New ranking system

[Vlad 411]

I was just wondering what your thoughts are on the new ranking system that the most recent Hearthstone patch introduced. Personally, I'm loving it! I think it's so much better than old one, finally being able to see exactly what the status of your progression is. And seeing the rank of your opponent is also nice.

 

So, thoughts?

[Omaric 246]

Agreed, it's far better than what we were working with.  It's transparent enough for most people.  I'm pretty excited to start climbing up the ladder.  After playing a little last night I'm up to 18 or 19 from 25, woo!

 

I saw some humor in them making the name of non-ranked play as 'casual', mostly because it's harder to get any more casual than this game already is.  :D

[Estarriol 167]

The new ranking system was a much needed change! It also fits well with the overall feel of the game in that it uses the card images as ranks. I really like the bonus stars for win streaks.

[Damien 1,514]

I've just lost 7 games in a row and went back from being almost rank 15 to rank 18. That's with the same Paladin deck that easily got me to 3-star master last week. This is so upsetting...

[Peelyon 416]

Really impressed actually.  The old rankings seemed a little clunky, whereas with this you can clearly see how you are doing and can compare with friends etc.

 

As an aside I think the patch has improved quite a few things.  I really like the abandon a quest feature (having a 5 win quest for Rogue / Warrior was sat there for a while!)

[Krazyito 521]

I'm bad. Nuff said.

[Stoove 347]

I really dislike it. The old ranking system had;

 

Journeyman

Copper (3 different levels)

Silver (3 different levels)

Gold (3 different levels)

Diamond (3 different levels)

Master (3 different levels)

 

i.e. 16 levels, which is quite a lot really. Now we have at least 25*3=75 levels, which is completely baffling. I also really liked the fact that it was rated based on different precious metals - it felt like it meant something. Being rated "Leper Gnome" doesn't feel any better than "Angry Chicken"...

[Omaric 246]

If you feel you're missing out on precious metals, every 5 ranks has a new border color.  It looks like wood > iron(?) > copper > silver > gold.

 

Is it really baffling how many ranks there are though?  The game is already wildly popular, so it's better to have more ranks.  Honestly with the old system I didn't feel like 3-star master meant anything, because I had no idea how I matched up with other people.  The new system let's you know almost exactly where you stand.

[Peelyon 416]

I think having more levels will help with matchmaking as well Stoove.  As the game becomes more and more popular and more people play I think there will be plenty of justification in the new rankings :)

[Vlad 411]

I can't wait for the meta-game to settle down a bit. Now it's just crazy mage deck after crazy mage deck no matter where you go.

[Omaric 246]

I can't hear you over the sound of Pyroblast. :P

[Estarriol 167]

I can't hear you over the pyroblast I Thoughtstole from you.

[Omaric 246]

Dat RNG.

[Stoove 347]

I think having more levels will help with matchmaking as well Stoove.  As the game becomes more and more popular and more people play I think there will be plenty of justification in the new rankings

 

But I don't think the matchmaking is done purely on the in-game ranking system. I think that the matchmaking is what's behind the scenes, and the different "levels" are just different boxes to put people into.

 

 

Is it really baffling how many ranks there are though?

 

Well, yes. With 75 levels I have no concept of whether moving up or down a level even means anything. At least with fewer levels, moving down or up was important.

[Vlad 411]

So, after play today for longer than I'd care to admit, I'm not very happy with what I'm seeing. Around ranks 12-13, where I've been sitting, there only appear to be 3 decks that I meet over and over again. Pyroblast/freeze Mages, very aggressive Paladins, and even more aggressive Warlocks. That's it. I've seen one Priest (I'm playing Priest myself), 1 hunter, 2 warriors and so on in about 40 games!

 

This is pretty frustrating for me. My deck handles Mages very well (I have a 75% win rate against them), but it doesn't do nearly as well against the very aggressive decks (I'm 20% against Warlocks, for instance). Mages far outnumber everyone else, though, so if I make a more normal deck, I'll start losing to the Mages again. Siiiiiiiiiiigh.

[Stoove 347]

So, after play today for longer than I'd care to admit, I'm not very happy with what I'm seeing. Around ranks 12-13, where I've been sitting, there only appear to be 3 decks that I meet over and over again. Pyroblast/freeze Mages, very aggressive Paladins, and even more aggressive Warlocks. That's it. I've seen one Priest (I'm playing Priest myself), 1 hunter, 2 warriors and so on in about 40 games!

 

This is pretty frustrating for me. My deck handles Mages very well (I have a 75% win rate against them), but it doesn't do nearly as well against the very aggressive decks (I'm 20% against Warlocks, for instance). Mages far outnumber everyone else, though, so if I make a more normal deck, I'll start losing to the Mages again. Siiiiiiiiiiigh.

 

See this is why I'm getting more and more tempted by just saying "yeah screw the metagame, I'm going to play what I want".

