30 Cards or 60 Cards?

Just curious. If there were to be 60 cards mode, would you play it or not? I would like to see that implemented because Hearthstone has little to offer when it comes to game formats.

We do not have enough card redundancy in the game, not even in Wild. For the time being.

So bigger decks would lead to more inconsistency. It would feel more like Arena than Constructed.

I'd stick with 30-cards mode.

Depends. Do you actually want to play against warrior decks that literally will never runs out of cards.

 They would have to remove the time limit as well. 

Exclusive rules added to 60 cards rule such as Blitz mode and double fatigue damage might attract some to give it a go. I mean, a different mode should be live in next Hearthstone year because Standard/Wild/Arena/Adventure feels stale after such a long time.

Well a mode were you can choose could be nice, but i doubt it would see much play - most people i know prefer the 30 Cards over the 60 - back in the Days when in played MTG a deck usualy had about 60 cards and sometimes it felt a little too much! so i like the 30 Cards setting more.

At the very least 60-cards would need double card draw, not just double fatigue.

But at that point, would it actually feel innovative enough? 

Games could go on for ever, combos would be hard to pull of and removal would be even rarer.

People criticise highlander decks because the best playstyle against them is not playing around anything. The same thing would apply here.

Its less consistancy and more random shit. Probably horribly unbalanced. 

Can‘t find a positive thing about auch a game mode tbh. 

More than two copies of the same card is no option imo. I

If we're gonna have an new game mode it'd have to be something a bit more different than the exact same game, same rules only double deck size. The whole point of introducing a new game mode would be to shake things up for people who have become a bit bored of normal hearthstone after all, so why would they get excited over normal hearthstone with twice as many cards? If anything that'd be an even greater turn-off.

If a new game mode is implemented, I expect it to be more like MtG's Commander format, with substantially different rules, than just a variation on standard's card pool or deck size or w/e.

If each deck should have been 60 cards instead of 30, then you also should allow 4x of each cards (with the exception of legendaries) in order to have enough consistency. Just like MTG.

That will drastically chance all the gameplay and the overall balance of most cards because the game strategy itself will be different.

Quote From Esparanta

Just curious. If there were to be 60 cards mode, would you play it or not? I would like to see that implemented because Hearthstone has little to offer when it comes to game formats.

I don't think it works very well for a game that has such a large contingent of mobile and mobile-only players. Part of HS's success has been it's quick and easy nature.

I think it'd be an interesting tavern brawl. But I don't think I'd want it to be the main format.

Personally, I'd prefer a flexible deck size between 30-35 cards. It has several pros, and the most important one for me is - deck optimization when homebrewing.

Also, can you imagine the uproar from the F2P community. I mean, they complain about literally everything anyway, but they'd need double the cards to build a deck.

I play mostly for fun meme/combo/otk decks, which usually require 6-9 cards. Having 60 cards in a card significantly reduces the chance of ever getting your combo pieces before dying (unless major power creep was introducing to card cycling & tutoring).

In all honesty larger decks really only favors fast decks because shoving more greed in control/combo decks from 30-60 also reduces the likliehood that you draw an answer/stabalizer you need in time against aggro decks.

Really you need to design a card game around a deck size. It doesn't typically work the other way around since there is just too much you have to change to compensate for how drastically you change the game when increasing deck size (e.g. larger mulligan, potentially higher hero health, more copies of cards as others have noted, more new cycling effects, more removal effects, etc).

I wouldn't mind a larger deck mode, but maybe 40-45 instead of 60.  But more than something like that, I'd rather have a regular third constructed option similar to the Brawl Block tavern brawl.  Could do a monthly rotation of sets in that mode, or maybe restrict it to cards in the current Arena pool.  Could be fun!

If you were to play a 60 cards deck, you would also need to allow for more than just a pair of each cards ... say 4 for commons, rares and epics, which would be impractical 

Maybe they should try like a 40 card game mode first, and if people like it they could later try 50 or 60.

Speaking of game modes, i think the starting health of the heroes should be higher, not necessarily the number of cards in the deck. Or maybe a combination of the two. Having 60 starting health seems better than the 30 from now; double the fatigue damage too.

I know this can completely prevent aggro decks from working, but i'm tired of seeing them each and every expansion. There will likely be a new archetype to replace it. Also, don't mention the possibility of never running out of cards or gaining infinite armor - this is what the team of morons is choosing to bring into the game. They basically gimp their own design space with powercreeps and such.

Quote From Crusader2010

Speaking of game modes, i think the starting health of the heroes should be higher, not necessarily the number of cards in the deck. Or maybe a combination of the two. Having 60 starting health seems better than the 30 from now; double the fatigue damage too.

