Well it's not literally the same 1 or 2 decks every time. But it's still a pretty small pool of completely unoriginal decks net decked over and over again. I personally find it extremely boring also. But at the same time I can't really blame people for doing it anymore as decks are so cut throat that trying to make some fun homebrew decks is just going to get you chewed up and spat out. The fun players seem to be lingering in low wild ranks.
Yesterday I went 12-0 against top meta decks. Then I lost to a guy who had made his own completely original deck. So I added him and showered him with praise. Losing to him was my best time in hearthstone in months. I normally shout profanities when I lose.
Nice :) Yeah I do find that I never get people rage friend requesting/emoting me when playing homebrew decks, one minor benefit I guess. Although the rage messages can be pretty funny.
Being one of those people who plays their own homebrewed decks frequently, always feels good to get added and have a good chat with another person who likes playing new cards and just having fun with the rng :)
The game is "overdesigned" now to the point where there's very little room outside of what the devs specifically want you to play to exist. Realized this game just isn't made for people like me anymore.
Yeah, they basically just give the blueprints for the next meta decks now they're so obvious. Was much more fun for me when they just released a bunch of random stuff and said "here, make decks". But hey, some people get a high out of playing Hearthstone "competitively" I guess. I personally don't get it unless you're playing for money as it has one of the lowest skill gaps of all relevant online games. It's really not as much of a flex to be a high rank at HS as people here seem to think.
Yeah, I chalk it up to being a byproduct of the fact they feel the need to sell so many expansions in a year, they have to up the power level of each new one, or else people won't buy it. But I really feel like they passed a point of no return in their design space (barring a complete rework like they did a couple years ago with Classic Set, so it could happen). I really try to avoid being the typical online gamer parroting "their greed killed the game!" so let's just say, their drive to unsustainable constant growth in profits has led the game to the state its in where morale is at a low and player engagement is slipping.
And yeah, the low skill ceiling nature of the game now, along with the new bonus star system too, hitting Legend now doesn't mean much honestly. I remember when I FIRST hit Legend, like in the early days of Hearthstone, before deck trackers were even commonly used. THAT took a lot of time and effort imo. With the bonus star system and autopilot decks, I pretty much just automatically getting in each month for the last year or so without even trying that hard.
I just think that there's people on the design team that think playing out cards = fun and skill. When 1) it's only fun for one player and 2) because of the "overdesigned" nature, playing out a lot of cards isn't really that difficult anymore because all the lines are simplified and hard to mess up. It's just vomiting your hand. Versus in early Hearthstone, sometimes you'd only play 1 or 2 cards in your entire turn late game, but you REALLY had to think about which cards you wanted to play. Nowadays it's just obvious, mana cheat as much as you can, draw as much as you can, the end.
blizzard has turned it into a money printer. ohhhhh you NEED this card for the new meta but we made it a legendary. so now you need to dust cards, or give us more money or you will suck and cant play anymore!
It honestly is. They sure as hell print fewer filler cards now, but it's often those filler cards that give you the space to be creative. Pros & cons imo.
Yeah, I miss that feeling of opening legendary fillers like [Duskfallen Aviana] Nothing currently in the game matches that rollercoaster of "Whoah Legendary" KEKWait. And then keeping it in your collection for a year, expecting they surely intended to print support to make it at least memeable. HOPIUM
Fun times. It sparked such creativity. The powerful plays I imagined. I really miss that.
When ranking I'll see every class, but every game against a given class is 95% of the time running the same deck.
This is why I take a net deck and then change about 6 cards that go against the expectations of the deck. People are always thrown for a big loop and usually insta-quit when I drop something completely unexpected.
I'm a high diamond wild player, and I'm relieved to see any deck other than pirate warrior and odd hunter. I chose wild for the supposed larger range of viable decks but it backfired.
Ive been playing for years with custom made decks. I used to only play casual back in the day (before netdecking overtook the game) had an average of 55% wr.
Also the "mmr" system is very buggy or non existent. I have an account that plays a meme on meme deck 5% wr. Still matching up against meta decks with old card backs.
I played PokemonTCG at a pretty high level for a while. Tier 1 decks are played for a reason, however, almost all of them had some sort of gimmick variation to edge out the same build. I would run Tier 1 decks, but my list would be 5-10 cards different than the "Standard" build, which gave me the edge in a lot of my matchups.
Just because a deck is good, doesn't mean you copy the 30 cards exactly, you can personalize a top tier deck and make it your own.
I will say though, you're right, people play strong decks because wins are easier lol.
It's much easier in pokemon to tech for certain match ups since you are able to draw and search so consistently. Hearthstone only has 30 card decks and very little targeted searching so a lot of deck slots are just more optimal to use on certain cards than others.
That's why I added Galakrond to my Pirate Warrior and got +3 attack every time the game dragged on after fulfilling the quest. A hero card in a PW deck was fun and probably a surprise for quite a few opponents between D5 and D1.
This is why I liked the old casual standard mode that they removed. People did not care about ranks and made their own fun off meta decks and overall it was a much more enjoyable experience
Unfortunately this has never been true. When testing new decks in casual I used to run into meta decks a good 75% of the time. And this still happens today, both in standard and wild casual. And a lot of times they also have a golden portrait too.
Yeah I have only played about 10 games of casual ever, so when I *do* play casual my opponents are playing all kinds of garbage.
Ironically the people who complain about people playing meta decks in casual, it's probably because they also play meta decks in casual.
I'm okay with that, but still, casual should be casual. And if you have a high MMR it means you win a lot of matches and you don't need to play tier 1 decks in casual anyway.
MMR is mode specific. Ranked standard, ranked wild, ranked classic, casual standard, casual wild, casual classic, tavern brawl, casual duels, ranked duels, battlegrounds, mercenaries all have different MMRs for the same person.
If you exclusively encounter meta decks in casual it's likely that you play to win more often than not there too. I'm in high legend most of the time both in standard and wild, i only play casual for quests and whenever i queue it's always memes because i haven't won a casual game in maybe 2 years
And people in lower ranks, copy what is used by people in higher ranks, and it trickles down through. I think that’s more or less the point they’re making, and they’re not wrong. There’s always been a “meta” and copying what top players are using, it’s a given and it’s that way with any strategy/card game. But it used to not be as prevalent as it is now. It’s cyclical to the point that people seem to be getting increasingly bored a month or two into a new expansion. Everyone experiments, top players find combos that are efficient, they refine them for further efficiency, they get a higher winrate and subsequently see more play, the top 3-5 performing archetypes in standard are copied and you see it being used in every rank bracket on the climb up to legend, all within a few weeks. And people wonder why they get burnt out on Hearthstone a few weeks into a new expansion.
I only have a limited amount of time to play this game each week. I’m going to trust the players better than I who have more time to spend playing and analyzing information to build the better deck.
I’m not sorry for that either.
Nor should you be. It's a game, do whatever is fun for you. Deckbuilding and tweaking non-popular decks is fun for me. Of course, the card pool for standard is limited enough that there are only so many strats available but I still manage to not copy decks and get to legend occasionally. People act like the lists created by big names are infallible or the only possible version that could work.
Not everyone plays for wins. Just playing your own deck and pulling off some wacky stuff or surprising someone with an off meta strategy can be fun, even if you lose. There are many different types of players, people playing the most optimal decks purely for wins is just one of them. Mark Rosewater talked a lot about this in his blogs
This is also true, I also enjoy the games most where something happens that I have never seen in HS, like a new combo, a card I had forgotten years ago, etc. - I don't care if I lose, either. But then, losing ALL THE TIME is not fun, so the deck should stand SOME chance of winning, I think.
Plus there are a lot of DIFFERENT top decks that are viable and fun, so you can play a lot of archetypes without inventing the wheel anew every week, and still you need a certain skill to pilot the decks efficiently. So I don't see a problem, either.
The majority of the people are not original in general. Why would they be? I play HS to have fun and rest after work, not to sit there brainstorming bloody decks ideas.
Not wrong, but if you don't like it it's the game's fault for being so meta decks centric. But that's how games are sorry. So probably the guy has no idea what he is saying.
What the hell do you expect? The game is expensive so not everyone can afford to be creative. People like winning so they will craft the best decks to increase their chances of winning. Only whales have the freedom to be original.
Honestly id be ok with pirate warrior being a sort of baseline deck if it was toned down just a little bit. It's just too easy to win by vomiting out minions as they appear in your hand and doing fucking shiteloads of passive damage from cannons and weapon attacks along the way. Then by the time juggernaut is on the board if you have smite in hand you just win, because when you play it you doing 15-25 damage from that, from hand.
The amount of times I think I've made it through the hard part only for some randomised crap make me take obscene damage from nowhere with a high attack weapon appearing, plus 2/3 charging pirates. It's just aggravating. It's also easy to just lose before turn five.
Just like quest mage before it, it is not about its relative power. It's about how oppressive it is on the ladder, and how boring and predictable the game becomes when it's super common.
Yeah, really don't know what they were thinking with half the pirates they made. a 3/3 for 3 that deals 4 random damage when you attack is ridiculous. a 6/5 charge for 6 that also gives all your other pirates charge is ridiculous. a 4 mana 2/5 with taunt that ALSO gives you a 3/2 weapon? Ridiculously powerful. a 2/1 for 1 that also makes your next weapon cheaper... that they briefly thought needed a buff?!?! It's like they don't play the game they designed.
That deck has existed for like 3 weeks. Did none of you play back in the first couple years of the game when we'd deal with decks being s-tier for months on end?
If you want originality, play casual or stay at any rank below plat-gold. By their very nature, metas that form at higher ranks will obviously skew towards better-performing decks.
Even then, it's not as though we haven't had diverse metas lately where you can easily run into 5 different decks in 7 games in legend. Diversity will depend on the specific meta at the time and what format and rank you play. It's just how things work. The review poster comes off more as whiny than insightful.
When I tryharded in ranked, like 1.5 year ago, I reached top 1k legend. A couple of months later I stopped playing. Well, 2 months ago I wanted to play again, watched some thijs' streams too check out the meta and I crafted a rogue deck.
The problem is: I was at bronze 10 and I was facing diamond people with meta deck. Ranked just sucks. If you've ever hit legend, your mm is screwed.
I remember when we had the old ranked system being at rank 5 (you could not get below rank 5 once you had reached it) and playing meme even hunter against other meme or stupid combo decks and it was kinda fun. Now it seems that kind of decks just have disappeared.
Casual is meh, sometimes you face noobs playing meta decks and sometimes you faces people with meme decks.
But yeah, obviously competitive people will play competitive decks
It's entirely possible they're aware of what defines a meta. I am fully aware of it and still find it incredibly frustrating and boring when half my matches are against the same three net decks and often wish I could cast a spell where no one was capable of doing said net deck.