[Omaric 246]

So, after play today for longer than I'd care to admit, I'm not very happy with what I'm seeing. Around ranks 12-13, where I've been sitting, there only appear to be 3 decks that I meet over and over again. Pyroblast/freeze Mages, very aggressive Paladins, and even more aggressive Warlocks. That's it. I've seen one Priest (I'm playing Priest myself), 1 hunter, 2 warriors and so on in about 40 games!

 

This is pretty frustrating for me. My deck handles Mages very well (I have a 75% win rate against them), but it doesn't do nearly as well against the very aggressive decks (I'm 20% against Warlocks, for instance). Mages far outnumber everyone else, though, so if I make a more normal deck, I'll start losing to the Mages again. Siiiiiiiiiiigh.

 

Totally agree with you.  You see a lot of the same decks running around with a few cards swapped out for whatever flavor legendary cards people enjoy.  I'm actually really liking the aggressive warlock deck.  It guarantees that most games will be fast, unless you're up against someone who takes 50 years on each turn (frustrating).

 

I had a turn 2 win one game that was pretty hilarious.  I had 2 blazing imps and a voidwalker down on my 2nd turn.  The poor paladin just quit.

[Ylly 0]

I can see frustration of many of you. I started playing 3 days ago and with people with similar decks I usually won due to my experience with card games (HS is actually extremely easy to the point that after 100 games it has literally nothing to offer.)

And now after the reset I am frustrated, too. I see players making basic mistakes who simply win, because they have 5 rare cards, 4 epic cards, 3 legendary cards in their decks. Things that I have a chance of seeing in maybe weeks. I was eager to test the game but will NEVER EVER buy it. 

Why:

 

1. imbalanced classes

2. ranking where a player with 50 games experience can meet somebody with 1500 games experience (with absurdly stronger cards from expert decks)

3. no stats: I do not know the statistics, how many games I have won and lost. What my deck´s performance against various classes is.  

 

last but the most important:

 

4. in fact HS has: creatures, weapons for heroes, sorceries and hero abilities.

That is why I call it an ill- or injured Magic the Gathering (which is not the best game ever, just a good archetype to compare to). 

Unless there are more types of cards to support more variable gameplay, the game is a waste of money and time. 

I understand that it is just a beta version, however, Blizzard will have to offer far more to make it successful (in my opinion)

[Vlad 411]

I can see frustration of many of you. I started playing 3 days ago and with people with similar decks I usually won due to my experience with card games (HS is actually extremely easy to the point that after 100 games it has literally nothing to offer.)

And now after the reset I am frustrated, too. I see players making basic mistakes who simply win, because they have 5 rare cards, 4 epic cards, 3 legendary cards in their decks. Things that I have a chance of seeing in maybe weeks. I was eager to test the game but will NEVER EVER buy it. 

Why:

 

1. imbalanced classes

2. ranking where a player with 50 games experience can meet somebody with 1500 games experience (with absurdly stronger cards from expert decks)

3. no stats: I do not know the statistics, how many games I have won and lost. What my deck´s performance against various classes is.  

 

last but the most important:

 

4. in fact HS has: creatures, weapons for heroes, sorceries and hero abilities.

That is why I call it an ill- or injured Magic the Gathering (which is not the best game ever, just a good archetype to compare to). 

Unless there are more types of cards to support more variable gameplay, the game is a waste of money and time. 

I understand that it is just a beta version, however, Blizzard will have to offer far more to make it successful (in my opinion)

I actually don't really agree. The frustration expressed by my earlier posts was not really due to the same reasons why you find fault with the game. I was mostly just annoyed at the repetitiveness of the decks I was encountering (which is to be expected, I suppose).

 

To quickly address your points:

 

1. While class balance may not exactly be perfect (with Hunters being a bit sub-par), most classes actually have one or more decks that are extremely viable at high levels. Mages, Shamans, Druids, Warlocks, Paladins and Rogues all do really well with more than one deck type, while Warriors and Priests aren't bad either. It is, as you said, still Beta, so balance is exactly what's going to happen.

 

2. I don't really see why this is a problem, or how it could be "fixed". If you want to get to the top of the ladder, then yes, you need to beat precisely the experienced players with strong decks. That's the whole point of competing. If you're suggesting some form of alternative ladder for players with weak decks or lack of experience, I don't really think anyone would be interested in that.

 

3. This is going to be implemented, possibly in the next patch. I agree that it is annoying as it is right now.

 

4. This is where I probably disagree the most. Granted, I am not a MTG player or anything, but to say that Hearthstone is "extremely easy" and that you need 100 games to master it is really overlooking a lot of the complexity of the game. Don't take it from me, take it from the many former MTG pros who are playing Hearthstone and who think the game has a lot of depth and a lot of room for strategy.

 

I can see new mechanics or card types being added at some point down the line, but for now I think the game has more than enough to be successful. I know I certainly wouldn't want additional resources to need to micro-manage during games.

 

Oh and finally, the game is free to play, I don't know why you keep talking about buying it.

[Ylly 0]

 I think I will give it another chance....

Edited January 11, 2014 by Ylly