Improving Arena card picking structure - The Arena - Hearthstone Game Modes - HearthPwn Forums (2024)

So you wanna make Arena just another constructed mode plus reducing the number of games and by that removing a sense of achievement of doing a 12-0 or even a 12-2 run?

Just no. This is not an "improvement" by any means.

I would like to see a decrease to 10 wins maybe, IF they massively decreased the randomness of rewards.

But Arena right now is almost constructed level already, which is way too strong imo. Power level should reduce tremendously, not increase. I want to see other cards shine.

Quote from AndreiLux >>

Lacking of archetypes / synergies is exactly what I like about Arena. And low power level + safe drafting. And no Dragon decks with some heals as a Paladin. And having 12-0 as one of the hardest and iconic HS challenges.

Quote from user-14560584 >> >>

So you wanna make Arena just another constructed mode plus reducing the number of games and by that removing a sense of achievement of doing a 12-0 or even a 12-2 run?

Just no. This is not an "improvement" by any means.

Edit: Sorry I accidentaly replied twice and couldn't find a way to delete it. Is there a chance that I can delete my reply above?

Quote from D_Lord >>

I would like to see a decrease to 10 wins maybe, IF they massively decreased the randomness of rewards.

But Arena right now is almost constructed level already, which is way too strong imo. Power level should reduce tremendously, not increase. I want to see other cards shine.

Quote from Nzaru13 >>

Quote from D_Lord >>

I would like to see a decrease to 10 wins maybe, IF they massively decreased the randomness of rewards.

But Arena right now is almost constructed level already, which is way too strong imo. Power level should reduce tremendously, not increase. I want to see other cards shine.

If you feel that way (about power level), I think that's because of power creep. And, yes, you can see many other average, non-meta cards shine in this system. This would let you feel playing more "limited".

There is a lot of assumption in that answer. I play a ton of arena and I have seen many 3-2 games where the first 5-8 turns were 100% standard games. Only add Zilliax to these games and you got exactly standard. I have died on turn 6 in arena already. This is not because of power creep, it's because any draft format should be very distinguishable from the current constructed formats, and as a former MtG player, especially someone like you should know what that implies. You would like to increase synergies in HS Arena, but you should understand that this also implies power creeping as well as many non-synergistic cards losing out on draft popularity. And that has honestly already happened.

Quote from Nzaru13 >>

Quote from AndreiLux >>

Lacking of archetypes / synergies is exactly what I like about Arena. And low power level + safe drafting. And no Dragon decks with some heals as a Paladin. And having 12-0 as one of the hardest and iconic HS challenges.

Quote from user-14560584 >> >>

So you wanna make Arena just another constructed mode plus reducing the number of games and by that removing a sense of achievement of doing a 12-0 or even a 12-2 run?

Just no. This is not an "improvement" by any means.

I understand the 'limited' format. This change won't turn Arena into constructed; it will simply reward skill and perspective more than pure luck in the drafting system. Currently, success heavily depends on luck rather than creating a deck based on your card pool. With the current three-card pick system, you can encounter random, nonsensical cards, and there's little you can do but play them. It doesn't feel like you're truly crafting a deck in the limited format. As a former competitive MTG player, what I loved about limited was that, with experience, you could build better decks even with average cards. This idea isn't untested; it won't turn Arena into constructed. Instead, it will give average cards a chance to shine and increase diversity. Players who pick legendaries/epics will still likely end up with better decks, but not solely due to luck. Currently, luck creates a significant gap between decks. I want to reduce this gap and increase consistency by emphasizing player skill and experience. To simplify, now you can end up with either a 9/10 or a 2/10 deck and retire without playing. This change aims to narrow the gap caused by luck, giving players with average decks a chance to beat any opponent through skill. I dislike having to pick a bad card and hope not to draw it. I'm not suggesting every card should be a powerhouse; many average cards can shine with the right deck. The current system rewards strong cards individually and forces you to pick meta cards while considering your curve. There's room for significant improvement in this regard.

Edit: Sorry I accidentaly replied twice and couldn't find a way to delete it. Is there a chance that I can delete my reply above?

1) I agree with you for one category of card here and that's legendaries. That pick alone can change the outcome of your run way too much. Discover cards to some extent, too, because they can create more legendaries in a format that should be locked behind 1 per deck. Why not change discover cards to no longer offer legendaries instead?

2) I heavily disagree with the 2/10 deck argument. Every single one of my arena decks in Whizbang was worth playing. You usually draft 2-4 rather bad cards or low synergy cards and the rest is either good standalone cards or parts of card packages like Excavate. So either this was you screwing up your drafts by relying too heavily on synergy cards and not getting them or by drafting too greedy/mindlessly. No personal offense.