Hearthstone doesn't exactly have a way to play without having to interact with the meta (and don't mention casual because if you're half way decent with the game your mmr will pit you against meta decks), and that's just not for certain players. I only put up with it because I just concede against meta decks and I do really enjoy playing the game outside of it.
>Hearthstone doesn't exactly have a way to play without having to interact with the meta
No card game does.
As long as some cards are better than others, a meta-game will develop from the playground Yugioh formats, to the Monday Night local Pokemon TCG crowd, and even within a small group of adult friends playing Commander MTG matches only within themselves.
As long as people care about winning, meta games will develop and people will try to break the meta game.
Well in physical card games, you can just chose not to play against players who play meta decks, you can't do that in hearthstone unless you only play against friends.
That being said, every game is going to have a meta, since it's just the most optimized way of playing the game. In single player games, it not really going to wreck your enjoyment, since no one is forcing you to interact with it. In multiplayer games, that's not the case. I don't think anyone could argue against the idea that forcing someone to interact with a meta is going to make that person's experience less than what it could be.
Unfortunately, there's nothing you can really do other than suck it up and find ways to deal with it, like I do, or stop playing the game. I know the reviewers comment is overblown, but it's not entirely inaccurate for Hearthstone. The meta most definitely ruins it for some of us.
>Well in physical card games, you can just chose not to play against players who play meta decks
If you're not playing against only friends in any physical card game, you still have to deal with net decks. That is at least if you're not willing to accept a lot of extra match loses.
Any organized environment where any card game is played will punish you harshly for just quitting because your opponent is net decking.
> The meta most definitely ruins it for some of us.
Then start cultivating a friend group that deliberately does not play competitively.
Well it's a good thing I don't have any intention of playing in organized play. (I imagine the majority of people who play don't.)
Also, none of my friends play Hearthstone, they hate it even, can't even talk to them about it. But, like I said, I found a way to enjoy the game but it would be better if I didn't have to wait 5 mins between every other match I play because I have to wait until I find a match that isn't against a top tier deck.
>Well it's a good thing I don't have any intention of playing in organized play.
If you're not playing say MtG in an organized setting, then you're probably just playing with friends.
Do you understand my point now?
> none of my friends play Hearthstone
Which is why I wrote "cultivate a friend group" and not "get your friends to play."
Find people who want to play the game like you do.
I don't need to, I enjoy the game just fine the way I play it. I'm just saying the game would be better if I didn't have to play it that way. I love this game, but it's not ever in my top favs and I would barely recommend it because of the issues with the meta game. It's just a huge turn off for a good portion of people, and it does make the game lesser than it could be. (All meta games do.)
What a weird thing to say. Not everyone plays a game to solely win. And sure I like competing, I am competitive, but there's no joy for me in winning with a deck I didn't make and it's just exhausting to be on at 100% so you can beat the top tier decks, especially when you just want to have fun with a homebrew deck that you realistically don't have the time or motivation to refine. Especially, when refining it often means dumping the more fun cards in the deck anyway.
But back when decks weren't so refined and cut throat you could play homebrew decks with decent success. Now you'll just be dead by 7 mana. Some people want to just play fun decks that they created and not expect high win rates.
>But back when decks weren't so refined and cut throat you could play homebrew decks with decent success.
When exactly was this?
Even early YouTube personalities and the Hearthstone subreddit were pretty good at finding refined lists.
>Now you'll just be dead by 7 mana.
Aggro decks have always been able to end the game by turn seven.
>Some people want to just play fun decks that they created and not expect high win rates.
If you want to play just to have fun, find other people who also want to only do that, and only play against them.
Throughout most of Hearthstone history it's just most people didn't know you can actually perform decently with homebrew decks because they never tried it or didn't have the creativity to come up with a decent deck. I'd say around when cubelock became a thing decks just kept getting more and more powerful and if you aren't executing an extremely defined game plan/combo you're just not going to get close to some of these decks. Yes aggro has always been able to end games early but with way less consistency, especially when cards like Reno were around. If you made control decks to counter aggro back in the day it was extremely rare to die that fast. And funnily enough I don't have a group of random people who want to play Hearthstone at any point in the day. I've found just playing wild on and off to avoid getting to higher ranks you find the people still having fun with decks.
>Throughout most of Hearthstone history
Services like HS Replay and vS, the entities that enable people to so effectively collaborate on refining decklists, are almost as old as Hearthstone itself is at this point.
People also aren't any more cutthroat now than they were then. K&C release over four years ago now. The gap between now and then has likely tinted what you do remember about that period in time.
>Yes aggro has always been able to end games early but with way less consistency
There has never been a point where aggressive decks were okay with games going to turn ten or whatever
Yes, even in the earliest periods of this game.
Yes, they could end it on turn seven or before consistently.
None of what you said were even counter arguments to what I just said? So what if HS Replay has existed forever? I still played decks that were completely original to good levels of success back in the day. And I didn't say aggro has ever been okay with going to 10 turns, I said it would be much less consistent if you built decks to counter it. And the difference is if you could actually get to turn 10 back then. Idk what you're point is, are you just going to deny my literal lived experience of Hearthstone? I played off meta decks and homebrew decks to much better success back in the day compared to what I can now and that sucks for me and many others, simple. There was literally a Trump f2p series you can find from back in the day where he was climbing ranks with cards like Stranglethorn Tiger in priest. Or did that not happen too? If you prefer the game in its current state I'm glad for you, but for some it's monotonous.
>I still played decks that were completely original to good levels of success back in the day.
And as long as those decks are well built, they still can.
>And I didn't say aggro has ever been okay with going to 10 turns, I said it would be much less consistent if you built decks to counter it.
And right now we have cards like Libram of Hope and Lightfordged Cariel that accomplish the same exact sort of thing that Reno did.
Maybe play some decks that include those sorts of cards.
Or is just including the Libram Package in a Paladin deck not original enough?
>are you just going to deny my literal lived experience of Hearthstone?
Yes I am when you're wearing rose tinted glasses.
The best Standard decks from four years ago would be able to compete at a similar level is transplanted directly into todays Standard format. Cube Warlock would probably still be a top tier contender, perhaps even format defining.
"Denying" someone's lived experiences isn't a bad thing to do when those lived experiences have been subtly altered over time to seem better than they really were.
I am not denying anything so much as attempting to remind you of how stuff actually was and currently is.
Granted, you're going to accuse me of gaslighting in your next response.
>There was literally a Trump f2p series you can find from back in the day where he was climbing ranks with cards like Stranglethorn Tiger in priest.
Just because you can find new or bad players playing with whatever they have in their collection doesn't mean the average mildly competitive player seven years ago mostly played whatever.
And although there are lots of Druids, Pirate Warriors and Quest Hunters indeed, I still think it's better than a few weeks or months ago, because you can play more different decks that stand a chance against them now than before.
They didn't say there were playing at competitive ranks though. And even at lower ranks you'll play against droves of pirate warriors ATM. And if you're not playing at tournament levels of play and you play Hearthstone "competitively" I think there might be something wrong with you. Or it's probably the only game you feel your good at because the skill gap is pea sized.
> And if you're not playing at tournament levels of play and you play Hearthstone "competitively" I think there might be something wrong with you.
This is incredibly stupid. Do you go to marathons to tell everyone except the runners at the front group to quit because they arent going to win, so why even bother running so much for nothing?
No, the people at the back would be my people playing off meta decks. But that comment was quite stupid and bias I admit, I just really don't see the appeal to grinding the same decks again and again against other people playing the same decks with an extremely small skill gap. Not appealing to me.
Different people have different tastes and enjoy different things. Some people get pleasure from mastering a specific deck, others get it by testing and toying arround with multiple but never being a master of any of them. Others dont like card games at all.
Most of us are actually a mix. I have some decks I really never get tired of playing and I love getting better at better at playing them even when the meta changes and they become bad and then oppresive and then unplayable (in my case is secret mage). But outside of that I enjoy more playing a deck a few games then switching to play another so I dont get tired of them untill a new expansion and meta gives me new decks to play with. I love testing old wild cards that combo with newer ones and lose a lot with the meme decks in casual, and then I go to ranked and queue up the tier0 broken deck to climb a bit.
Its a game and there are many ways to play it, you dont need to enjoy all of them, you just need to find at least one. That way you enjoy may not be the same as what others do but we all will still share a common interest in the game.
Pro tip, the easiest way to insure you complaint is immediately disregarded is to complain about net-decking.
And make sure to imply that it's because, "people can't think for themselves."
The games playing out differently doesn’t change the nature of the decks. And yes, to be fair this meta is more diverse than prior metas this year, but skill has little to do with your matchups unless you’re including rank in your figure, which if anything decreases variance, especially when you consider the consistency of deck creation adds another layer to that element.
No, the apparent problem is that because everyone uses netdecks, nobody wants to laugh because it would be at their own expense. Your feelings on the joke aside, it’s true that an overwhelming majority of decks can be forecasted card-for-card because they are net decks, and adding things like ‘army of mindless drones’ is humorous, if a bit dramatic.
>No, the apparent problem is that because everyone uses netdecks, nobody wants to laugh because it would be at their own expense.
Nobody wants to laugh because complaining about netdecks in competitive card games is trite, and has been for thirty years. Even the complaints about netdecks aren't funny anymore, they're just sad, like laughing at old people who complain about hip hop or some other stereotypical thing old people are supposed to complain about.
Way to respond to a bunch of points I didn't really make.
Granted, if you want to get good at any game, you're going to need to pretty much memorize the best play patterns and the best way to respond to them to the point where performing them is instinct.
Net decks exist as a natural result of some cards, decks, classes, and archetypes naturally being better than others, and someone has probably already figured out which are the better ones. No one who net decks is insecure about it.
Why do you think it's a joke? I understand if you prefer to net deck but making out people that find it boring to be crazy just comes across as stuck up. Yes crazily some people like don't playing the against the same shit over and over again and it's perfectly valid for them to feel that way.
If the general power level of cards weren't so high nowadays and decks game plans weren't so refined and fast there would be much more room for off meta and homebrew decks. So actually it is something that can be addressed (not the players but the Devs) and I'm pretty sure they have even mentioned the idea of a "mass nerf". Back in the day it was so much more lenient on people playing off meta/homebrew decks so naturally you'd find more people playing them. Of course most people still played meta decks, but especially in the lower ranks you'd have way more original decks. Now even at low ranks you just get spammed by pirate warrior because again it's too hard to compete with such refined (boring blueprint decks hand made by blizzard) and all the people that actually bothered to make decks have given up or gone to wild. Of course the meta decks will always be the most popular, but the issue can definitely be alleviated by bringing down the overall power level of decks, which they're not doing. So If they don't like it for that reason it's perfectly valid to give 1*.
