have auto-squelch active, and the ones who don't even bother emoting, because they think they are playing against someone who uses auto-squelch even if they don't. This would obviously be the worst case, but the point is that auto-squelch does not only effect you.

      • Quote From Suchti0352
        Quote From HuntardHuntard

        If that reasoning was as valid as you thought it was, then the squelch feature shouldn't exist at all because it would deprive emote spammers from deciding to emote reasonably, thus ruining their experience. All while subjecting poor Timmy who just got out of class to 20+ Anduin wow emotes. Whose experience should be protected in the first place?

        The point of that arguement was not to say that the enjoyment of 1 player should be put above the one of the other, but that a auto squelch feature would also block players whos behaviour might not even bother you, which results in less social interaction for both players. Think of the following scenario:  You are a player who generally like small interactions with your opponents (greetings, well played, sometimes wow etc.), but also gets annoyed rather quickly.

        Ideally you face players with the same preferences as you, have fun with him and move on.

        Then you face a player who uses too many emotes, in which case you squelch him. So let's say that this squelch would now also apply to all other players until you unsquelch someone. Or you meet another one of these guys in the next game and get so annoyed that you enable the auto-squelch. The point is, you activated it now.

        You play a couple more games, don't get annoyed anymore and go to sleep.

        Then on the next day you will most likely have forgoten that you activated the auto squelch. You continue playing the game, don't get annoyed by anyone and are fine with it. But here's the catch: You might have met a player with the same preference as you during your matches, but you never interacted with him because you never saw any of his friendly emotes. The "have fun with him" part never happened, even though it could have. And that's the thing that directly influences other players in a negative way.

        This would discourage your opponent from trying to use emotes in this match, and in the long term in every match too if he meets more players that don't respond, wether intentional or not (like in this example). Because why bother if no one responds? This eventually would all lead to 2 types of players: The ones who have auto-squelch active, and the ones who don't even bother emoting, because they think they are playing against someone who uses auto-squelch even if they don't. This would obviously be the worst case, but the point is that auto-squelch does not only effect you.

        While I get the idea and do agree with it to a degree, i think you are simply overanalysing this.

        Players need more interaction? Ok, give us an in-game chat, available throughout the match only. But don't come and say that it's too expensive to implement, that you need to hire moderators etc. I didn't ask for more interaction! If you do want more, this is the pinnacle of it.

        Do players need even more communication? If yes, give us voice chat, for that match only. I don't hear anyone complaining that it's an option in games like CS or Dota. You can participate in it or not, but it's there and you have a choice! You can also mute certain players too or all of them if you want peace and quiet.

        Are the developers lazy and the company greedy yet still pretending to know what most people like? If yes, then implement a half-ass emote system that doesn't do anything but annoy some us, while others mostly ignore it. And no choice to opt-out of it, generally speaking.

         

        I'm sorry, but it's really this simple. It's all about money.

        Do I care that I am squelched? Nope. Am I getting annoyed by emote spam? Sometimes, though roping every turn is like 10 times worse. Do I want to be able to make a choice for myself, like an adult, instead of letting a deranged company tell me what I want? Definitely! Will it affect others? Sure! What doesn't?!?!

        And coming back to the last bits of the quote - suppose we do end up in that situation where no one is "communicating" anymore. Well, good! It's high time this lazy company realized that communication does not entail some half-ass emote spam!!

        If I want to have any meaningful conversation after the game, i'll add the opponent and chat. Do they usually refuse because of being afraid of cursing? Yep! But isn't this the exact thing that this stupid idea of "communication" proliferates?!?! Guess what - having moderated in-game chat, with a risk of banning your global IP and your account at the 2nd or 3rd "mistake", would do wonders! I don't see anyone who spent even 100$ on this game risking that, while being in their right mind.

        But now we come back to the target market for this game - hormonal teenagers. And it all fits - this is another reason why we only have emotes. Yet, those of us who want to ignore this "target market" can't do so automatically. It's extremely counterintuitive from this point of view.

        The games i mentioned above - CS and Dota - can be played with new accounts easily. HS is a whole different beast. Getting rid of thousands of cards you collected over the years just because you decided to be an asshole in chat will surely teach you something. But sure, let the teenagers rope every turn and spam emotes with no consequences, because this is what "communication" means...

        ...between apes and/or neanderthals.