Reducing Max Deck Size to 80 Cards + Hero in QM

[GeeGne]

It currently looks like the community is split, but there is a while to go on the poll.

For those who voted no, I am interested in why.

Q: Do you like piloting 80+ card decks?

Q: Do you like facing 80+ card decks?

Q: Are you voting on behalf of other people who might like piloting/facing 80+ card decks?

If one or both of the first two apply, please can you elaborate here.

If it's the latter, then please can you bring this thread to their attention, so we can get their input.

I simply vote no because my main reason of liking this game is because of the awesome features that it had, and many cards option is the most who interests me

I voted no because i found them easy to face.. i just simply have no issues facing those decks.. infact they never show on top, also making a deck with many cards isn't easy, it requires skill so i only see few players who are good using those huge decks

I vote no because there people who simply like playing huge decks

I vote no because the real issue isn't with card number, how about to creat new cards that can dominate huge decks.. or simply makes some delay card limited, rain for example.. make it able to put two max in any deck.. this is a better solution in my opinion.

[Ka cutenew3dy]

hell no, you can shorten the time limit players play, but reduce deck size is not making the gaming time any better.

Large deck has its' advantage and disadvantage. you have to build a deck that can deal with various situation that's the sprite of the deck building.

If there's only small decks and game done within 1,2,3,4,5 round. Every game is going to be the same. stupid as heartstone.

[Gondorian]

hell no, you can shorten the time limit players play, but reduce deck size is not making the gaming time any better.

Large deck has its' advantage and disadvantage. you have to build a deck that can deal with various situation that's the sprite of the deck building.

If there's only small decks and game done within 1,2,3,4,5 round. Every game is going to be the same. stupid as heartstone.

How will you deplete a 40-card deck in 5 turns?

[Ka cutenew3dy]

A deck have to be focus and also comprehensive.

A 40 card deck maybe focus on quick rush and control. but if all deck is focusing on quick rush and control, the ladder is going to be boring.

If it's focusing on rush, it's lost some comprehensiveness against stall or mill. if it's focusing on anti-rush and control it maybe not comperhansive enough to face mage rush or weapon solo. Best deck must balance the focus and also comperhensive.

large decks are usually more comperhensive and smalls are more focus. with more new cards coming, there will be more options to build and we need room to build a comperhensive deck if it's targeting comperhensive.

If you have trouble facing 80+ card decks, your deck is not conperhansive enough.

If you have trouble build a 80+ card deck, you are simply not creative enough.

[Ka cutenew3dy]

its a metaphor, the game is more than allies killing allies and whoever standing more allies wins

[GeeGne]

From 180 to 120.. and now to 80 what next? Less cards means less creativity.. so reducing cards is basically removing the creativity from this wonderful game.. case closed xd

[Ka cutenew3dy]

with some homunculus deck focus on rush, you can kill hero in 5 turns, Its faster than normal rush deck, but if you facing any anti rush deck, you'll lose. It's not a comperhansive deck.

The deck I am playing now is with precisely 71 cards deck keeping modified through a month. It's focusing on one turn kill and it's comperhensive enough against all heroes and all decks. It's a good deck with more than 75% win ratio at above 330R.
9Y_UI1`P{ZT7K$NKVTZEUVP.png

[BT InzektrHornet]

I voted "other". I feel the number of cards in a deck to be arbitrary to an extent. The only decks that truly benefit from a larger card count are stall/mill decks. All others CAN do it, and benefit very marginally from an "alternate win condition" (If you don't lose before your opponent, you end up winning when they deck out) but those decks will generally get beat out by more streamlined decks (as evidenced by Shadowman in last WC*). I don't even feel larger decks are NPE. I played against Shadowman many times, and never felt that his deck sizes removed any enjoyment from our games. Just made them different. That being said, I don't see any difference between an 80 card deck and a 120 card deck. I believe the better option would be limiting at 60. This would allow stall/mill to still exist, but make the games considerably shorter.

*I consider the 60 card Vic deck that won to be a non-entity, since you nerfed Victor to hell

[BT InzektrHornet]

From 180 to 120.. and now to 80 what next? Less cards means less creativity.. so reducing cards is basically removing the creativity from this wonderful game.. case closed xd

The amount of cards in a deck does not determine the available creativity. The card pool itself does. With such a small amount of available cards (compared to other games of comparable age [heck eternal is half it's age and still has more cards]) the creativity is significantly lacking.

[Kolodi]

Playing 80 100 120 decks are as fun as 40 or 60. Why we should limit them? Instead we need to motivate people to play bigger decks more often. Nowadays less people play big decks because they can't score fast enough to get to top 100, games simply last more with bigger decks. How do we fix it? Let the score system takes in account deck size or game duration ( turns count) or combination of these 2 factors. This can also reduce quitting, people also will be less depressed facing stall, mill, late control decks as they know it could be an investment to earn more points.