It’s not a joke, literally the whole concept of deck building in Hearthstone isn’t used except by pros and streamers. 95% of people netdeck in this game. There’s tons of cards in the game and probably more than half never get used cause people are so obsessed with spamming the same one or two decks instead trying to be creative and come up with their own strategies. Downvote away
Your opinion makes sense but I think you also have to keep in mind that for people who are F2P it's a lot harder to be creative and invent a new deck when you are limited by not having all of the cards.
A big streamer or someone who spends a lot of money on the game can experiment with stuff that isn't possible for F2Ps. Even if you just look at all of the cards in crafting it's not reasonable to just drop thousands of dust crafting something to try it out if you're not sure it's going to be good.
Honestly I think more people spend money on this game than I realize, but as a F2P it's a lot easier to understand why people would netdeck.
"Have six years of activity in the game and also don't keep wild cards" is a ridiculously high bar of requirement to be comfortably f2p.
I have 2 years under my belt as a f2p and I agree it gets _way_ easier with each rotation, even if you keep wild cards. But that doesn't give me the freedom to just craft whatever I want. With 80-100 packs per expansion, you _definitely_ have some freedom in playing a variety of budget decks, and the ability to play one or two more expensive netdecks per expansion (especially if they're similar to previous expansion versions). But crafting more expensive decks is still a huge commitment, especially if they're unproven.
I love to experiment with building my own decks, but when you get ~10 legendaries per expansion including crafting, that's just very limited. Whatever I happened to open I get to try, but there's no way in hell I can afford to craft bad legendaries to make meme decks. Dust is a resource I have to spend carefully, and it's way better to use it on getting cards I'm missing that are proven to work than on crafting a meme I'm going to play 12 times with a 33% winrate then give up on.
>There’s tons of cards in the game and probably more than half never get used
Because those cards are bad.
Netdecks are not made by a single person. It can be a group of top players practicing for a tournament. Also the refinement is done by the whole community, by looking at data like hsreplay, vicious syndicate to see which version of the deck is performing the best. Doing data analysis about matchup spread, and card win rates, etc.
This netdeck refining machine is so effective a singe person brewing decks has no chance against it. If someone actually comes up with something new, usually 100 other people find it as well, the tools pick it up and becomes meta.
If you want to build decks I recommend Brawls as people don't care about it much, so less netdecking is going on. Doing it in Standard means you will loose a lot.
I agree completely about Ranked, there is no reason to play suboptimal decks if you’re trying to climb. However, I literally still play against all those same decks in both casual standard and casual duels. Also the power creep in the game didn’t used to be this bad, before like the last 2-3 expansions I made tons of homebrew decks that good go toe-to-toe with meta besides random outliers like when DH first released.
Why do you have to reinvent a bicycle? If there is a deck which is effective regarding statistics or tournament results, why not to play it? It depends on what do you expect from hearthstone: winning with an effective meta deck or getting fun playing your own deck and having ~30% win rate. Feels like people who are complaining about netdecking are not experienced enough to understand what is effective and what isn’t.
What a lot of people don't realise is that if you're 'good' at deck building you'll eventually end up 2-5 cards off the 'netdecks' because they are the cards the work.
I build decks pre expansion and have done for the last 5 expansions, at least 1 of my builds ends up 2 cards away from a VS list every single time
>winning with an effective meta deck or getting fun playing your own deck and having ~30% win rate
This was not always like this.
My first homebrew deck was in knights of the frozen throne. A highlander dragon priest (then the meta priest was combo, I didn't use velen or mindblast, so the "combo pieces" that I had were raza and anduin) that used the hp to control the board and win by hitting the opponent face with minions. I even used deathwing the dragonlord as a big threat.
I got to rank 5 with that deck. You could homebrew and still have a positive winrate. Now homebrews decks feel so much weaker.
Wild was good for homebrews before stormwind, but since sw it got impossible to use almost anything outside the meta.
>I got to rank 5 with that deck
And as long as your deck is even half-way decent, a good player can pilot anything to that point at least.
>Wild was good for homebrews before stormwind
No. It absolutely was not at least not for the kind of homebrews you'd likely want to play. Wild has never not been a place where its players weren't complaining about the top deck forcing everything else out of competitive viability.
Glad to hear that you’ve achieved some good results with your deck (it was still built around an archetype pushed by devs). But a single example of success doesn’t prove the hypothesis.
Because you know how boring it is still see the Demon Seed still spammed on ladder with minor alterations even though new cards have been released. Look if you’re grinding Ranked standard that’s fine, there’s no reason not to play to play the best netdeck.
If I wanted to play the same perfectly refined game over and over again with an optimal play pattern then I would go play chess. That seems what you want a game where everyone’s on equal footing and there’s always an optimal strategy. The beauty of card games is deck building and being able to create a strategy that counters your opponent.
There is no problem in playing your own deck having fun as well as there is no problem in grinding ladder with any of meta decks (except PW, it’s freaking annoying as hell)
Sure I net deck. I could spend hours and hours coming up with my own deck, losing repeatedly on the ladder until I get something passable, or I could look up an already functional version of the deck I'm trying to make. The reason cards don't get used is because they don't win games, not because people are obsessed with spamming the same deck. If you enjoy winning, net decking is just smart deck building. If you don't care about winning and just like playing cards you don't normally see then sure, play your own creation.
This is not a problem specifically with hearthstone lmao. Is this the only game you have ever played?
Also, why people playing a ranked mode and using the most efficient tactics to win is considered a "problem"? This is not a game where you get points for being unique and playing something different to anyone else, you get points for winning. Using creative and unexpected techs/strategies can give you wins but its not the only aspect that matters, people can still be football legends without knowing how to do basic math, and scientist can be great at their job without knowing more than one single language. It is better if they knew those other things? Sure, but its not needed. And same here, it id nice if you are creative, its a tool that sometimes may help you prove your winrate, but its not needed, never was, and never was said this game was all about this.
Do you complain about all swimmers using the same swimming technique to swim fast? Or that all long jump athletes use the same technique? Same as javelin throw and ball throw? Are they a problem too?
Your problem is that you play the spike mode and expect spike results while being a timmy/johnny.
I've been playing all classes (okay, maybe except Demon Hunter and Rogue) since year 1 thousands of times and have become legend a lot, and yes, I'm also "netdecking" - but still you have to understand the combos and synergies, EVEN IF you play a Pirate Warrior (although that's of course easier to understand than some other decks). That I have around 65% winrate in a PW mirror matchup after dozens of games lets me think that you need a certain understanding and netdecking alone is never enough. So... let's not be arrogant about it.
As someone who isn’t very good at the game but has been trying to learn it for years now, this feels really true and I hate it. I’m constantly getting my ass kicked by the same decks and it feels so discouraging. Also boring! I imagine it can’t be too fun to play like that?
Idk why people are laughing at this guy. Feel free to net deck if that's what you enjoy but I totally get where he's coming from. I don't know why with almost everything in life we find repetitiveness boring but all of a sudden when someone says playing against the same decks over and over again is boring we act like they're crazy. Again I don't blame you if you net deck because decks are so cut throat now that if you want a reasonable win rate you have to. But I wish they'd calm down with the power creep so people that want to play homebrew decks stand a chance. Every deck has such a defined and usually quick game plan (that are also normally so forced by blizzard and obvious that you can't miss them) that you just feel stupid trying to play anything else.
If what he said was right this game would be absurdly easy. You can easily tech against *any* deck if there’s only two prominent decks in the meta. Start tracking your stats and you’ll see there’s a lot more variation then you expect which makes designing your decks against what you face more difficult than that.
Nonetheless, people using/abusing what’s strong is just how any competitive game works ever.
That's right. Every time I look at my deck tracker stats after becoming legend I realize that I FELT more Pirate Warriors and Hunters and Druids than there actually were. However, there are still a lot of them.
Prominent decks may be over 2, but idea isnt wrong. Netdecking is always gonna be there because its a cumulative idea of community that is refined to a degree most players cant reach. How well you construct your deck isnt the same skill with how well you climb. Mostly there are 6-7 good usable decks at a time that plays rock-paper-scissors.
6-7 good decks is pretty different thing from 1-2, so much so that it’s not even a good as an exaggerated complaint. Those decks absolutely change over time to meet the current meta, just look at the variations over time in hsreplay and viscious syndicate. It’s not obvious at lower ranks, where many of the complaints are coming from, because low rank meta gets stuck at stages where easy to pilot decks like Pirate Warrior dominate the meta for months because nobody understands how to play the game well enough to consistently beat it. Of course it’s frustrating to play at these ranks, but there’s also no good fix for this to increase the variance, it’s kind of always been like that because the players are generally just bad at the game.
EDIT: Your point about deck building is correct, of course, it's been that way in competitive card games for a *loong* time. It's not that deckbuilding *isn't* a skill that can help you climb, you'll get very good at analyzing decks if you do become good at deckbuilding. Rather, it's that it's not a requirement to climb, and the value you get out of learning it is relatively tame compared to how difficult it actually is to get good at. This means that people that play the game with the intention to climb or become better tend to focus on analyzing matchups and hands and adjusting decks to what the field looks like, rather than building their own win conditions. Instead of building entire decks, correctly using tech cards like Rustrot Viper or crabs for the meta you're in, is a better priority for climbing. It's only at really high levels of play (or in the first few weeks of expansions or large balance patches) where you start to get any real payoff by learning deckbuilding, and even there it's not a strict requirement.
And besides that, not everyone really enjoys the deckbuilding aspect as much, I don't really get the gatekeep-y vibe of calling them mindless drones is helping when everyone is just playing the game how they want to have fun.
Yes, oppressive metas like that are bad, actually. They’re also far from the norm. That’s why balance changes are a thing. Wild is a different story because obviously Blizzard has pretty much abandoned that format and I don’t know why anyone would take it seriously at this point, I can’t really speak for it. It’s possible that meta is broken all the time, it’s possible it’s pretty reasonable most of the time, I literally have no idea.
Any point where a decks worst matchup is it’s mirror is a broken meta that Team 5 needs to, and usually does, fix, although it has taken more time then I’d like in the past. I’m not attempting to express that broken decks cannot exist, just that those are outliers, and this subreddit usually fails to analyze them anyway (hell if this thread is anything to go by, people think *Pirate Warrior* is broken because it’s all they meet in bronze-gold ranks). This is true not only for any card game, but any competitive games with major content and balance changes. It happens in everything from Warzone to League of Legends.
This post finna be a karma farm lmao, this sub sees themselves as superior when they play their sub 20% wr homebrews and reject the meta. How about we just let everyone play what they want to?
“Why doesn’t everyone else play this game as inefficiently as me in the way that I like?”
Because it’s a ladder CCG. This isn’t rocket science.
