you’re probably right about the fact they won’t but it has nothing to do with player base not enjoing that, much more about the fact it would reduce their revenue
I can assure you it would have everything to do with players not enjoying it. No one likes it when a format is dominated by a single archetype distributed across one or two classes. I’m all for some kind of Pauper format, but Blizz would have to outright ban a lot of aggressive cards to ensure some semblance of meta diversity and give Control a fighting chance.
4 Likes
The massive number of angry threads every time we’ve had a Pauper Tavern Brawl tells me otherwise.
This is the absolute worst idea I have seen suggested on the forums. Ever.
Never share any of your ideas again.
2 Likes
Dust cost is not an indication of a card’s or deck’s power.
1 Like
We’re having a conversation on reverting and putting a moratorium on all balance changes for Wild in the next thread over, if you want to join us.
1 Like
i think you know that most topics in this forum are rants, very few people (if any) starts a topic praising blizzard for its work. So can it be that players who liked the mode simply wouldn’t care less of letting you (or blizzard) know?
I will add this then; we had a pauper commoners cup last year, and most of the participants found it bland & boring. Still not a large sample size, but a pauper format would only be used by newbs building their collection. Once they had the collection to move to standard, they would.
2 Likes
I think I’d rather pull my teeth out with pliers lmao.
So if I’m a new player… And I like the game so I buy the welcome bundle, maybe a few more packs…
Holy crap I am so excited because I happened to get a legendary AND and epic for the same class.
Now I’m super excited because regardless of if these are even any good I can try to build a good deck with my new powerful cards…
Except the dust restrictions tell me I have to rank up before I can use the new exciting cards I got?
Hard pass.
This is one of the worst ideas I’ve ever heard.
4 Likes
?
This is just straight up false. Dean ayala even mentions they intentionally ignore ranking data from 20 to 10 I believe because of collection.
I’m pretty sure it’s the player not the deck. Give a crappy player and expensive deck and it doesn’t mean they’ll win like a miracle with it.
yeah let them know the rule number 0 of hearthstone
go face never trade
i’ve always wished for a standardization to have the same amount of rare/epic/legendary cards in each decks so nobody can have an advantage but it will never happen because it won’t be p2w anymore=less income for activision
there is also the problem where at the breakpoints you will have to face decks that are allowed more reasources than yours
I’m not sure what’s worse. This idea, the class ban idea, or two separate queues for “net-decks” and “fun decks”
I say this as someone who tries “fun decks” and sometimes makes things that sort of work, and sometimes just absolutely fail miserably. I’ve face the same Reno mage deck over and over in casual. I get it. It’s annoying.
But there’s not really a way to change that without absolutely destroying the game. Maybe having more viable archtypes might help more?
I actually like the concept of a custom hearthstone mode where players get to pick what’s allowed and create how ever many pocket metas they want based on the rules they pick.
Basically they will only be matched with other players who chose the same rules/limitations. Que times may be long.
Obviously this type of mode should not have any rewards
Sure. It would need pretty basic options though - X-dust cost, no legends, ban x-class (maybe 2 or 3 at once) etc. - otherwise long queue time wouldnt even cover it. Given the option to ban individual cards, for example, is simply too extreme. If you want that, then use your friends list.
So, yeah, a few check boxes to allow some customisation in your games and who you play, sure. But its gotta be reasonable.
Things we need to know about hearthstone. Dust cost isn’t the determine factor of a deck strength. Aggro deck will always be cheaper than control. Limiting dust just limit certain type of play style which is DEFINITELY a bad idea. U will have the lower level meta also 100% dominated by hunter and warlock and that’s it…
What can I say? Hunters are good at slaughter. 
In response to the OP, this is a terrible idea because it removes the skill of the players from the equation. I’ve seen low rank players with pricey decks play like crap and I’ve seen budget/F2P reach legend.
All I can tell you is it takes practice, time, a lot of energy, and practice at knowing how to take a loss and learn from your mis-plays.
As if that wasn’t miserable enough, you can re-read Wardrums comment that I quoted.
1 Like