Upcomming decks

[Kinobi 0]

Hi, 

 

This is principaly addressed to those who creates the decks on the website, but you can comment in order to improve the idea.

I though, instead of doing as it is now, a.k.a. low budget, mid budget, legendary. You should make a different version, with a better distinction, and surely an easier task to create your decks.

 

First of all, why changing it ?

Well, as is it now, you can't really distinguish the classification of most decks between classes, for instance, the low budget starting deck of the druid is at 1,500 dusts and the legendary at 5,840. Meanwhile, the hunter for the exact same situation is at 840 and 3,940 dusts, which is less than the mid budget druid decks.

Confusing, right ?

 

Well, I think it would be better to do 5 (minimum) different decks for all classes, the basic deck as it is now, and 4 decks based on the rarity of the cards composing it, a maximum common rarity deck, a maximum rare rarity deck and so on.

So, the epic quality deck would be only composed of basic, common, rare and epic cards and the legendary one could include any cards as it is now.

 

Also, I think it is absurd considering the naxxramas cards with this system because of the manner you get them. So they should be considered as common cards (rare cards at best)

 

With this method, you'll not be certain to get balanced decks with only the common rarity deck, but it should be a good upgrade from the basic deck of the class.

Also, the price range of those decks will be harmonized since they can't exceed some thresholds (1200 for common - the new low budget, 3000 for rare - the new mid budget, 12000 for epic even if at this point it is almost irrelevent)

 

Finally, some explanations on this classification and why I think it is better, simply because you're sure to get at least 4 commons and 1 rare per booster pack. Obtaining all those usefull commons will be a far more easier task than getting those three specific epics. And even if you don't get half of the commons needed in the deck, you can still craft them for less dust than 2 of the 3 epics that you still don't have to complete your low budget deck.

 

The same idea goes for the epic budget deck, because investing in 3 legendaries is a real investment, whereas investing in 3 epics "to replace" them is not that kind of a big deal. You can still do more than 5 decks creating varieties of deck (zoo, aggro, control, midrange...) within the same rarity quality threshold.

 

Thanks for reading

Edited August 22, 2014 by Kinobi

[Damien 1,514]

Hello Kinobi,

Thank you for your feedback. We have been discussing things a lot amongst ourselves and we have come to a similar conclusion than yours, meaning that we need to find a less confusing and more interesting way of naming our decks.

Now, the problem we are facing is that the vast majority of the visits on these decks come directly from search engines, which mean that we rank very well for keywords like "low budget", "legendary", "basic", and stuff like that. Obviously, we don't want to lose this. Try searching for "low budget deck", "basic mage", "legendary druid", and stuff like on Google, and you will see why I am very reluctant to give up on this naming scheme.

I also hear you regarding the Naxx card and we should definitely not count them in the Arcane Dust cost. Instead, I will just display that there are X rare cards, X epic cards, X legendary cards, and X cards from Naxx.

So, what we plan on doing is having Poyo create and submit waves of decks for each class, without worrying too much about cost and stuff like that. Then, we will use more precise rules, as you suggested, to decide whether it is low-budget, mid-budget, etc.

Also, old decks will no longer be overwritten, like we do now. For example, right now we have a "Low Budget Mage Aggro/Rush Deck", which means that if we want to continue ranking well on Google for that deck, we need to keep changing/updating it, even if there is no good low budget aggro Made deck in the current meta-game. So, we are going to "archive" all the old decks, whenever Poyo creates and submits a new wave of decks for a given class. All the current Mage decks will become prefixed with "Season 5" (season-5- in the URL) to make way for the new decks. This way, if there no longer is a good low budget aggro Mage deck (and therefore Poyo did not make a new version of that deck), the old "Season 5" will still rank well on Google for it (thanks to 301 redirects) and if we ever need to make a new low budget aggro Mage deck, then we simply need to post it on the site with the old url (https://www.icy-veins.com/hearthstone/low-budget-mage-aggro-rush-deck), remove the 301 redirect, and we are good to go. Not sure I make sense with my 301-redirect business, I can explain more clearly if you want (I don't know how much you know about this kind of things ).

Another reason why we want to keep the old decks is because a lot of people have been complaining about decks "disappearing" from the website and being replaced by completely different ones

I hope I shed some light on what we intend to do with the decks, as far as naming them is concerned.