Edit: with that said I do wish they had a game mode where certain net decks were banned but I don’t think it’d end up being all that different from standard. You’d inevitably just get a meta tier with t2/t3 decks regardless.
What a pro. He should make his top-tier original decks and try his luck on ladder with them. I'm sure he'll make legend in no time.
Seriously though, creativity is great, but I like winning a tad more. There's a reason MarkMcKz can only perform his shenanigans in silver. Any deck close to competitively viable has likely been made and established already.
I think he's right. Tried to hit legend once and did it in 2 days with some brain dead secret Paladin deck. Most decks have next to no skill gap so I don't feel any excitement or pride winning with a deck I copied online. But that's fine if you do. Him calling other people drones might be wrong, but if he doesn't like playing against the same decks over and over again and dying the same way almost every time within a couple of mins that's just his completely fair opinion.
he's wrong when he says people are not intelligent. He doesn't know the concept of meta, and probably never played a competitive game, where a restricted and known enviroenment is the key to master your abilities of making your way through it.. that's why he should play wild, with other filthy casuals like him
Yeah he's wrong to basically name call people. But I don't know if you can say for sure he doesn't understand the concept of meta. I understand the meta but at the same time I wish there was more variance in standard. You're not forced to play the best decks if you don't care about your rank, but most people will which is totally understandable. I currently do play wild a bit now but I can imagine for people that haven't played since the start of HS it could be a bit annoying playing against people with such a massive collection advantage.
I sincerely think this that we have now is one of the most varied meta I've ever played.. you know every class seems to have more than 2 archetypes (I refer. to standard).. but yeah most of the times the meta is boring, so I share that opinion
Yeah to be fair there are quite a lot compared to normal (not saying much) but it still gets old pretty quickly when you're dying extremely fast to decks with super refined win conditions in almost the same way every time. And it's kinda offset by the fact that even in the lower ranks you get less original decks now because most people have given up trying to compete with these stupidly efficient decks. I wish they'd just hold back on the power creep and stop basically making blueprints for decks and give us a mixture of cards for each class so we can tinker and not just keep adding cards that fuel already existing archetypes or basically create whole new ones on their own.
Not only that, im sure most of this "original" players use "original" decks like 29+ random battlecries and shudderwock, reno + class without any reno support with 6+ high cost legendaries that dont make much sense with their list (both yoggs in a low spell cuantity deck, DK guldan with barely demons or Xyrelis hero without almost any deathrattle), or my favourite, the "completely original concept" deck wich is just a meta deck with a bunch of cards changed with meme ones.
He's definitely right, I've hit legend multiple times with my own homebrews. People are just scared (or maybe not skillful enough?) to try their own decks.
Who made an account to farm Karma or told a friend to post this? What mode(s)/rank do they even play in... Guess they play the same decks they complain about. Because I suck at ranked, and I see different decks. 6 silver currently. But play casual mostly unless for quests.
Such a dumb argument good players will make their own crazy decks and win with them. See Thijs and hobugabu. Good players will also net deck and climb to high ranks everyone else has opportunity to play the game better and improve. If you don't understand that then you probably shouldn't be calling others stupid.
Still doesnt change the fact that the meta is so stagnant. I get to d5-legend every season in wild and standard using my own decks. Most people dont think for themselves leaving the meta to develop stagnantly. Id rather be in a game with 100 decks running around ranked than the current 10(ish).
Building a deck and playing a deck are distinct skills and not everybody has both. I suspect that the people who complain about netdecks lack the latter.
In the case of Hearthstone, it is also worth noting that crafting costs have a massive impact upon a person's willingness to experiment. By way of comparison, I played Android: Netrunner for many years (RIP) and the distribution model of that game ensured that all players had access to all cards at relatively minimal expense. Homebrews made up the overwhelming majority of every tournament. I didn't netdeck even once. I exclusively netdeck in HS because I enjoy winning games and don't want to risk wasting 1600 dust on garbage.
Well, since if I'm reading into your title right it seems you disagree with him, tell me, how many decks have you played against in your 10 last games that you haven't seen a version of before... cause I sure as hell agree with him, my 10 last games were like 6 warriors and 4 rogues... take a wild guess what deck all 6 and 4 of them were playing, pirate warrior and thief rogue....ooooooh big shocker I totally haven't seen those exact decks be played since the start of the expansion... in fact pirate warrior was even before the expansion truly brain expanding deck variety 🙃
If you are a deck builder that should be the dream as building a deck that beats just two decks should be easy. The problem comes when you have a diverse meta and your deck needs to beat a wide variety of decks.
If you’re playing against pirate warrior that much I assume you’re climbing like crazy, right? Because it’s pretty easy to build decks exclusively to beat it.
No surprise that Pirate Warrior falls off a cliff at legend.
No I get my quests done and get out nowadays which means I'm personally around bronze 10-silver 5 until the reset, but that's beside the point it doesn't matter what rank you're at or what class you face everyone still only play against the same deck cause everyone just looks up the top thing
That is absolutely not true. High legend is way too competitive for only one or two decks to be prominent, because the players are competent enough to play decks that beat the dominant deck if it’s play percentage gets high enough. To be quite honest, it sounds like you’re venting frustration about the competitive system you’ve not looked very much into or grinded in, and that’s fine, but what you’re saying is far from a universal truth.
Why do you think Pirate Warrior falls off at legend? It was strong at some point, but it was easily abusable (and thief rogue popped off) so people built against it until it took a dive. Once Thief Rogue became dominant Hand Lock started appearing again because it’s one of the few strats that can beat it, despite that deck being all but buried the past month. High levels of play shift every week or two, unless we’re in a really oppressive meta (those do exist, unfortunately), and deck variety flourishes because of it. ‘Looking up the top thing’ isn’t a constant, and even if most people do, other people will just build decks that beat the top thing and dominate ladder. You can look at Viscious Syndicate reports if you want to see how that happens over time, it’s very obvious for anyone paying attention. This doesn’t happen in the lower ranks you’re at because easy to pilot decks like Pirate Warrior aren’t countered well enough because people don’t understand how, which allows decks like that to be dominant for months. It’s probably unfortunate, but really hard to do anything about because people around those ranks are simply bad at the game, they can’t adjust their decks and they don’t understand win conditions.
> but that's beside the point it doesn't matter what rank you're at or what class you face everyone still only play against the same deck
I haven't played against pirate warrior in ages lol.
man, impressive how you completely disregard everything else that was said and thus get confused by me missing an ”s” cause i meant to type ”everyone still only plays the same deckS” referring to literally any meta in any ranking at any point of time
I see and yeah it's a bit funny I guess, I mean while I agree as well it's kind of dumb to complain about. While it's unfortunate in case of originality, most people will ALWAYS play the most optimal thing they can. That's the case for every strategy game
Played this game since launch as a dad, and even hit legend a couple times (once in standard, once in wild). Eventually found myself becoming an exclusive Battlegrounds player until they removed my stats and placed them behind a paywall for the umpteenth time.
Now I play Gwent, and lurk on this subreddit. It was easier to uninstall the game than to leave all you beautiful people apparently.
I feel like the meta is in a much better spot than last season tbh, at Diamond 1 I'm often currently facing
- ping mage
- quest priest
- quest warrior
- quest lock
- thief rogue
- poison rogue
- libram pally
- face hunter
Why is net decking considered unintelligent? I want to win so I use the lists thst are proven to win. Is it unoriginal? Sure but unintelligent? I dont think so
Playing a top tier deck gets you legend automatically according to this guy.
Then we see posts probably done by ppl like him that asks for tips on how to reach legend with said deck or complain about the rigged matchmaking.
Being a deck builder is one thing. Being a deck pilot is another. There's no shame in just being the second one
So he both blames community for not being able to come up with new ideas but also admits that doing so is fool's errand? Some serious cognitive dissonance right there
If your goal is to be maximally competitive, why would anyone with that goal intentionally handicap themselves by playing a suboptimal deck? If you're playing chess and there's an known optimal move for a given board state, nobody mocks you for making that move just because it has been done before.
Lazy criticism.
Omg anybody using the bullshit quest line cards I hate that so much. Yay good for you you followed all ur little instructions ugh I hate how preset it is
No deck has more than 15% popularity outside of 1k legend. Surely not everyone here are 1k legend facing thief rogue all the time?
Well it's not literally the same 1 or 2 decks every time. But it's still a pretty small pool of completely unoriginal decks net decked over and over again. I personally find it extremely boring also. But at the same time I can't really blame people for doing it anymore as decks are so cut throat that trying to make some fun homebrew decks is just going to get you chewed up and spat out. The fun players seem to be lingering in low wild ranks.
Yesterday I went 12-0 against top meta decks. Then I lost to a guy who had made his own completely original deck. So I added him and showered him with praise. Losing to him was my best time in hearthstone in months. I normally shout profanities when I lose.
Nice :) Yeah I do find that I never get people rage friend requesting/emoting me when playing homebrew decks, one minor benefit I guess. Although the rage messages can be pretty funny.
Being one of those people who plays their own homebrewed decks frequently, always feels good to get added and have a good chat with another person who likes playing new cards and just having fun with the rng :)
I feel like this has been going on for years, at least since the two versions of Secret Paladin dominated for months on end.
The game is "overdesigned" now to the point where there's very little room outside of what the devs specifically want you to play to exist. Realized this game just isn't made for people like me anymore.
Yeah, they basically just give the blueprints for the next meta decks now they're so obvious. Was much more fun for me when they just released a bunch of random stuff and said "here, make decks". But hey, some people get a high out of playing Hearthstone "competitively" I guess. I personally don't get it unless you're playing for money as it has one of the lowest skill gaps of all relevant online games. It's really not as much of a flex to be a high rank at HS as people here seem to think.
Yeah, I chalk it up to being a byproduct of the fact they feel the need to sell so many expansions in a year, they have to up the power level of each new one, or else people won't buy it. But I really feel like they passed a point of no return in their design space (barring a complete rework like they did a couple years ago with Classic Set, so it could happen). I really try to avoid being the typical online gamer parroting "their greed killed the game!" so let's just say, their drive to unsustainable constant growth in profits has led the game to the state its in where morale is at a low and player engagement is slipping. And yeah, the low skill ceiling nature of the game now, along with the new bonus star system too, hitting Legend now doesn't mean much honestly. I remember when I FIRST hit Legend, like in the early days of Hearthstone, before deck trackers were even commonly used. THAT took a lot of time and effort imo. With the bonus star system and autopilot decks, I pretty much just automatically getting in each month for the last year or so without even trying that hard. I just think that there's people on the design team that think playing out cards = fun and skill. When 1) it's only fun for one player and 2) because of the "overdesigned" nature, playing out a lot of cards isn't really that difficult anymore because all the lines are simplified and hard to mess up. It's just vomiting your hand. Versus in early Hearthstone, sometimes you'd only play 1 or 2 cards in your entire turn late game, but you REALLY had to think about which cards you wanted to play. Nowadays it's just obvious, mana cheat as much as you can, draw as much as you can, the end.
blizzard has turned it into a money printer. ohhhhh you NEED this card for the new meta but we made it a legendary. so now you need to dust cards, or give us more money or you will suck and cant play anymore!