3) There is no denying that arena is too luck-dependent, whether this is because of discover cards, legendaries, or other things inherent to HS, BUT it's simply untrue that a good player can't beat a worse player with a better deck and it happens very frequently, at least in my runs. I am getting punished a lot for non-optimal lines of play (even if that means something like missing one damage) and I also punished a lot of players very often for even the smallest of misplays.

4) Random "nonsensical" cards, as you call them, is what made HS drafts interesting and funny in the first place. Even if you occasionally just ran into a plain text stat pile, it was a more interesting than what we have right now.

5) If you draft 2/10 decks and assume that you can't beat players just because they have better decks, you should analyse your picks and plays more often. That really opens your eyes a lot on how much control you actually have about the outcome of games in HS. Everyone can claim that they were unlucky or draft picks were bad, but only the best understand what actually happened.

6) Also, it was a mistake to add some kind of curated card pool to arena. That can limit synergies, but I assume the HS devs were scared of too many synergies being broken. If only there was a way to balance these things...lol.

7) It's still ridiculous that Harth and hero cards are in the card pool.

Quote from Nzaru13 >>

I understand the 'limited' format. This change won't turn Arena into constructed; it will simply reward skill and perspective more than pure luck in the drafting system.

It's not pure luck vs skill, it's one set of skills vs another set of skills. This change will reward more risky style of drafting, with a more synergistic approach. We already had "synergy picks" at Arena, and it was horrible. It's much better when the amount of combos is minimal.

Currently, success heavily depends on luck rather than creating a deck based on your card pool. With the current three-card pick system, you can encounter random, nonsensical cards, and there's little you can do but play them.

Ideally, random, nonsensical cards should always be in the deck. Wasn't it amazing when your opponents had to play Silverback Patriarch and whatnot? Saving your own extremely sh*tty draft to 2-3 or 3-3 is also quite rewarding.

It doesn't feel like you're truly crafting a deck in the limited format. As a former competitive MTG player, what I loved about limited was that, with experience, you could build better decks even with average cards.

What a horrible experience it must be to play against such decks!Luckily, in HS instead of truly crafting a deck you are often picking cards that will hurt it the least. Unfortunately, the power level is way higher than it used to be, but still.

This idea isn't untested; it won't turn Arena into constructed. Instead, it will give average cards a chance to shine and increase diversity.

Average cards are shining in Arena already. For Chillwind Yeti the road from above average to below average took many years. Cards like Mothership rarely see play inconstructed, but in Arena? It was a meta tyrant and still a very good card. If by "average cards" you mean "average constructed cards", than no, and I doubt it will create diversity, it will just shift meta in another direction, will make it closer to a sh*tty constructed (as it was with a "synergy picks") and actually average cards will be less playable.

Players who pick legendaries/epics will still likely end up with better decks, but not solely due to luck.

Epics were historically weird and mostly weak. If there would be enough synergies so players who pick epics every time they see them will end up with better decks, that's bad. Currently they are not. Some legendaries are too powerful (emphasis on some, in general they are not far from average, Prince Malchezaarcan confirm, he was about as good as Yeti because of that), but this problem was solved by 1 legendary per draft limitation.

Currently, luck creates a significant gap between decks. I want to reduce this gap and increase consistency by emphasizing player skill and experience. To simplify, now you can end up with either a 9/10 or a 2/10 deck and retire without playing.

The solution is to change your approach to drafting and consistently draft 5/10 or 6/10 decks instead of go for 9/10 or 2/10. This way sometimes you end up with 9/10 deck anyway and you almost never will have to play (or retire) a 2/10 deck unless you picked an unplayable class (currently it's Priest).

This change aims to narrow the gap caused by luck, giving players with average decks a chance to beat any opponent through skill. I dislike having to pick a bad card and hope not to draw it. I'm not suggesting every card should be a powerhouse; many average cards can shine with the right deck.

It's not really about luck, at least on distance. Making bad cards to damage your deck as less as possible is another skill. I.e. Murloc Tinyfin and Faceless Behemoth are both terrible cards, but in different situations you may go for one or another, and it would be an impactful choice. If there would be an ability to just remove sh*tty cards, such cards will be gone forever.

The current system rewards strong cards individually and forces you to pick meta cards while considering your curve. There's room for significant improvement in this regard.

Yes, individual power level vs curve considerations all the time. I think it's perfect.