I know this can completely prevent aggro decks from working, but i'm tired of seeing them each and every expansion. There will likely be a new archetype to replace it. Also, don't mention the possibility of never running out of cards or gaining infinite armor - this is what the team of morons is choosing to bring into the game. They basically gimp their own design space with powercreeps and such.

I know this is an obvious salt post but still. Your solution will not only kill aggro, it will kill the entire game. What would happen if we were to remove scissors from the rock-paper-scissors equation? The game will become nothing but OTK vs OTK. 

Great suggestion (no). 

60 card mode? Sounds like a Control Warriors Paradise.

But seriously tho, i feel like it's a bit too much, perhaps a 40 or 45 card mode first. Sounds pretty cool tho. i often do feel like i can't fit everything i want into a deck. (Mainly when making a Wild deck)

Quote From Crusader2010

Speaking of game modes, i think the starting health of the heroes should be higher, not necessarily the number of cards in the deck. Or maybe a combination of the two. Having 60 starting health seems better than the 30 from now; double the fatigue damage too.

I know this can completely prevent aggro decks from working, but i'm tired of seeing them each and every expansion. There will likely be a new archetype to replace it. Also, don't mention the possibility of never running out of cards or gaining infinite armor - this is what the team of morons is choosing to bring into the game. They basically gimp their own design space with powercreeps and such.

If you double the standard health pool, it won't kill aggro, it'll just drastically alter what it means to be aggro. These new aggro decks wouldn't kill you by turn four and they wouldn't run as many 1-drops, but fundamentally they'd still try to punch you until you die in as few turns as possible. Control decks would become insanely greedy to balance the need to defend against these midrange "aggro" decks and still generate enough value to beat other control decks, and infinite damage combo decks would have a field day if present in the format.

A new balance of archetypes will always emerge and you might like it even less. Something something life finds a way.

Tavern brawl yes, permanent mode no. Would say 40 cards decks it would be more interesting. 

Quote From AliRadicali

Quote From Crusader2010

Speaking of game modes, i think the starting health of the heroes should be higher, not necessarily the number of cards in the deck. Or maybe a combination of the two. Having 60 starting health seems better than the 30 from now; double the fatigue damage too.

I know this can completely prevent aggro decks from working, but i'm tired of seeing them each and every expansion. There will likely be a new archetype to replace it. Also, don't mention the possibility of never running out of cards or gaining infinite armor - this is what the team of morons is choosing to bring into the game. They basically gimp their own design space with powercreeps and such.

If you double the standard health pool, it won't kill aggro, it'll just drastically alter what it means to be aggro. These new aggro decks wouldn't kill you by turn four and they wouldn't run as many 1-drops, but fundamentally they'd still try to punch you until you die in as few turns as possible. Control decks would become insanely greedy to balance the need to defend against these midrange "aggro" decks and still generate enough value to beat other control decks, and infinite damage combo decks would have a field day if present in the format.

 

A new balance of archetypes will always emerge and you might like it even less. Something something life finds a way.

If the average aggro deck had the staying power of wild Odd Pally I'd agree mostly, but the problem with most classes that have the option of going aggro or midrange is that top notch control decks could eventually run more midrangy aggro decks out of resources without some form of pressure engine (ie dude spawning machine, multiple 4/3s to wack your opponent with, murlocs spawning themselves repeatedly, etc). I'd see many hypothetical new age aggro decks to look more like a midrange version of zoo in the sense that if you can survive turns 5-9ish then you pretty much beat them 9/10 when they're in top deck mode.

Quote From LyraSilvertongue

If the average aggro deck had the staying power of wild Odd Pally I'd agree mostly, but the problem with most classes that have the option of going aggro or midrange is that top notch control decks could eventually run more midrangy aggro decks out of resources without some form of pressure engine (ie dude spawning machine, multiple 4/3s to wack your opponent with, murlocs spawning themselves repeatedly, etc). I'd see many hypothetical new age aggro decks to look more like a midrange version of zoo in the sense that if you can survive turns 5-9ish then you pretty much beat them 9/10 when they're in top deck mode.

Quest Shaman, shark Rogue and quest Paladin are all fairly aggressive decks that exist today with more or less infinite resources if they play the value game. I'm sure if 60 life HS were a format other decks would emerge in a similar role, EG the Paladin loa was too slow for standard but might work in a slower format that cares more about resources. Conjurer mage might be great in that format too, despite the nerf.

Of the three prime archetypes I think combo is the only one that can truly be killed, and that only by gutting the card pool of cards that interact with each other, reducing the game to essentially basic cards. Aggro and control will always be present in some capacity, because ultimately these are just relative terms for whichever deck has an early advantage versus lategame inevitability.