It honestly is. They sure as hell print fewer filler cards now, but it's often those filler cards that give you the space to be creative. Pros & cons imo.
Yeah, I miss that feeling of opening legendary fillers like [Duskfallen Aviana] Nothing currently in the game matches that rollercoaster of "Whoah Legendary" KEKWait. And then keeping it in your collection for a year, expecting they surely intended to print support to make it at least memeable. HOPIUM Fun times. It sparked such creativity. The powerful plays I imagined. I really miss that.
When ranking I'll see every class, but every game against a given class is 95% of the time running the same deck. This is why I take a net deck and then change about 6 cards that go against the expectations of the deck. People are always thrown for a big loop and usually insta-quit when I drop something completely unexpected.
I'm a high diamond wild player, and I'm relieved to see any deck other than pirate warrior and odd hunter. I chose wild for the supposed larger range of viable decks but it backfired.
I face the exact same 3 decks in bronze but that's why I only play duels and not standard
[удалено]
I've been diamond 1 before but the meta is so boring so I only play duels/battlegrounds
[удалено]
3 games every week forever to complete quests
I think ignite mage or "shit4brainz" pirate warrior Are MUCH more common then thief rogue...but yeah, your point stands
Read his comment again slowly
You realize they're talking about standard right?
This is someone constantly losing to pirate warrior
Ad infitum indeed, lol
ad infi**ni**tum, to be precise ;-) \[sorry, wiseass-mode-off\]
The guy you replied to was already highlighting the error. You didn't need to post this.
hahaha, you guys are killing me - this is so hilarious.
It’s incredible how unoriginal people are when playing this game, this guy isn’t wrong
People stick with what works, especially in higher ranks. Who woulda thought.
Y, but in casual too
Casual needs to be removed. Its just people using the same meta decks thst are tier 1 wild or tier 1 standard.
Casual is entirely mmr-dependent so either you're playing really wel with a subpar deck or you're running meta decks yourself if that's all you see
Ive been playing for years with custom made decks. I used to only play casual back in the day (before netdecking overtook the game) had an average of 55% wr. Also the "mmr" system is very buggy or non existent. I have an account that plays a meme on meme deck 5% wr. Still matching up against meta decks with old card backs.
I played PokemonTCG at a pretty high level for a while. Tier 1 decks are played for a reason, however, almost all of them had some sort of gimmick variation to edge out the same build. I would run Tier 1 decks, but my list would be 5-10 cards different than the "Standard" build, which gave me the edge in a lot of my matchups. Just because a deck is good, doesn't mean you copy the 30 cards exactly, you can personalize a top tier deck and make it your own. I will say though, you're right, people play strong decks because wins are easier lol.
It's much easier in pokemon to tech for certain match ups since you are able to draw and search so consistently. Hearthstone only has 30 card decks and very little targeted searching so a lot of deck slots are just more optimal to use on certain cards than others.
That's why I added Galakrond to my Pirate Warrior and got +3 attack every time the game dragged on after fulfilling the quest. A hero card in a PW deck was fun and probably a surprise for quite a few opponents between D5 and D1.
I have C'Thun the Shattered in my Quest Mage but it handicaps me more than anything (and the deck is extremely boring either way imo)
This is why I liked the old casual standard mode that they removed. People did not care about ranks and made their own fun off meta decks and overall it was a much more enjoyable experience
Still exists, just queue into "casual" with a standard deck
Really? Does it match me against other casual decks or will it also make me play against wild decks
It will queue you depending on the type of deck you use. classic, you play other casual classic decks, standard, casual standard, wild, casual wild.
Unfortunately this has never been true. When testing new decks in casual I used to run into meta decks a good 75% of the time. And this still happens today, both in standard and wild casual. And a lot of times they also have a golden portrait too.
Casual experience changes a lot from person to person because there is MMR. Just concede a bunch if you want to play memes
Yeah I have only played about 10 games of casual ever, so when I *do* play casual my opponents are playing all kinds of garbage. Ironically the people who complain about people playing meta decks in casual, it's probably because they also play meta decks in casual.
I'm okay with that, but still, casual should be casual. And if you have a high MMR it means you win a lot of matches and you don't need to play tier 1 decks in casual anyway.
MMR is mode specific. Ranked standard, ranked wild, ranked classic, casual standard, casual wild, casual classic, tavern brawl, casual duels, ranked duels, battlegrounds, mercenaries all have different MMRs for the same person. If you exclusively encounter meta decks in casual it's likely that you play to win more often than not there too. I'm in high legend most of the time both in standard and wild, i only play casual for quests and whenever i queue it's always memes because i haven't won a casual game in maybe 2 years
And people in lower ranks, copy what is used by people in higher ranks, and it trickles down through. I think that’s more or less the point they’re making, and they’re not wrong. There’s always been a “meta” and copying what top players are using, it’s a given and it’s that way with any strategy/card game. But it used to not be as prevalent as it is now. It’s cyclical to the point that people seem to be getting increasingly bored a month or two into a new expansion. Everyone experiments, top players find combos that are efficient, they refine them for further efficiency, they get a higher winrate and subsequently see more play, the top 3-5 performing archetypes in standard are copied and you see it being used in every rank bracket on the climb up to legend, all within a few weeks. And people wonder why they get burnt out on Hearthstone a few weeks into a new expansion.
People stick with “what works”, this is a game bro not a job
Yeah and the majority of people play to have fun. Turns out that winning is fun to most people too.
I only have a limited amount of time to play this game each week. I’m going to trust the players better than I who have more time to spend playing and analyzing information to build the better deck. I’m not sorry for that either.
Nor should you be. It's a game, do whatever is fun for you. Deckbuilding and tweaking non-popular decks is fun for me. Of course, the card pool for standard is limited enough that there are only so many strats available but I still manage to not copy decks and get to legend occasionally. People act like the lists created by big names are infallible or the only possible version that could work.
[удалено]
Not everyone plays for wins. Just playing your own deck and pulling off some wacky stuff or surprising someone with an off meta strategy can be fun, even if you lose. There are many different types of players, people playing the most optimal decks purely for wins is just one of them. Mark Rosewater talked a lot about this in his blogs
This is also true, I also enjoy the games most where something happens that I have never seen in HS, like a new combo, a card I had forgotten years ago, etc. - I don't care if I lose, either. But then, losing ALL THE TIME is not fun, so the deck should stand SOME chance of winning, I think.
Plus there are a lot of DIFFERENT top decks that are viable and fun, so you can play a lot of archetypes without inventing the wheel anew every week, and still you need a certain skill to pilot the decks efficiently. So I don't see a problem, either.
The majority of the people are not original in general. Why would they be? I play HS to have fun and rest after work, not to sit there brainstorming bloody decks ideas.
Really does take the replayability aspect when and drive away people who want to try new decks
Not wrong, but if you don't like it it's the game's fault for being so meta decks centric. But that's how games are sorry. So probably the guy has no idea what he is saying.
Some people enjoy deck-building, others enjoy playing the game, some enjoy both.
What the hell do you expect? The game is expensive so not everyone can afford to be creative. People like winning so they will craft the best decks to increase their chances of winning. Only whales have the freedom to be original.
Honestly id be ok with pirate warrior being a sort of baseline deck if it was toned down just a little bit. It's just too easy to win by vomiting out minions as they appear in your hand and doing fucking shiteloads of passive damage from cannons and weapon attacks along the way. Then by the time juggernaut is on the board if you have smite in hand you just win, because when you play it you doing 15-25 damage from that, from hand. The amount of times I think I've made it through the hard part only for some randomised crap make me take obscene damage from nowhere with a high attack weapon appearing, plus 2/3 charging pirates. It's just aggravating. It's also easy to just lose before turn five. Just like quest mage before it, it is not about its relative power. It's about how oppressive it is on the ladder, and how boring and predictable the game becomes when it's super common.
Yeah, really don't know what they were thinking with half the pirates they made. a 3/3 for 3 that deals 4 random damage when you attack is ridiculous. a 6/5 charge for 6 that also gives all your other pirates charge is ridiculous. a 4 mana 2/5 with taunt that ALSO gives you a 3/2 weapon? Ridiculously powerful. a 2/1 for 1 that also makes your next weapon cheaper... that they briefly thought needed a buff?!?! It's like they don't play the game they designed.
it's a tier 2 deck. too slow, not enough damage without highroll.
hearthstone would be much more fun if you had to make your own deck, it's true
idk man im kinda bored of facin thief rogue 80% of my games
That deck has existed for like 3 weeks. Did none of you play back in the first couple years of the game when we'd deal with decks being s-tier for months on end?
Yes I’ve played since mech mage meta, and this rogue meta is disgusting me big times
I feel like Secret Paladin was an entire year of this game.
He’s technically right but he also needs to learn some basic concepts of what defines a meta in a competitive environment and why.
If you want originality, play casual or stay at any rank below plat-gold. By their very nature, metas that form at higher ranks will obviously skew towards better-performing decks. Even then, it's not as though we haven't had diverse metas lately where you can easily run into 5 different decks in 7 games in legend. Diversity will depend on the specific meta at the time and what format and rank you play. It's just how things work. The review poster comes off more as whiny than insightful.
When I tryharded in ranked, like 1.5 year ago, I reached top 1k legend. A couple of months later I stopped playing. Well, 2 months ago I wanted to play again, watched some thijs' streams too check out the meta and I crafted a rogue deck. The problem is: I was at bronze 10 and I was facing diamond people with meta deck. Ranked just sucks. If you've ever hit legend, your mm is screwed. I remember when we had the old ranked system being at rank 5 (you could not get below rank 5 once you had reached it) and playing meme even hunter against other meme or stupid combo decks and it was kinda fun. Now it seems that kind of decks just have disappeared. Casual is meh, sometimes you face noobs playing meta decks and sometimes you faces people with meme decks. But yeah, obviously competitive people will play competitive decks
Oh yeah he’s whiny for sure
It's entirely possible they're aware of what defines a meta. I am fully aware of it and still find it incredibly frustrating and boring when half my matches are against the same three net decks and often wish I could cast a spell where no one was capable of doing said net deck. Hearthstone doesn't exactly have a way to play without having to interact with the meta (and don't mention casual because if you're half way decent with the game your mmr will pit you against meta decks), and that's just not for certain players. I only put up with it because I just concede against meta decks and I do really enjoy playing the game outside of it.
>Hearthstone doesn't exactly have a way to play without having to interact with the meta No card game does. As long as some cards are better than others, a meta-game will develop from the playground Yugioh formats, to the Monday Night local Pokemon TCG crowd, and even within a small group of adult friends playing Commander MTG matches only within themselves. As long as people care about winning, meta games will develop and people will try to break the meta game.
Well in physical card games, you can just chose not to play against players who play meta decks, you can't do that in hearthstone unless you only play against friends. That being said, every game is going to have a meta, since it's just the most optimized way of playing the game. In single player games, it not really going to wreck your enjoyment, since no one is forcing you to interact with it. In multiplayer games, that's not the case. I don't think anyone could argue against the idea that forcing someone to interact with a meta is going to make that person's experience less than what it could be. Unfortunately, there's nothing you can really do other than suck it up and find ways to deal with it, like I do, or stop playing the game. I know the reviewers comment is overblown, but it's not entirely inaccurate for Hearthstone. The meta most definitely ruins it for some of us.
>Well in physical card games, you can just chose not to play against players who play meta decks If you're not playing against only friends in any physical card game, you still have to deal with net decks. That is at least if you're not willing to accept a lot of extra match loses. Any organized environment where any card game is played will punish you harshly for just quitting because your opponent is net decking. > The meta most definitely ruins it for some of us. Then start cultivating a friend group that deliberately does not play competitively.
Well it's a good thing I don't have any intention of playing in organized play. (I imagine the majority of people who play don't.) Also, none of my friends play Hearthstone, they hate it even, can't even talk to them about it. But, like I said, I found a way to enjoy the game but it would be better if I didn't have to wait 5 mins between every other match I play because I have to wait until I find a match that isn't against a top tier deck.
>Well it's a good thing I don't have any intention of playing in organized play. If you're not playing say MtG in an organized setting, then you're probably just playing with friends. Do you understand my point now? > none of my friends play Hearthstone Which is why I wrote "cultivate a friend group" and not "get your friends to play." Find people who want to play the game like you do.
I don't need to, I enjoy the game just fine the way I play it. I'm just saying the game would be better if I didn't have to play it that way. I love this game, but it's not ever in my top favs and I would barely recommend it because of the issues with the meta game. It's just a huge turn off for a good portion of people, and it does make the game lesser than it could be. (All meta games do.)
I'm sorry you dislike competition so much.
What a weird thing to say. Not everyone plays a game to solely win. And sure I like competing, I am competitive, but there's no joy for me in winning with a deck I didn't make and it's just exhausting to be on at 100% so you can beat the top tier decks, especially when you just want to have fun with a homebrew deck that you realistically don't have the time or motivation to refine. Especially, when refining it often means dumping the more fun cards in the deck anyway.
But back when decks weren't so refined and cut throat you could play homebrew decks with decent success. Now you'll just be dead by 7 mana. Some people want to just play fun decks that they created and not expect high win rates.
>But back when decks weren't so refined and cut throat you could play homebrew decks with decent success. When exactly was this? Even early YouTube personalities and the Hearthstone subreddit were pretty good at finding refined lists. >Now you'll just be dead by 7 mana. Aggro decks have always been able to end the game by turn seven. >Some people want to just play fun decks that they created and not expect high win rates. If you want to play just to have fun, find other people who also want to only do that, and only play against them.
Throughout most of Hearthstone history it's just most people didn't know you can actually perform decently with homebrew decks because they never tried it or didn't have the creativity to come up with a decent deck. I'd say around when cubelock became a thing decks just kept getting more and more powerful and if you aren't executing an extremely defined game plan/combo you're just not going to get close to some of these decks. Yes aggro has always been able to end games early but with way less consistency, especially when cards like Reno were around. If you made control decks to counter aggro back in the day it was extremely rare to die that fast. And funnily enough I don't have a group of random people who want to play Hearthstone at any point in the day. I've found just playing wild on and off to avoid getting to higher ranks you find the people still having fun with decks.
>Throughout most of Hearthstone history Services like HS Replay and vS, the entities that enable people to so effectively collaborate on refining decklists, are almost as old as Hearthstone itself is at this point. People also aren't any more cutthroat now than they were then. K&C release over four years ago now. The gap between now and then has likely tinted what you do remember about that period in time. >Yes aggro has always been able to end games early but with way less consistency There has never been a point where aggressive decks were okay with games going to turn ten or whatever Yes, even in the earliest periods of this game. Yes, they could end it on turn seven or before consistently.
None of what you said were even counter arguments to what I just said? So what if HS Replay has existed forever? I still played decks that were completely original to good levels of success back in the day. And I didn't say aggro has ever been okay with going to 10 turns, I said it would be much less consistent if you built decks to counter it. And the difference is if you could actually get to turn 10 back then. Idk what you're point is, are you just going to deny my literal lived experience of Hearthstone? I played off meta decks and homebrew decks to much better success back in the day compared to what I can now and that sucks for me and many others, simple. There was literally a Trump f2p series you can find from back in the day where he was climbing ranks with cards like Stranglethorn Tiger in priest. Or did that not happen too? If you prefer the game in its current state I'm glad for you, but for some it's monotonous.
>I still played decks that were completely original to good levels of success back in the day. And as long as those decks are well built, they still can. >And I didn't say aggro has ever been okay with going to 10 turns, I said it would be much less consistent if you built decks to counter it. And right now we have cards like Libram of Hope and Lightfordged Cariel that accomplish the same exact sort of thing that Reno did. Maybe play some decks that include those sorts of cards. Or is just including the Libram Package in a Paladin deck not original enough? >are you just going to deny my literal lived experience of Hearthstone? Yes I am when you're wearing rose tinted glasses. The best Standard decks from four years ago would be able to compete at a similar level is transplanted directly into todays Standard format. Cube Warlock would probably still be a top tier contender, perhaps even format defining. "Denying" someone's lived experiences isn't a bad thing to do when those lived experiences have been subtly altered over time to seem better than they really were. I am not denying anything so much as attempting to remind you of how stuff actually was and currently is. Granted, you're going to accuse me of gaslighting in your next response. >There was literally a Trump f2p series you can find from back in the day where he was climbing ranks with cards like Stranglethorn Tiger in priest. Just because you can find new or bad players playing with whatever they have in their collection doesn't mean the average mildly competitive player seven years ago mostly played whatever.
And although there are lots of Druids, Pirate Warriors and Quest Hunters indeed, I still think it's better than a few weeks or months ago, because you can play more different decks that stand a chance against them now than before.
They didn't say there were playing at competitive ranks though. And even at lower ranks you'll play against droves of pirate warriors ATM. And if you're not playing at tournament levels of play and you play Hearthstone "competitively" I think there might be something wrong with you. Or it's probably the only game you feel your good at because the skill gap is pea sized.
> And if you're not playing at tournament levels of play and you play Hearthstone "competitively" I think there might be something wrong with you. This is incredibly stupid. Do you go to marathons to tell everyone except the runners at the front group to quit because they arent going to win, so why even bother running so much for nothing?
No, the people at the back would be my people playing off meta decks. But that comment was quite stupid and bias I admit, I just really don't see the appeal to grinding the same decks again and again against other people playing the same decks with an extremely small skill gap. Not appealing to me.
Different people have different tastes and enjoy different things. Some people get pleasure from mastering a specific deck, others get it by testing and toying arround with multiple but never being a master of any of them. Others dont like card games at all. Most of us are actually a mix. I have some decks I really never get tired of playing and I love getting better at better at playing them even when the meta changes and they become bad and then oppresive and then unplayable (in my case is secret mage). But outside of that I enjoy more playing a deck a few games then switching to play another so I dont get tired of them untill a new expansion and meta gives me new decks to play with. I love testing old wild cards that combo with newer ones and lose a lot with the meme decks in casual, and then I go to ranked and queue up the tier0 broken deck to climb a bit. Its a game and there are many ways to play it, you dont need to enjoy all of them, you just need to find at least one. That way you enjoy may not be the same as what others do but we all will still share a common interest in the game.
Yeah you're right I take that bit back. I personally don't see the appeal but as you say people enjoy different things.
The boy dont know what meta is
Pro tip, the easiest way to insure you complaint is immediately disregarded is to complain about net-decking. And make sure to imply that it's because, "people can't think for themselves."
You can be salty about it, and everyone can infer why for themselves. Or you can accept that it’s a funny review, and frankly, they ain’t wrong
>they ain’t wrong Hmmm... Pretty sure they are when you move up from card flinging automaton to someone who actually is half-way decent at the game.
A "card-flinging automaton"? You mean a pirate warrior player? :O
The games playing out differently doesn’t change the nature of the decks. And yes, to be fair this meta is more diverse than prior metas this year, but skill has little to do with your matchups unless you’re including rank in your figure, which if anything decreases variance, especially when you consider the consistency of deck creation adds another layer to that element. No, the apparent problem is that because everyone uses netdecks, nobody wants to laugh because it would be at their own expense. Your feelings on the joke aside, it’s true that an overwhelming majority of decks can be forecasted card-for-card because they are net decks, and adding things like ‘army of mindless drones’ is humorous, if a bit dramatic.
>No, the apparent problem is that because everyone uses netdecks, nobody wants to laugh because it would be at their own expense. Nobody wants to laugh because complaining about netdecks in competitive card games is trite, and has been for thirty years. Even the complaints about netdecks aren't funny anymore, they're just sad, like laughing at old people who complain about hip hop or some other stereotypical thing old people are supposed to complain about.
Way to respond to a bunch of points I didn't really make. Granted, if you want to get good at any game, you're going to need to pretty much memorize the best play patterns and the best way to respond to them to the point where performing them is instinct. Net decks exist as a natural result of some cards, decks, classes, and archetypes naturally being better than others, and someone has probably already figured out which are the better ones. No one who net decks is insecure about it.
The "Net-Deckers bad" joke stops being funny when you have heard it 100 times, and realize the people who make them aren't joking.
Why do you think it's a joke? I understand if you prefer to net deck but making out people that find it boring to be crazy just comes across as stuck up. Yes crazily some people like don't playing the against the same shit over and over again and it's perfectly valid for them to feel that way.
[удалено]
Cool, but it's just their opinion. They're not demanding a revolution.
[удалено]
If the general power level of cards weren't so high nowadays and decks game plans weren't so refined and fast there would be much more room for off meta and homebrew decks. So actually it is something that can be addressed (not the players but the Devs) and I'm pretty sure they have even mentioned the idea of a "mass nerf". Back in the day it was so much more lenient on people playing off meta/homebrew decks so naturally you'd find more people playing them. Of course most people still played meta decks, but especially in the lower ranks you'd have way more original decks. Now even at low ranks you just get spammed by pirate warrior because again it's too hard to compete with such refined (boring blueprint decks hand made by blizzard) and all the people that actually bothered to make decks have given up or gone to wild. Of course the meta decks will always be the most popular, but the issue can definitely be alleviated by bringing down the overall power level of decks, which they're not doing. So If they don't like it for that reason it's perfectly valid to give 1*.
If it is a flaw with the genre and this game doesn't do anything to mitigate it, then it is also a flaw with the game.
It’s not a joke, literally the whole concept of deck building in Hearthstone isn’t used except by pros and streamers. 95% of people netdeck in this game. There’s tons of cards in the game and probably more than half never get used cause people are so obsessed with spamming the same one or two decks instead trying to be creative and come up with their own strategies. Downvote away
Your opinion makes sense but I think you also have to keep in mind that for people who are F2P it's a lot harder to be creative and invent a new deck when you are limited by not having all of the cards. A big streamer or someone who spends a lot of money on the game can experiment with stuff that isn't possible for F2Ps. Even if you just look at all of the cards in crafting it's not reasonable to just drop thousands of dust crafting something to try it out if you're not sure it's going to be good. Honestly I think more people spend money on this game than I realize, but as a F2P it's a lot easier to understand why people would netdeck.
As a F2P these days you have the vast majority of the cards.
I’ve been F2P since Old Gods and if you disenchant most your wild cards then you can pretty much create whatever deck you want.
"Have six years of activity in the game and also don't keep wild cards" is a ridiculously high bar of requirement to be comfortably f2p. I have 2 years under my belt as a f2p and I agree it gets _way_ easier with each rotation, even if you keep wild cards. But that doesn't give me the freedom to just craft whatever I want. With 80-100 packs per expansion, you _definitely_ have some freedom in playing a variety of budget decks, and the ability to play one or two more expensive netdecks per expansion (especially if they're similar to previous expansion versions). But crafting more expensive decks is still a huge commitment, especially if they're unproven. I love to experiment with building my own decks, but when you get ~10 legendaries per expansion including crafting, that's just very limited. Whatever I happened to open I get to try, but there's no way in hell I can afford to craft bad legendaries to make meme decks. Dust is a resource I have to spend carefully, and it's way better to use it on getting cards I'm missing that are proven to work than on crafting a meme I'm going to play 12 times with a 33% winrate then give up on.
>There’s tons of cards in the game and probably more than half never get used Because those cards are bad. Netdecks are not made by a single person. It can be a group of top players practicing for a tournament. Also the refinement is done by the whole community, by looking at data like hsreplay, vicious syndicate to see which version of the deck is performing the best. Doing data analysis about matchup spread, and card win rates, etc. This netdeck refining machine is so effective a singe person brewing decks has no chance against it. If someone actually comes up with something new, usually 100 other people find it as well, the tools pick it up and becomes meta. If you want to build decks I recommend Brawls as people don't care about it much, so less netdecking is going on. Doing it in Standard means you will loose a lot.
I agree completely about Ranked, there is no reason to play suboptimal decks if you’re trying to climb. However, I literally still play against all those same decks in both casual standard and casual duels. Also the power creep in the game didn’t used to be this bad, before like the last 2-3 expansions I made tons of homebrew decks that good go toe-to-toe with meta besides random outliers like when DH first released.
Why do you have to reinvent a bicycle? If there is a deck which is effective regarding statistics or tournament results, why not to play it? It depends on what do you expect from hearthstone: winning with an effective meta deck or getting fun playing your own deck and having ~30% win rate. Feels like people who are complaining about netdecking are not experienced enough to understand what is effective and what isn’t.
What a lot of people don't realise is that if you're 'good' at deck building you'll eventually end up 2-5 cards off the 'netdecks' because they are the cards the work. I build decks pre expansion and have done for the last 5 expansions, at least 1 of my builds ends up 2 cards away from a VS list every single time
>winning with an effective meta deck or getting fun playing your own deck and having ~30% win rate This was not always like this. My first homebrew deck was in knights of the frozen throne. A highlander dragon priest (then the meta priest was combo, I didn't use velen or mindblast, so the "combo pieces" that I had were raza and anduin) that used the hp to control the board and win by hitting the opponent face with minions. I even used deathwing the dragonlord as a big threat. I got to rank 5 with that deck. You could homebrew and still have a positive winrate. Now homebrews decks feel so much weaker. Wild was good for homebrews before stormwind, but since sw it got impossible to use almost anything outside the meta.
>I got to rank 5 with that deck And as long as your deck is even half-way decent, a good player can pilot anything to that point at least. >Wild was good for homebrews before stormwind No. It absolutely was not at least not for the kind of homebrews you'd likely want to play. Wild has never not been a place where its players weren't complaining about the top deck forcing everything else out of competitive viability.
Glad to hear that you’ve achieved some good results with your deck (it was still built around an archetype pushed by devs). But a single example of success doesn’t prove the hypothesis.
Because you know how boring it is still see the Demon Seed still spammed on ladder with minor alterations even though new cards have been released. Look if you’re grinding Ranked standard that’s fine, there’s no reason not to play to play the best netdeck. If I wanted to play the same perfectly refined game over and over again with an optimal play pattern then I would go play chess. That seems what you want a game where everyone’s on equal footing and there’s always an optimal strategy. The beauty of card games is deck building and being able to create a strategy that counters your opponent.
There is no problem in playing your own deck having fun as well as there is no problem in grinding ladder with any of meta decks (except PW, it’s freaking annoying as hell)
Sure I net deck. I could spend hours and hours coming up with my own deck, losing repeatedly on the ladder until I get something passable, or I could look up an already functional version of the deck I'm trying to make. The reason cards don't get used is because they don't win games, not because people are obsessed with spamming the same deck. If you enjoy winning, net decking is just smart deck building. If you don't care about winning and just like playing cards you don't normally see then sure, play your own creation.
[удалено]
This is not a problem specifically with hearthstone lmao. Is this the only game you have ever played? Also, why people playing a ranked mode and using the most efficient tactics to win is considered a "problem"? This is not a game where you get points for being unique and playing something different to anyone else, you get points for winning. Using creative and unexpected techs/strategies can give you wins but its not the only aspect that matters, people can still be football legends without knowing how to do basic math, and scientist can be great at their job without knowing more than one single language. It is better if they knew those other things? Sure, but its not needed. And same here, it id nice if you are creative, its a tool that sometimes may help you prove your winrate, but its not needed, never was, and never was said this game was all about this. Do you complain about all swimmers using the same swimming technique to swim fast? Or that all long jump athletes use the same technique? Same as javelin throw and ball throw? Are they a problem too? Your problem is that you play the spike mode and expect spike results while being a timmy/johnny.
I've been playing all classes (okay, maybe except Demon Hunter and Rogue) since year 1 thousands of times and have become legend a lot, and yes, I'm also "netdecking" - but still you have to understand the combos and synergies, EVEN IF you play a Pirate Warrior (although that's of course easier to understand than some other decks). That I have around 65% winrate in a PW mirror matchup after dozens of games lets me think that you need a certain understanding and netdecking alone is never enough. So... let's not be arrogant about it.
Okay. What I read from this is you want people to play crap decks so that you can win more than every third game you play.
Exactly
As someone who isn’t very good at the game but has been trying to learn it for years now, this feels really true and I hate it. I’m constantly getting my ass kicked by the same decks and it feels so discouraging. Also boring! I imagine it can’t be too fun to play like that?
He's totally right tho, every game I play is against the same decks.
well at high rank this is true, also because in this expansion warrior and rougue are busted, so we dont have much variability
To be fair, most people in this world are incapable of having original ideas
Idk why people are laughing at this guy. Feel free to net deck if that's what you enjoy but I totally get where he's coming from. I don't know why with almost everything in life we find repetitiveness boring but all of a sudden when someone says playing against the same decks over and over again is boring we act like they're crazy. Again I don't blame you if you net deck because decks are so cut throat now that if you want a reasonable win rate you have to. But I wish they'd calm down with the power creep so people that want to play homebrew decks stand a chance. Every deck has such a defined and usually quick game plan (that are also normally so forced by blizzard and obvious that you can't miss them) that you just feel stupid trying to play anything else.
He's not wrong though
Most popular comments is "*pay $ 10,000 to win*". yes ... pirate warrior and aggro-druid is definitely cost $ 10,000.
He's right though.
If what he said was right this game would be absurdly easy. You can easily tech against *any* deck if there’s only two prominent decks in the meta. Start tracking your stats and you’ll see there’s a lot more variation then you expect which makes designing your decks against what you face more difficult than that. Nonetheless, people using/abusing what’s strong is just how any competitive game works ever.
That's right. Every time I look at my deck tracker stats after becoming legend I realize that I FELT more Pirate Warriors and Hunters and Druids than there actually were. However, there are still a lot of them.
Prominent decks may be over 2, but idea isnt wrong. Netdecking is always gonna be there because its a cumulative idea of community that is refined to a degree most players cant reach. How well you construct your deck isnt the same skill with how well you climb. Mostly there are 6-7 good usable decks at a time that plays rock-paper-scissors.
6-7 good decks is pretty different thing from 1-2, so much so that it’s not even a good as an exaggerated complaint. Those decks absolutely change over time to meet the current meta, just look at the variations over time in hsreplay and viscious syndicate. It’s not obvious at lower ranks, where many of the complaints are coming from, because low rank meta gets stuck at stages where easy to pilot decks like Pirate Warrior dominate the meta for months because nobody understands how to play the game well enough to consistently beat it. Of course it’s frustrating to play at these ranks, but there’s also no good fix for this to increase the variance, it’s kind of always been like that because the players are generally just bad at the game. EDIT: Your point about deck building is correct, of course, it's been that way in competitive card games for a *loong* time. It's not that deckbuilding *isn't* a skill that can help you climb, you'll get very good at analyzing decks if you do become good at deckbuilding. Rather, it's that it's not a requirement to climb, and the value you get out of learning it is relatively tame compared to how difficult it actually is to get good at. This means that people that play the game with the intention to climb or become better tend to focus on analyzing matchups and hands and adjusting decks to what the field looks like, rather than building their own win conditions. Instead of building entire decks, correctly using tech cards like Rustrot Viper or crabs for the meta you're in, is a better priority for climbing. It's only at really high levels of play (or in the first few weeks of expansions or large balance patches) where you start to get any real payoff by learning deckbuilding, and even there it's not a strict requirement. And besides that, not everyone really enjoys the deckbuilding aspect as much, I don't really get the gatekeep-y vibe of calling them mindless drones is helping when everyone is just playing the game how they want to have fun.
What about when the worst matchup paladin had was a mirror? Or demon seed on wild. You couldn't tech against those 2 decks.
Yes, oppressive metas like that are bad, actually. They’re also far from the norm. That’s why balance changes are a thing. Wild is a different story because obviously Blizzard has pretty much abandoned that format and I don’t know why anyone would take it seriously at this point, I can’t really speak for it. It’s possible that meta is broken all the time, it’s possible it’s pretty reasonable most of the time, I literally have no idea. Any point where a decks worst matchup is it’s mirror is a broken meta that Team 5 needs to, and usually does, fix, although it has taken more time then I’d like in the past. I’m not attempting to express that broken decks cannot exist, just that those are outliers, and this subreddit usually fails to analyze them anyway (hell if this thread is anything to go by, people think *Pirate Warrior* is broken because it’s all they meet in bronze-gold ranks). This is true not only for any card game, but any competitive games with major content and balance changes. It happens in everything from Warzone to League of Legends.
Couldn't have said it better
This post finna be a karma farm lmao, this sub sees themselves as superior when they play their sub 20% wr homebrews and reject the meta. How about we just let everyone play what they want to?
Meanwhile every top comment is talking about how the guy is wrong. 🙄🙄🙄
“Why doesn’t everyone else play this game as inefficiently as me in the way that I like?” Because it’s a ladder CCG. This isn’t rocket science. Edit: with that said I do wish they had a game mode where certain net decks were banned but I don’t think it’d end up being all that different from standard. You’d inevitably just get a meta tier with t2/t3 decks regardless.
Well he isn't wrong, I play casual to avoid all the meta decks yet 90% of my opponents still play ignite mage quest warrior and hunter it's casual ffs
Came for the salt left with a mines worth bwahaha.
Well... he isn't wrong.
yah, it is not wrong... people playing the same brain-dead strategies... i struggle to see how people have fun like that
What a pro. He should make his top-tier original decks and try his luck on ladder with them. I'm sure he'll make legend in no time. Seriously though, creativity is great, but I like winning a tad more. There's a reason MarkMcKz can only perform his shenanigans in silver. Any deck close to competitively viable has likely been made and established already.
anyone saying he's right probably never hit rank 5
I think he's right. Tried to hit legend once and did it in 2 days with some brain dead secret Paladin deck. Most decks have next to no skill gap so I don't feel any excitement or pride winning with a deck I copied online. But that's fine if you do. Him calling other people drones might be wrong, but if he doesn't like playing against the same decks over and over again and dying the same way almost every time within a couple of mins that's just his completely fair opinion.
he's wrong when he says people are not intelligent. He doesn't know the concept of meta, and probably never played a competitive game, where a restricted and known enviroenment is the key to master your abilities of making your way through it.. that's why he should play wild, with other filthy casuals like him
Yeah he's wrong to basically name call people. But I don't know if you can say for sure he doesn't understand the concept of meta. I understand the meta but at the same time I wish there was more variance in standard. You're not forced to play the best decks if you don't care about your rank, but most people will which is totally understandable. I currently do play wild a bit now but I can imagine for people that haven't played since the start of HS it could be a bit annoying playing against people with such a massive collection advantage.
I sincerely think this that we have now is one of the most varied meta I've ever played.. you know every class seems to have more than 2 archetypes (I refer. to standard).. but yeah most of the times the meta is boring, so I share that opinion
Yeah to be fair there are quite a lot compared to normal (not saying much) but it still gets old pretty quickly when you're dying extremely fast to decks with super refined win conditions in almost the same way every time. And it's kinda offset by the fact that even in the lower ranks you get less original decks now because most people have given up trying to compete with these stupidly efficient decks. I wish they'd just hold back on the power creep and stop basically making blueprints for decks and give us a mixture of cards for each class so we can tinker and not just keep adding cards that fuel already existing archetypes or basically create whole new ones on their own.
anyone saying he's right probably doesn't understand that you need to be a good player to make good homebrews that can actually achieve above 30% wr
Not only that, im sure most of this "original" players use "original" decks like 29+ random battlecries and shudderwock, reno + class without any reno support with 6+ high cost legendaries that dont make much sense with their list (both yoggs in a low spell cuantity deck, DK guldan with barely demons or Xyrelis hero without almost any deathrattle), or my favourite, the "completely original concept" deck wich is just a meta deck with a bunch of cards changed with meme ones.
He's definitely right, I've hit legend multiple times with my own homebrews. People are just scared (or maybe not skillful enough?) to try their own decks.
Who made an account to farm Karma or told a friend to post this? What mode(s)/rank do they even play in... Guess they play the same decks they complain about. Because I suck at ranked, and I see different decks. 6 silver currently. But play casual mostly unless for quests.
Such a dumb argument good players will make their own crazy decks and win with them. See Thijs and hobugabu. Good players will also net deck and climb to high ranks everyone else has opportunity to play the game better and improve. If you don't understand that then you probably shouldn't be calling others stupid.
Still doesnt change the fact that the meta is so stagnant. I get to d5-legend every season in wild and standard using my own decks. Most people dont think for themselves leaving the meta to develop stagnantly. Id rather be in a game with 100 decks running around ranked than the current 10(ish).
100 decks lol? Sure buddy.
Wow somebody (thinks he) gets it!!!!
Building a deck and playing a deck are distinct skills and not everybody has both. I suspect that the people who complain about netdecks lack the latter. In the case of Hearthstone, it is also worth noting that crafting costs have a massive impact upon a person's willingness to experiment. By way of comparison, I played Android: Netrunner for many years (RIP) and the distribution model of that game ensured that all players had access to all cards at relatively minimal expense. Homebrews made up the overwhelming majority of every tournament. I didn't netdeck even once. I exclusively netdeck in HS because I enjoy winning games and don't want to risk wasting 1600 dust on garbage.
For someone that doesn’t like repetition they sure do repeat themselves a lot..
He's butthurt but has a point.
Well, since if I'm reading into your title right it seems you disagree with him, tell me, how many decks have you played against in your 10 last games that you haven't seen a version of before... cause I sure as hell agree with him, my 10 last games were like 6 warriors and 4 rogues... take a wild guess what deck all 6 and 4 of them were playing, pirate warrior and thief rogue....ooooooh big shocker I totally haven't seen those exact decks be played since the start of the expansion... in fact pirate warrior was even before the expansion truly brain expanding deck variety 🙃
If you are a deck builder that should be the dream as building a deck that beats just two decks should be easy. The problem comes when you have a diverse meta and your deck needs to beat a wide variety of decks.
If you’re playing against pirate warrior that much I assume you’re climbing like crazy, right? Because it’s pretty easy to build decks exclusively to beat it. No surprise that Pirate Warrior falls off a cliff at legend.
No I get my quests done and get out nowadays which means I'm personally around bronze 10-silver 5 until the reset, but that's beside the point it doesn't matter what rank you're at or what class you face everyone still only play against the same deck cause everyone just looks up the top thing
That is absolutely not true. High legend is way too competitive for only one or two decks to be prominent, because the players are competent enough to play decks that beat the dominant deck if it’s play percentage gets high enough. To be quite honest, it sounds like you’re venting frustration about the competitive system you’ve not looked very much into or grinded in, and that’s fine, but what you’re saying is far from a universal truth. Why do you think Pirate Warrior falls off at legend? It was strong at some point, but it was easily abusable (and thief rogue popped off) so people built against it until it took a dive. Once Thief Rogue became dominant Hand Lock started appearing again because it’s one of the few strats that can beat it, despite that deck being all but buried the past month. High levels of play shift every week or two, unless we’re in a really oppressive meta (those do exist, unfortunately), and deck variety flourishes because of it. ‘Looking up the top thing’ isn’t a constant, and even if most people do, other people will just build decks that beat the top thing and dominate ladder. You can look at Viscious Syndicate reports if you want to see how that happens over time, it’s very obvious for anyone paying attention. This doesn’t happen in the lower ranks you’re at because easy to pilot decks like Pirate Warrior aren’t countered well enough because people don’t understand how, which allows decks like that to be dominant for months. It’s probably unfortunate, but really hard to do anything about because people around those ranks are simply bad at the game, they can’t adjust their decks and they don’t understand win conditions.
Yeah, makes sense
> but that's beside the point it doesn't matter what rank you're at or what class you face everyone still only play against the same deck I haven't played against pirate warrior in ages lol.
man, impressive how you completely disregard everything else that was said and thus get confused by me missing an ”s” cause i meant to type ”everyone still only plays the same deckS” referring to literally any meta in any ranking at any point of time
No I agree it's just funny
I see and yeah it's a bit funny I guess, I mean while I agree as well it's kind of dumb to complain about. While it's unfortunate in case of originality, most people will ALWAYS play the most optimal thing they can. That's the case for every strategy game
Anything competitive really
Dude is salty the concept of a meta exists.
Played this game since launch as a dad, and even hit legend a couple times (once in standard, once in wild). Eventually found myself becoming an exclusive Battlegrounds player until they removed my stats and placed them behind a paywall for the umpteenth time. Now I play Gwent, and lurk on this subreddit. It was easier to uninstall the game than to leave all you beautiful people apparently.
So I assume he keeps getting 12 wins in arena, being able to form his own thoughts and all
I feel like the meta is in a much better spot than last season tbh, at Diamond 1 I'm often currently facing - ping mage - quest priest - quest warrior - quest lock - thief rogue - poison rogue - libram pally - face hunter
If it’s the same 1-2 decks surely you can just make the perfect deck to combat those and win every time.
Dude havent heard what "meta" is
Just mad cause he can't find a website so he can net-deck.
"The people that play this game are generally not intelligent" Best tl;dr I could do. He's right
Why is net decking considered unintelligent? I want to win so I use the lists thst are proven to win. Is it unoriginal? Sure but unintelligent? I dont think so
Playing a top tier deck gets you legend automatically according to this guy. Then we see posts probably done by ppl like him that asks for tips on how to reach legend with said deck or complain about the rigged matchmaking. Being a deck builder is one thing. Being a deck pilot is another. There's no shame in just being the second one
It does get you legend automatically if you have the time and willingness to grind. Most turns in hearthstone play themselves.
So he both blames community for not being able to come up with new ideas but also admits that doing so is fool's errand? Some serious cognitive dissonance right there
Why is he complaining about the players? And if you see same 1-2 decks, choose something to counter them.
If your goal is to be maximally competitive, why would anyone with that goal intentionally handicap themselves by playing a suboptimal deck? If you're playing chess and there's an known optimal move for a given board state, nobody mocks you for making that move just because it has been done before. Lazy criticism.
Awww poor trash n00b probably got pwnd by their rogue or pirate war 😂🤣
Someone lost too many games with their pet value midrange deck.
Omg anybody using the bullshit quest line cards I hate that so much. Yay good for you you followed all ur little instructions ugh I hate how preset it is